Successor development plan: template and 90-day review

Key takeaways

• Write the plan for a named person and a named role. The role brief comes first.
• Keep current performance, longer-term potential and readiness for that role separate.
• Give the successor real work, access to experienced colleagues and a named manager or sponsor. Add coaching against the development goals.
• Review work and evidence at 30, 60 and 90 days. Meeting attendance is not evidence of readiness.
• Count roles and people separately. A person nominated for several roles creates a dependency that a coverage percentage can hide.

1. What to do in the week after the talent review

Before development begins, write down three things for each nominated successor:

1. The role, including how its demands may change before the expected vacancy.
2. The readiness judgment the review made and the evidence behind it. Use your organisation’s categories and definitions; examples include ready now, ready in one to two years, and a longer-term candidate.
3. The gap, in plain words: what this person cannot yet do, does not yet know, or needs experience influencing.

Confirm the successor wants to pursue that direction. Then agree who owns each part of the plan. The successor carries out the actions; their manager releases the work and observes progress. HR coordinates reviews and the register. A sponsor provides access and advocacy. A coach supports the agreed development goals. Write the names down so the work does not fall between people.

2. Separate performance, potential and readiness for a named role

Talent reviews can blur three different judgments:

Dries and Pepermans’ research cautions against confusing current performance with leadership potential. Readiness adds a practical question: what evidence do we have for this particular role? A strong plant manager may still need experience making decisions across several sites. The plan should address that gap. Research on identifying leadership potential

For the broader task of identifying and developing a talent pool, use our high-potential employee guide.

3. Define the evidence the role needs

Spend the first working session on the role brief with the person who holds or oversees the role. Ask:

• Which decisions carry the greatest cost if handled badly?
• What must the role holder deliver in the first year?
• What knowledge sits with only one or two people? Put it in the know-how inventory.
• Whose cooperation does the role depend on, inside and outside its reporting line? Put them in the influence map.
• What would you need to see the successor do in real work to judge them ready?

Write observable evidence. “Coordinates an outage plan across two sites, explains the trade-offs and escalates risks promptly” gives a reviewer something to assess. “Strategic thinker” does not tell them what to look for.

4. Build the plan: real work, coach, experienced colleague, sponsor and manager

A course can help close a knowledge gap. The plan also needs a way to see that learning used. A meta-analysis of leadership training found stronger effects associated with needs analysis, feedback, practice and spaced sessions. It supports those design choices, rather than a particular succession timetable. Lacerenza and colleagues, 2017

Real work. Choose a stretch assignment that involves decisions from the target role. Agree its boundaries with the manager and make the work visible to the people who will assess readiness.

A coach. Set goals against the role brief: for example, making decisions under uncertainty or influencing peers without formal authority. Agree what progress can be shared. Private session notes do not belong in the development register.

An experienced colleague. Find the person who holds the relevant know-how, whether or not they are senior. Give the pair a short purpose brief, a manageable rhythm and specific topics. Use a teach-back or a supervised task to check what the successor can now explain or apply. Research on age-diverse colleagues found that age-related perceptions affected knowledge exchange; that is a reason to question assumptions about who teaches whom. Burmeister and colleagues, 2018

Mentoring research also finds favourable career associations, although effects on objective outcomes such as compensation were small. A mentoring relationship is useful support, not proof that someone is ready for promotion. Our mentoring-program guide explains how to give those relationships purpose. Allen and colleagues, 2004

A sponsor and manager. The manager protects time and shapes the work. A sponsor can add introductions, stretch opportunities and advocacy beyond the manager’s reach. Keep both roles clear. Torch’s Sponsored Mentoring Program combines an internal sponsor’s access with individual leadership coaching.

Peers. When developing several successors, give them a reason to work across functions. Group coaching or a cross-function peer partnership can provide space to discuss shared challenges and practise influencing one another. The aim is to build useful relationships across silos. Here, group coaching brings together participants from different teams; it is distinct from coaching an intact team with its manager.

5. Worked example: six completed worksheets

This example is fictional. The company, people, dates, activities and judgments are invented to demonstrate the worksheets. It does not describe a Torch customer or a standard Torch package.

The company is a packaging manufacturer with three plants. Dana has managed its largest plant for four years and wants to pursue a regional role. At the October talent review, Dana was nominated for Regional Operations Director, a role expected to become vacant in about 18 months. The review panel judged Dana ready in one to two years.

The example follows the first 90 days of a longer plan. Outage planning is completed in that period; delivery and the capital decision remain later tests.

Completed worksheet 1. Role brief

Completed worksheet 2. Successor development plan

Completed worksheet 3. Review agenda

Checkpoints are dated relative to the start of this fictional plan. Dana, the current director and HR attend; the VP and coach contribute on agreed topics.

Completed worksheet 4. Know-how inventory, as of day 90

Completed worksheet 5. Influence map, recorded at the start

Completed worksheet 6. Coverage register, as of day 90

For these two roles: one has a named successor, none has a ready-now successor, and there is one unique nominated person. No person is nominated for multiple target roles in this example. The open issue is the backfill Dana’s move would create.

