Senior execs say it could take their company up to a year to replace them, if they left

-

shutterstock_134138183

Eighty percent of senior executives said that their company would not be able to replace them quickly if they left, according to a survey of 1,270 business leaders from around the world by IIC Partners.

Despite the fact that almost six in 10 respondents said their company had a succession plan in place, only one in five said their organization would be able to replace them immediately if they were to leave.

“The findings of this survey point to a gap in succession planning at many companies,” said Paul Dinte, chairman of IIC Partners. “It is one thing to have a written succession plan, but quite another to be prepared for the departure of a C-level executive.” Two-thirds of the survey respondents were C-suite executives.

HRreview Logo

Get our essential weekday HR news and updates.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Keep up with the latest in HR...
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
Optin_date
This field is hidden when viewing the form

 

When asked if there was a succession plan in place for their position, the senior-level executives responded this way:

  • 31 percent said their company had a succession plan and could replace them within 12 months
  • 26 percent said their company had no succession plan and they did not speculate on how long it would take to replace them
  • 20 percent said their company had a succession plan and could replace them immediately
  • 16 percent said their company did not have a succession plan and it would take 1-3 years to replace them
  • 4 percent said their company had no succession plan and it would take more than three years to replace them

Companies that reported being least ready to replace a senior executive were not-for-profits (40 percent said it would take up to a year to replace them) and family-owned businesses (37 percent).

“No matter the location or the industry, there remains a gap in succession planning by many organizations,” Dinte said. “This oversight will likely be worsened with the continued exodus of Baby Boomers from the workplace, as well as the different relationship with work that many younger employees have.

“Gen-X employees tend to change jobs more frequently. As this generation moves into C-suite positions, corporate expectations for length of service may have to be adjusted.”

Companies from the following industries reported suffering the most when a senior executive departed unexpectedly:

  • Not-for-profits (68 percent said it caused some or considerable difficulty)
  • Pharmaceuticals (67 percent)
  • Professional Services (67 percent)

When asked what the most negative impact of an unforeseen executive departure was, the senior-level executives responded this way:

  • 38 percent said an unforeseen departure would have a negative impact on the current culture
  • 18 percent said it would lead to the loss or delay of a new product or service
  • 16 percent said it would lead to the departure of another executive
  • 14 percent said it would lead to loss of revenue
  • 13 percent said it would lead to negative publicity

Respondents at smaller organizations reported being the least affected by unforeseen departures, with 56 percent saying that they had no significant business impact. Family-owned businesses reported suffering the most, with 94 percent saying that there was a negative impact on their organisation.

“Not surprisingly, family-owned businesses experienced the most pain from an unexpected executive departure, most likely because of the intertwined personal relationships involved,” Dinte noted.

Latest news

Helen Wada: Why engagement initiatives fail without human-centric leadership

Workforce engagement has become a hot topic across the boardroom and beyond, particularly as hybrid working practices have become the norm.

Recruiters warned to move beyond ‘post and pray’ as passive talent overlooked

Employers risk missing most candidates by relying on job boards as hiring methods struggle to deliver quality applicants.

Employment tribunal roundup: Appeal fairness, dismissal reasoning, discrimination tests and religious belief clarified

Decisions examine appeal failures, dismissal reasoning, discrimination claims and religious belief, offering practical guidance on fairness, causation and proportionality.

Fears of AI cheating in hiring ‘overblown’ as employers urged to rethink assessments

Employers may be overstating concerns about AI misuse in recruitment as evidence of candidate manipulation remains limited.
- Advertisement -

More employees use workplace health benefits, but barriers still limit access

Many workers struggle to access employer healthcare support due to confusion, costs and unclear processes.

Gender pay gap in tech widens to nine-year high as AI roles drive salaries

Women in IT earn less as salaries rise faster in male-dominated AI and cybersecurity roles, widening pay differences.

Must read

Mark Pemberthy: How employers can support employee wellbeing and help build up financial resilience

"There can be significant implications from financial stress on engagement at work and overall wellbeing and this is an issue staff shouldn’t face alone."

Southard Jones: Reading the data tea leaves – can HR help predict future business success?

Last year, Towers Watson found that one in three organisations planned to increase spend on their HR function by more than 20 percent, and HR data and analytics tools rated as one of the top areas for investment. However, just looking at HR data in isolation does not represent the best opportunity to make an impact.
- Advertisement -

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you