Momentum: A Silent Risk in Succession Planning
Succession planning sits at the heart of a board’s responsibility to guide the future of the organization. It’s a moment that defines leadership, direction, and culture. Yet, for all its importance, the process often falls prey to one of the boardroom’s most insidious forces: momentum.
Momentum is subtle. It begins as a practical alignment—a promising candidate emerges, and consensus builds. But as the process unfolds, momentum takes on a life of its own. The board, understandably, begins to prioritize cohesion, clarity, and progress over the harder work of revisiting assumptions. Reopening the conversation feels like a risk: it could reignite debates, delay the process, or fracture the board’s unity. But the result can be a decision that, while seemingly sound, lacks the rigor or foresight it demands.
A Case Study: When Momentum Overrides Rigor
Consider a multinational financial services firm navigating the succession of its long-tenured CEO. After months of searching, the board aligns on an internal candidate. This individual has strong regulatory expertise, extensive institutional knowledge, and a clear strategic vision.
Yet, during early discussions, quiet concerns emerge: Does this candidate possess the adaptability required to lead through the fintech revolution? Can they inspire and attract top-tier talent in an industry increasingly defined by technological innovation? Despite these reservations, momentum takes over. Revisiting the decision feels disruptive, and the process moves forward.
Two years later, the firm finds itself struggling. Competitors have outpaced its digital transformation efforts, and internal morale has dipped as key executives depart. In hindsight, the board realizes an early pause could have allowed for a deeper assessment of whether this candidate truly aligned with the company’s future needs. The outcome might still have been the same candidate—but it would have been a decision made with clarity, not convenience.
Red Teaming: A Transparent Tool for Better Decisions
One way to counteract the risks of momentum is through a structured red teaming exercise. Red teaming is a collaborative and transparent tool that helps boards rigorously evaluate their assumptions. The goal is to strengthen the board’s confidence in its decision—not to create division or critique individuals.
What is Red Teaming?
The red team’s purpose is to challenge assumptions and stress-test the board’s consensus in a constructive, collaborative manner. By focusing on actionable insights, the process ensures clarity and alignment across the board.
How It Works
- Assemble a Red Team: Select a small group of directors or trusted external advisors with diverse perspectives. Their task is to identify alternative viewpoints and test the assumptions behind the leading candidate or consensus.
- In-Person Discussions: Conduct the exercise in person to encourage open dialogue and collaborative analysis, avoiding the formality of written critiques.
- Verbal Presentation with High-Level Summary:
- The red team presents its findings verbally to the full board, focusing on forward-looking recommendations rather than detailed critiques of candidates.
- A concise, anonymous summary of strategic themes is recorded to reinforce transparency without creating divisive documentation.
- Collaborative Alignment: The full board integrates the red team’s findings into its decision-making, ensuring the final choice reflects both clarity and shared goals.
Why Pausing Can Make All the Difference
Complementing the red teaming exercise is a deliberate pause early in the succession planning process. This short period provides space to:
- Revisit the Criteria: Reflect on whether the board’s evaluation metrics remain aligned with the organization’s long-term vision and challenges.
- Expand the Frame: Consider whether other candidates or perspectives deserve additional exploration, even if consensus has begun to build.
- Validate the Decision: Ensure the final choice is not just a matter of alignment but a result of deliberate and thorough consideration.
Why These Steps Matter
Succession planning isn’t just about selecting a new leader—it’s about shaping the organization’s future. Momentum, while useful in maintaining progress, can obscure opportunities for deeper analysis. Without structured mechanisms like red teaming and deliberate pauses, boards risk making decisions that feel safe in the moment but fall short of what’s required for long-term success.
By integrating red teaming as a collaborative and transparent process, boards foster trust and cohesion while enhancing the rigor of their decision-making. High-level summaries of findings ensure the process remains focused and actionable, avoiding the creation of divisive documentation. These subtle adjustments elevate decision-making while maintaining unity and confidence.
Conclusion: Leading Succession with Precision
The success of an organization often begins with the success of its succession planning. By pausing early and introducing thoughtful mechanisms like red teaming, boards can navigate the complexity of leadership transitions with precision and foresight. Sometimes, the difference between a good choice and a transformational one is just a matter of pausing to ask: Are we being rigorous enough to meet the future?