It’s true. I’m a bit of Human Capital Strategy junkie.  You could say my obsession comes quite naturally—I’ve spent more than 20 years working with leadership teams to build extraordinary talent acquisition and management directives. The positive results I see only further feed my excitement over the potential that a high-potential team can offer a business.

Right now I’m on a soapbox about the importance of creating an organizational succession plan that aligns with the overall business strategy. I recently published an article on this topic and was pleased by the feedback I received from clients, colleagues and information seekers about the ideas within.  Perhaps the most intriguing comment was this one:

“As the CEO of a growing technology company, I appreciate your perspective on succession planning as a strategic activity.  I know that this should be a priority for our organization, but I’m not sure if our VP of HR, our advisory board or I, should be driving the activity.  Who in the organization should actually own the succession plan?”

In the aforementioned article, I stress that succession planning is by no means a HR one-off.  It depends very heavily on strategic direction, which naturally requires the involvement and commitment of the entire leadership team.  But after reading this response, I realize that many human capital experts tend to be a bit nebulous on who should actually drive the process.  White papers and case studies use broad language like:

“It’s crucial that the organization gets this right for the future of the business.”

But to whom in the organization are we referring? Why are we so vague? Is there not a universally applicable answer to succession plan ownership?

As it goes with anything strategic, we have to look at each organization’s unique circumstances before answering that question succinctly.  Criteria to consider include: type of organization (private or public?), company size, organizational design, timing (emergency vacancy or future planning?) and perhaps most importantly, the type of stakeholders. In the case of a public company, for instance, the Board of Directors will be heavily involved in succession planning, especially if the CEO leaves or is asked to leave.  The inquiring CEO (mentioned above) seems to be forward thinking, but may not have a formal organizational strategy in the early stages of his company. When we put all of these factors in the equation, the question of ownership can be a real “hot potato” around the conference table.

I’ll cut to the chase.  There will always be a lot of cooks in this kitchen because of the strategic nature of successful succession planning and talent development. But there has to be one chef, with the skills, data and objectivity to drive a plan effectively. The CEO may not be fully objective in assessing what is truly needed for the future company.  Some say the board should ultimately drive the process, but as relative “outsiders” they may be short-sighted in terms of cultural fit and process.  The CEO and Board of Directors are ultimately responsible for a well-designed succession plan as they are ultimately responsible for performance.

Recent research shows a strong correlation between succession planning and stock performance. However, I strongly believe the ideal owner of the activities should be rooted in the HR function—whether through an experienced internal team or consulting partners.  HR leaders with solid organizational knowledge are best suited to gather data, create processes, and assess candidates without other business distractions.  Ultimately, the final hiring decision is left to the board and CEO (if present), but with all of the appropriate checks and balances in place to ensure future success.

By Cindy Lubitz, Managing Director of inTalent Consulting Group