Potential points to a possible future. Readiness describes the distance still to travel.
Succession conversations often compress several judgements into one label. A leader is described as “high potential,” and the phrase gradually comes to mean capable, promotable and ready. Those are different claims.
A person can have significant potential and still be several experiences away from a particular role. Another may be ready to perform a role reliably now but have less capacity or appetite for substantially greater complexity later. A third may appear ready because they are familiar, visible and successful in the current system, while the future mandate will require a different form of leadership.
When these distinctions remain implicit, succession plans look stronger than they are.
Research and practice literature on leadership potential consistently treats it as multidimensional and context-dependent rather than a simple extension of current performance.[1] Leadership development research also distinguishes growth in individual capability from the wider relational and organisational capacity through which leadership is exercised.[2]
For decision-makers, the implication is practical: do not ask only, “Is this a strong leader?” Ask, “Potential for what—and ready by when?”
Performance is evidence, not a forecast
Sustained performance should matter. It demonstrates that a leader can create outcomes in a real system. But performance is produced by a combination of personal contribution, role fit, team capability, market conditions, organisational support and inherited advantage.
Succession assessment must understand the leadership work beneath the result.
Did the leader set direction or execute a well-established model? Did they build capability or rely on a strong inherited team? Have they performed when conditions changed? Could they influence across boundaries without formal authority? What happened when their usual approach stopped working?
These questions do not discount achievement. They make it more interpretable.
Promotion frequently increases scale, ambiguity and stakeholder complexity while reducing proximity to the work. The leader must create outcomes through systems and other leaders. A record of excellent delivery can therefore be necessary but insufficient evidence of readiness for the next mandate.
Four distinct judgements
Potential
Potential is the capacity and motivation to grow into work of greater or different complexity. It may be visible in learning agility, cognitive range, self-awareness, resilience, breadth of perspective and the ability to lead through others.
It should always be attached to a horizon and direction. Potential for enterprise leadership is not identical to potential for deep functional mastery, entrepreneurial growth or institutional stewardship.
Readiness
Readiness is a time-bound judgement about a particular role. It considers whether the leader has enough of the necessary capability, experience, credibility and support to take accountable action now—or within a defined period.
“Ready in one to two years” should not be an impression. It should describe the remaining experiences or evidence required.
Aspiration
Not every capable leader wants the work that succession planners imagine for them. Senior roles can bring distance from craft, greater public exposure, different geographic demands or a heavier burden of institutional responsibility.
Aspiration must be explored without treating ambition as the only sign of commitment. Some leaders are appropriately cautious because they understand the role. Others may want scale but not the less visible work required to sustain it.
Mobility and availability
Practical constraints matter. Timing, location, family considerations and commitments can affect whether a credible successor is genuinely available. These factors should be handled respectfully and updated, not inferred from outdated conversations.
Combining all four judgements into a coloured box hides important information.
Build readiness through experiences, not courses alone
When a readiness gap is identified, the common response is development activity. A programme or coach may help, but many senior gaps require experience.
A leader who has not carried enterprise accountability may need responsibility for a cross-business transformation. Someone with limited board exposure may need to present difficult choices and receive governance-level challenge. A leader whose career has been concentrated in one market may need an assignment that tests cultural translation and influence without established networks. A technically strong successor may need to build and lead leaders rather than remain the most expert person in the room.
The experience should be selected because it tests a hypothesis. What do we need to learn about the candidate? What will they need to learn about themselves? Who will observe the work and provide feedback? What organisational risk needs to be managed while the leader stretches?
This converts succession from naming to development.
Avoid the two-successor illusion
Many plans identify one “ready now” and one “ready later” candidate for each role. On paper, coverage appears sufficient. In reality, both names may depend on the same assumptions, share the same experience gaps or appear across several critical roles simultaneously.
A stronger portfolio view examines concentration risk. How many roles depend on the same person? Which capabilities are scarce across the system? Are successors diverse in background and leadership approach, or has the organisation reproduced a narrow success profile? What would happen if a transition occurred earlier than expected?
Succession depth is not the number of names in boxes. It is the quality and resilience of the options.
Tell leaders enough to make development real
Organisations are often cautious about discussing succession status. There are valid reasons: plans change, roles change and no candidate should be promised an appointment. Yet complete opacity weakens development. Leaders cannot take meaningful ownership of gaps they are not allowed to understand.
The conversation should be honest about uncertainty. A leader can be told that the organisation sees scope for greater contribution, that a particular experience would build and test readiness, and that future appointments will depend on context and evidence. That is not a guarantee. It is a credible development contract.
In leadership work, I have found that strong executives can hold this nuance. What undermines trust is not uncertainty itself. It is the discovery that labels were used without evidence or that apparent development activity had no relationship to future opportunity.
Keep the map alive
Readiness changes as the leader, role and context change. Succession should therefore be revisited through a disciplined rhythm, not refreshed only for the annual board paper.
Review the future mandates. Re-examine the evidence. Track whether planned experiences occurred and what they revealed. Test emergency coverage separately from long-term succession. Ensure the executive team and board understand both the depth and fragility of the pipeline.
Potential deserves investment. Readiness deserves evidence. Confusing them can expose the organisation and disappoint the leader.
The purpose of succession is not to create certainty about a future that will change. It is to build stronger options—and to know, with increasing clarity, what each option would require.
Questions for a succession review
- Potential for which kinds of work, at what horizon?
- What specific evidence supports the readiness judgement?
- Which experiences would both build and test the leader?
- Where are several critical roles dependent on the same successor?
- What has changed in the mandate since the map was last reviewed?
Sources and further reading
- Silzer, R. & Church, A. H. (2009), “The Pearls and Perils of Identifying Potential,” Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(4), 377–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01163.x
- Day, D. V. (2000), “Leadership Development: A Review in Context,” The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 581–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00061-8
- Groves, K. S. (2007), “Integrating Leadership Development and Succession Planning Best Practices,” Journal of Management Development, 26(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710710732146
- Church, A. H. & Conger, J. A. (2018), “So You Want to Be a High-Potential?” MIT Sloan Management Review. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/so-you-want-to-be-a-high-potential/
- Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance (2025), “More and Better Options: Strengthening Long-Term CEO Succession Planning.” https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/06/02/more-and-better-options-strengthening-long-term-ceo-succession-planning/