Building Leaders for Tomorrow: Insights from Our Succession Planning Webinar

We hosted a panel discussion with two seasoned leaders who approach succession planning from very different angles. Daniel Siebers, an executive with over 21 years building teams in China's fast-paced market, shared his systematic approach to developing talent from within.

Roxy, an HRBP with extensive regional and global experience, explained how large organizations structure succession planning at scale.

The conversation revealed something important: succession planning is not one-size-fits-all. What works depends on your company size, growth stage, market conditions, and resources. Here is what we learned.

What Succession Planning Actually Means

Roxy opened with a clear definition. Succession planning is part of a larger system to build talent pipelines for the future. It links directly to business strategy. The question is not just who can do the job today, but what types of leaders will the organization need in three to five years.

For large organizations, succession planning creates a culture where employees see a clear growth path. For the company, it reduces the cost and risk of constantly hiring from outside. It ensures capable leaders are ready when needed.

Daniel views it differently. He does not treat succession planning as a separate administrative task. Instead, he builds it into the company culture and hiring structure. When the system works correctly, succession happens automatically. Leaders emerge because the environment develops them, not because HR runs a yearly review process.

Daniel's System: Entry-Level Positions as Incubators

Daniel shared a bold approach he implemented in the 2000s. Every entry-level position, particularly sales assistants, serves as an incubator rather than a permanent role. The rule is simple and non-negotiable: if someone is not promotable within one to two years, they are terminated.

This sounds harsh. Daniel acknowledged that when he first introduced this system, everyone resisted. He had to push it through as a "dictatorship" because no one would have agreed to it democratically. But once the system started running, the results spoke for themselves.

When the company expanded from three offices to five within six months, they needed senior leaders to run entire regions. Four of those five leaders came from Daniel's team. When those top performers moved up, the people below them were ready to step up immediately. Losing the entire top tier of his team did not matter because the system had prepared the next generation.

The key is that Daniel interviews for the next position, not the current one. During the hiring process for a sales assistant role, he asks about career goals and assesses whether someone can grow into sales, operations, or another function. If he cannot see that potential, he does not hire them. This means the termination rate is actually low, under 10 percent, because most people hired are capable of moving up.

The system creates a mentor culture. For managers to get promoted, the person below them must be ready to take their role. This shifts the psychology from "my employees serve me" to "I am responsible for developing my team." Daniel calls this the difference between a king mentality and a mother mentality.

He admits this approach works best in smaller to mid-sized companies with the agility to implement it. In fast-moving markets like China, where he jokes that one year equals five to seven years in the West, rigid long-term planning is difficult anyway. His system adapts to that reality.

Roxy's Approach: Strategic Talent Reviews in Large Organizations

Roxy has seen succession planning work well in large corporations, particularly during periods of strong economic growth when businesses could predict their future needs with more confidence.

In organizations with over 100,000 employees globally, she participated in talent reviews that brought regional presidents and VPs together for full-day sessions. They used the nine-block methodology, which maps employees across two dimensions: performance and potential.

The nine-block grid creates clear categories. High potential and high performance employees sit in the top right. These are the people who receive the most attention and development opportunities. High performance but medium potential employees are solid contributors who might move up one level but probably not more. High potential but medium performance employees might be in the wrong role or need different assignments to thrive.

For every senior director and above, the leadership team reviews performance and potential. Then they discuss succession plans for key roles. For each critical position, they identify successors and assess readiness. Is someone ready in one year? Three to five years? More than five years?

Roxy shared a striking example. During one talent review, the team decided to move an R&D leader, a foreigner based in China, into a plant manager role in Changzhou. This had never been done before. But the company was an industrial manufacturing firm where operational experience was essential for senior leadership. The decision was bold but strategic. They gave the leader six months to prepare for the assignment.

This kind of creative development only happens when senior leaders sit together and deeply discuss each person's potential. It requires time, resources, and commitment from the top of the organization.

The Challenges: Change, Politics, and Plain Succession Planning

Both speakers acknowledged that succession planning is hard to sustain when market conditions shift rapidly.

