Score

Leadership Pipeline Strength Assessment

We conduct an external search, since we rarely have someone fully ready internally

We have 1-2 identified internal successors, but their readiness hasn't been tested in real conditions

We have identified successors, and readiness is actively tested through stretch assignments, shadow decision rights, and simulated ownership before the vacancy ever arises

The role usually gets absorbed by the person already senior enough to take it on, planned or not

When a critical leadership role opens up unexpectedly, what typically happens in your organisation?

Primarily through tenure and consistent high performance in the current role

Through a structured potential-assessment process (e.g., 9-box, psychometrics, panel review)

Through visible behavioural signals: how someone handles ambiguity, influences without authority, and makes decisions beyond their formal scope

Informally, through the judgment of senior leaders who have worked closely with the person

How is “leadership potential” identified in your organisation?

More than 75%, and this is tracked and reviewed at board or ExCo level

What proportion of your critical roles currently have at least one ready-now internal successor?

We buy: external hires bring fresh perspective and disrupt internal politics

We build: internal promotion protects culture and rewards loyalty

We deliberately blend both, using external hires strategically at specific altitudes while building depth elsewhere

It depends entirely on urgency at the time; there isn't a stated philosophy

How does your organisation approach “build versus buy” for leadership talent?

Limited: they mostly observe or support senior leaders in these areas

Occasional: through cross-functional projects or task forces

Substantial: they own defined outcomes with real accountability, ahead of their formal title

How exposed are your high-potential leaders to real P&L, customer, or transformation ownership before they're promoted?

Fairly homogeneous: it mirrors who has historically succeeded here

We're actively working to diversify it, with mixed results so far

Diverse, and diversity is treated as a strategic hedge against groupthink, not a compliance metric

How diverse (in background, function, gender, geography) is your current leadership pipeline?

They eventually leave, and we treat that as a natural market correction

We keep them on the list indefinitely, hoping the right role opens

We have honest conversations, reset expectations, and actively redesign their growth path, including sideways moves

What happens to leaders who are identified as “high potential” but plateau or don't get promoted within 2-3 years?

We build the pipeline against current role requirements

We occasionally discuss future capability needs, but the pipeline itself isn't redesigned around them

Our pipeline is explicitly mapped against the capabilities our 3-5 year strategy will require, even where those roles don't formally exist yet

We haven't connected pipeline planning to strategy explicitly

How is your leadership pipeline stress-tested against your organisation's future strategy, not just today's org chart?

We manage it privately to protect everyone's dignity and avoid politics

We share general feedback but not the full reasoning

We have a candid, documented conversation about the gap and a concrete path to close it

When your best internal talent is passed over for a role, how transparent is the process?

It's implicitly expected, but not formally tracked or discussed

It's mentioned in performance conversations, but rarely carries real weight

It's an explicit, measured part of how senior leaders are evaluated and rewarded, with real consequences for consistently failing to develop bench strength

Developing successors is treated as HR's responsibility, not the leader's

How accountable are your senior leaders for developing their own successors?

Time: leaders are too consumed by operational demands to develop others