How Can Modern Organizations Create Better Succession Planning Models?

As CEO turnover hit record highs in 2025, many high profile companies aren’t just replacing leaders, but navigating a make-or-break moment for their future. On the surface, executive searches and succession planning might look easy: find a new candidate, figure out if their vision aligns with the company, and offer them the role. However, succession planning has to be a more in-depth exercise, and the truth is, many companies and boards are struggling.

A recent example of success was Warren Buffet’s retirement. The board approached finding a new CEO as a long-term strategy, not a contingency plan, carefully plotting steps to protect both the company’s legacy and its strong market position.

It was a rare kind of leadership transition telegraphed for years, backed by a decisive board, with a clearly identified successor. It was framed as continuity rather than disruption, giving investors confidence in the new leadership.

But that level of foresight is uncommon, and many organizations face long, uncertain executive searches, often without the luxury of a years-long runway.

And that’s the point: Berkshire isn’t just a success story, but a reminder that succession planning is an operating system. Done right, it creates certainty, but done poorly, it turns leadership change into a high-stakes scramble that puts the company’s future at risk.

Is There a Crisis in the Succession Planning Pipeline?

As we’ve seen with Berkshire Hathaway, Lucasfilm, and Apple, executive turnover in 2026 is off to a strong start and does not seem to be slowing down. The message is clear: boards need to be proactive in planning.

Many organizations can produce what they claim to be a succession plan, but can’t answer the questions that matter when a transition becomes real: Who is ready now? Who could be ready soon? What experiences are missing? What happens if the timing changes? In practice, executive searches break down because it’s often treated as a static process rather than a dynamic pipeline that’s continuously built, tested, and updated.

In a recent study, only 22% of HR leaders reported their company having a formal succession plan. And while boards know they need a plan, many are seemingly having a difficult time given the nature of executive turnover. From 2024 to 2025, the number of directors citing succession planning as difficult to navigate has nearly doubled.

Are Unicorn Candidates Slowing Executive Search?

Alongside rising turnover, board expectations for incoming leaders have shifted. Today’s executives are expected to drive execution – not simply articulate vision. Boards are no longer looking for leaders who rely on a single playbook; they want someone who can adapt to ever-changing landscapes.

However, this can lead to increased pressure for boards to try and find someone who can do it all, also known as a “unicorn candidate.”

The reality is that these candidates don’t exist. While boards shouldn’t compromise on what they’re looking for, they have to set realistic expectations of the skills needed that align with business objectives.

When expectations become unrealistic, searches stall, timelines stretch, and organizations turn to interim or fractional leaders. While those models can be effective in certain moments and are becoming more popular, they are rarely sustainable long-term solutions.

Catch more HRTech Insights: HRTech Interview with Sunaina Lobo, Chief People Officer at Omnissa

What Does Effective Succession Planning Look Like Today?

Organizations who prioritize succession planning based on longevity, rather than a quick fix, will typically have higher success in finding the right leadership.

Today’s succession planning becomes far more actionable when it’s treated like an enterprise risk. Here’s what to keep in mind:

• Identify “critical roles” not just the CEO.

Map which positions would materially disrupt strategy, revenue, operations, customer trust, or regulatory standing if vacated. Then, build role-specific successor slates and development paths.

• Separate ready now from ready with investment.

Use clear criteria and skills-based evidence (business outcomes, scope handled, crisis leadership, people leadership, cross-functional influence) rather than comfort or familiarity.

• Create a repeatable cadence.

Quarterly frequency for revisiting succession planning – especially when the business is changing quickly – is recommended. Pair that cadence with real movement: rotations, stretch assignments, board exposure, and P&L opportunities.

• Plan for multiple futures.

Incoming leaders may need to optimize cost, integrate AI, respond to activist pressure, navigate regulation, manage geopolitical disruption – or all of the above. Succession should reflect the strategy you’re actually pursuing, and account for rapidly changing landscapes.

• Make transition communications part of the plan.

Investors, employees, customers, and partners read leadership change as a signal. The best transitions are the ones where stakeholders understand the reason for change, continuity points, and what success looks like in the first 90 days.

What differentiates successful planning is being early and proactive, providing clarity on company strategy and potential pitfalls, and investing in leaders who have the skills to match and promise of potential – not the perfect qualifications off the bat.

When Does Succession Planning Become a Competitive Advantage?

In a nutshell, succession planning is no longer about emergency preparedness. It is a strategic capability. Organizations that invest early, manage expectations realistically, and reduce dependence on reactive, last-minute searches position themselves to win in the leadership market. Those that treat succession planning as a “nice to have” will inevitably fall behind.

Read More on Hrtech : Return-to-Office ROI: How HR Tech Is Measuring Productivity and Employee Well-Being

[To share your insights with us, please write to psen@itechseries.com ]