Roxy pointed to a major challenge facing companies now. The economy and business models are changing so fast that the definition of what makes a good leader keeps shifting. She gave the example of her current company, which is transitioning from a clinical phase focused on speed and agility to mass production requiring stability and regulatory compliance.

The competencies that make someone successful today become weaknesses tomorrow. Leaders who excel at fast problem-solving and quick reactions will struggle in an environment that demands long-term thinking and quality control. This means the benchmark for succession planning must be reviewed constantly, perhaps every year, to ensure it still matches where the business is going.

Daniel agreed. In China, he cannot plan his schedule more than three months out. Trying to map out succession plans years in advance feels pointless when so much will change. His system works because it develops capability continuously rather than trying to predict specific future needs.

Both speakers also warned about succession planning done badly. Daniel mentioned that in large corporations, the process can become heavily political, manipulated, and disconnected from actual promotion decisions. He called it "Game of Thrones politics" where the formal system exists but real decisions happen through other channels.

Roxy called this "plain succession planning." Companies go through the motions every year. HR runs the process. Managers fill out the forms. But nothing changes. Employees see no impact. Managers see no impact. It becomes a burden that nobody values.

Roxy was emphatic: a misused or purely administrative succession planning system is worse than having no system at all. It creates cynicism and wastes resources.

Practical Advice: Hire for Tomorrow, Not Today

Both speakers converged on one critical principle: hire people for their next role, not their current one.

Daniel explained that when you hire a sales assistant, you should be asking whether this person can become a salesperson, or an operations specialist, or a manager. If you only assess whether they can enter orders into a computer, you will hire someone perfect for that job but with nowhere to go. That person becomes stuck, and the organization loses the chance to develop internal talent.

Roxy agreed completely. The challenge is convincing business leaders and hiring managers to adopt this mindset. Many want to fill the immediate need. They want someone who can do the job today. But if the organization only hires for now, its talent capability never improves. The company stays at the same level.

When companies hire for potential and the next step, they build the foundation for internal development. This costs less than constantly recruiting from outside. It creates a culture where people feel valued and see opportunities to grow. It reduces turnover and strengthens loyalty.

When Succession Planning Matters (and When It Does Not)

Roxy made a provocative statement: succession planning is a luxury.

If your business is fighting to survive, do not focus on succession planning. Focus on the business first. Succession planning requires resources, stability, and the ability to think beyond immediate needs. It is for organizations that have moved past survival mode and can invest in building for the future.

This does not mean small or fast-growing companies should ignore talent development. Daniel's system shows that you can build development into the culture without the heavy infrastructure of formal succession planning. But it does mean that not every company is ready for the kind of strategic, long-term succession planning that Roxy described.

The question to ask is: do we have the stability and resources to predict what we will need in three to five years? Can we invest time in developing people for roles that do not exist yet? If the answer is no, that is fine. Build systems that develop capability now and create flexibility to adapt as conditions change.

Final Thoughts: Strategy Before Process

The webinar made clear that succession planning is fundamentally strategic, not administrative.

The starting point is always the business strategy. Where is the company going? What capabilities will it need? What kinds of leaders will drive success in that future? Only after answering those questions can you design succession planning that works.

For smaller, fast-moving companies, this might mean building development into daily operations and creating a culture where mentorship and promotion are expected. For larger organizations with more predictable trajectories, it might mean formal talent reviews, nine-block grids, and multi-year development plans.

Both approaches can work. Both can also fail if they become disconnected from strategy, if they turn into bureaucratic exercises, or if senior leaders do not commit real time and resources.

The common thread is simple: hire for potential, develop continuously, and stay focused on what the organization will need tomorrow, not just what it needs today.

Key Takeaways:

Succession planning is part of building talent pipelines for the future, not just filling current gaps.

Hire people for their next role, not their current position.

In fast-moving markets, build development into culture rather than relying only on long-term planning.

Large organizations benefit from structured talent reviews using tools like the nine-block methodology.

Succession planning is a luxury that requires resources and stability. If your business is in survival mode, focus there first.

Bad succession planning—political, administrative, disconnected from reality—is worse than no succession planning at all.

The foundation is always strategy: what leaders will we need for the future we are building?