[ SUMMER SCROLL] As part of our Summer Scroll series, we are sharing selected thought leadership pieces published over the past year.
First up: an interview with Gérald Bouhourd and Luc Dallery, originally featured in Décideurs Magazine – Leaders League. They explore the complexities of leadership succession, beyond process, and offer a perspective rooted in real-world dynamics: stakeholder alignment, talent development, and the political dimensions of internal transitions. A valuable read for anyone reflecting on leadership continuity and long-term strategy.
Read the full interview below :
Gérald Bouhourd is the co-founder of C&S Partners, a leadership consulting firm where Luc Dallery is also a partner. In this interview, they emphasize the need for companies to implement robust succession plans and offer key insight on how to avoid common pitfalls during this crucial stage in a company’s existence.
Décideurs Magazine : According to a study by the headhunting firm Robert Half, 40% of European companies do not have a succession plan in place. What explains this low number?
Gérald Bouhourd: That figure doesn’t surprise me, but I don’t find it particularly relevant. There’s often confusion between process and performance. Just like having a map doesn’t mean you know the terrain, the mere existence of a succession plan doesn’t guarantee its success. What matters is performance when managing succession: successful succession-management means never running out of suitable successors – even when it comes to unplanned transitions. We launched our Talent Patterns guidelines in 2008 with 100 different criteria, and today, we have 300. The approach has evolved to allow both short-term action and long-term anticipation. A well-run company always has options, whether from nurturing internal talent or recruiting externally. Put another way, it focuses on talent development, and isn’t obsessed with finding the “chosen one.”
Luc Dallery: A succession plan is an investment. You need critical mass to maintain an internal pool of viable candidates or leverage external search. For a company of 1,000 employees, it’s difficult to maintain a deep bench of talent. That’s why succession plans aren’t always formalized. At any one time many roles in a company lie vacant, making immediate succession difficult. The battle for talent between companies is very real, and often underestimated.
G.B.: Luc brings up stakeholder management. Many firms claim to have a succession plan when in reality all they have is a process. Well-run companies know their talent intimately: their strengths, weaknesses, aspirations and personal situation. That makes promoting from within easier, in some ways. External recruitment requires the input of experts who constantly observe the market. Some companies use both internal processes and external headhunting capabilities – which calls for real discipline.
L.D.: Talent diversity is a key factor when it comes to performance. Companies in France must adapt to constraints like the Rixain Law, which mandates gender quotas. This may limit the talent pool, but diversity – of nationality, culture, language etc. – remains essential to success.
G.B.: Elite-university cliques can hinder diversity, especially in France. Succession plans must reflect the political and social situation of a company. Successful businesses expand the scope of their recruitment through diversity.
What are the main pitfalls to avoid when preparing a succession plan?
G.B.: Identifying a successor without formally naming them – to avoid putting a target on their back – is a delicate dance. Naming someone too early can harm them. It’s better to support and develop potential successors discreetly. Leadership is a team sport, and successors shouldn’t be viewed as clones. Companies with iconic CEOs often seek to hire carbon copies – that’s a mistake. There are many ways to lead and energize executive teams that balance tradition and innovation.
L.D.: A major pitfall is neglecting context – especially when it comes to the role of CEO. Succession involves influence and must take into consideration the likelihood of acceptance by the team (especially among ex-peers), the board, stakeholders and even the outgoing CEO. Legitimacy and organizational climate are crucial. The person managing the process also matters – if poorly chosen, it can create political conflict and derail internal succession, pushing the firm toward external recruitment.
What advice do you have for succession-related communication?
L.D.: Focus communication on what the person brings to the company, not just their past achievements. Justify the choice of successor by connecting it to company strategy – especially for external stakeholders. Internally, communicate clearly to give meaning and avoid leaks.
G.B.: Communication must stay within the relevant circle. Leaks can harm the designated person. Boards often have internal factions; leaks often come from dissenters. In listed companies, leaks on succession plans from within the board can cause tension and conflict.
Are there parallels between corporate succession and other societal structures?
G.B.: I have compared CEOs to athletes in the past and I’ll continue with the sports analogy here: professional clubs, like businesses, must develop internal talent and scout externally. Top players – and top leaders – contribute without disrupting team identity or performance.
L.D.: In the Roman Empire succession, in theory at least, was based on merit and long-term vision. The same goes for companies: they must choose successors who can ensure continuity. A sound plan mirrors Rome’s ideal of choosing leaders for vision and skill, not lineage. Even in dynasties, meritocratic intent often prevailed – sometimes successors came from outside the family. In times of crisis, strong successors are able to restore greatness. The Ottoman Empire in the 16th and 17th centuries had similar merit-based ascension to power – even imperial succession depended on competing for the role of sultan.
