Succession Planning: What the Research Says

While every organization inevitably must replace its CEO, most firms are ill-prepared for succession. In this article, HBR senior editor Eben Harrell reviews the most salient studies of succession planning and offers context from the experts. Some key takeaways:

• Though turnover among CEOs is rising, only 54% of boards are grooming a specific successor, and 39% have no viable internal candidate. The consequences of poor planning are serious: Companies that scramble to find replacements forgo an average of $1.8 billion in shareholder value.
• Grooming leaders takes years but pays off: Chief executives who have gone through executive development at “CEO factories” like GE deliver superior operating performance. But directors need to get more involved. The majority don’t understand the capabilities of the executives below the CEO, and only about a quarter participate in their evaluations.
• The trend toward external hires is growing, and outsiders command higher median pay. But studies suggest that on the whole, insider CEOs deliver better returns.
• More researchers are studying the traits of the ideal CEO. So far they’re finding that younger CEOs outperform, that execution matters more than interpersonal strengths, and that a military background makes leaders more honest, but this line of inquiry is in its early days, and the jury is still out.

All CEOs will inevitably leave office, yet research has long shown that most organizations are ill-prepared to replace them. In this article, we review the most salient studies of succession planning and offer context from experts on the process of picking new leaders for organizations.