6. Run the 30, 60 and 90-day review

Start with a 45-minute review at each checkpoint and adjust the rhythm to the work. Include the successor and manager, with the sponsor and coach contributing where agreed. Use the same agenda:

1. Work: What was delivered or decided? Look at the output.
2. Evidence: What did the people assessing readiness observe?
3. Know-how: What can the successor now explain or apply?
4. Relationships: Where did cooperation improve, and where is influence still difficult?
5. Blockers: What access, work release or protected time is missing? Give each blocker an owner.
6. Next steps: What will happen before the next review, by whom and by when?

Agree any coach contribution with the successor in advance. Discuss progress against shared goals without reviewing private coaching conversations.

The 30/60/90 rhythm is a suggested planning aid. It is not a tested readiness scale, a standard Torch meeting schedule or a promise of promotion within 90 days. Keep longer-term work and your formal talent-review dates in view.

7. Measure coverage without hiding dependencies

Use the register to answer separate questions:

• Named-successor coverage: How many critical roles have at least one nominated successor approved through your talent process? Divide that count by all critical roles in scope. Count each role once, even if it has several candidates.
• Ready-now coverage: How many roles have at least one successor judged ready under your organisation’s definition? Use the same role denominator. Track availability separately from readiness.
• People and dependencies: How many unique people are nominated, and for how many roles each? One person nominated for three roles can give all three named-successor coverage. That still leaves a shared-person risk if vacancies coincide. Review availability, other candidates and backfill needs before treating the roles as independently covered.
• Progression: How many people moved to a nearer readiness category between reviews for the same target role? Report how many were assessed at both points and who left, changed target role or was not reassessed.
• Transitions: How many were appointed, and what evidence is available about how they performed after the move? Keep appointments separate from ratings and stretch assignments.

Every number needs a date and a denominator. Role requirements change, and readiness is a judgment at a point in time. More guidance on measuring coaching progress can help you separate activity, observed change and business outcomes.

8. Handle changed roles, stalled progress and confidentiality

The role changed. Update the role brief before reassessing the successor. Readiness for the previous role does not establish readiness for its new demands.

Progress stalled. Check whether the successor received the work, access and time the plan promised. Fix those gaps before drawing conclusions about ability. If progress remains limited, discuss the evidence and options with the successor and at the next talent review. Another target role or another candidate may need a plan.

Confidentiality. Agree what can be shared, with whom and for what purpose before the programme starts. Keep the register to the agreed goals, evidence and decisions; follow the assessment’s rules for 360 feedback access. Store nominations in an approved HR system or access-controlled document. A shared drive is suitable only if its permissions match the sensitivity of the information.

9. Blank templates

Use these with your own role definitions and review process. Enter names, dates and evidence; mark an element “not used” with a reason instead of leaving its ownership unclear. The review cadence and activities are suggestions, not a required package.

Worksheet 1. Role brief

Worksheet 2. Successor development plan

Worksheet 3. Review agenda

Record the actual date and attendees at each checkpoint.

Worksheet 4. Know-how inventory

Worksheet 5. Influence map

Worksheet 6. Critical-role coverage register

Use one row per role-successor pairing and a row for every role without a candidate. Use stable role and person identifiers in your working register to avoid counting spelling variations as different people. Record readiness separately for each pairing.

Summarise: unique roles in scope; roles with a nominated successor; roles with a ready-now successor; unique nominated people; people nominated for multiple roles; unresolved simultaneous-vacancy and backfill risks.

Start with one role and a short working session with its manager. Fill the role brief, name the first assignment and book the first review. For examples of how organisations approach the broader task, read our succession planning examples.

Frequently asked questions

What belongs in a successor development plan?

A target-role brief, a clear gap, real work that tests it, named support and a review date. Use the six worksheets to add know-how transfer, relationships and role coverage. Choose coaching, mentoring and feedback methods to fit the gap.

How is readiness different from potential?

Potential concerns future growth. Readiness asks whether someone could take a particular role within a defined window, based on relevant evidence. High potential does not establish readiness for every role.

Does a 90-day plan make someone ready for promotion?

No. It provides a regular way to review work and fix blockers. The employer decides readiness and appointments through its own process; development may take much longer.

Can one successor cover more than one role?

Yes, someone can be nominated for multiple roles. Count the roles with candidates and the unique people separately. Then assess whether overlapping vacancies would leave gaps: three role nominations do not establish three independent replacement options.

Who should review progress?

The successor and manager, with sponsor and coach input as agreed. HR coordinates the record. Share evidence against agreed goals, while keeping private coaching conversations out of the review.

What is Torch?

Torch is a leadership coaching and alignment platform. Its senior ICF coaches have at least five years’ coaching experience and work with the organisation’s context. Succession support can combine individual or group coaching with Sponsored Mentoring, 360 feedback and agreed programme measures. Confirm the scope, responsibilities and review schedule for your programme. Your organisation owns readiness judgments and appointment decisions.

Sources

• Dries and Pepermans (2012), How to identify leadership potential: Development and testing of a consensus model
• Burmeister, Fasbender and Deller (2018), Being perceived as a knowledge sender or knowledge receiver
• Lacerenza and colleagues (2017), Leadership training design, delivery, and implementation: A meta-analysis
• Allen and colleagues (2004), Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis