Succession Evasion: A Hidden Risk Inside Your Organisation?

Author: Rachael Stott

Originally coined in recent healthcare research, succession evasion describes the subtle, often invisible behaviours leaders use (consciously or not), to delay, avoid or block conversations about who might take over from them. Given the critical need for leadership talent, it’s a concept whose time has come. 

Why “succession evasion” needs your attention

Across the public and private sector, family businesses and not for profits, the same pattern shows up: organisations don’t fail at succession because it’s an unknown need, they fail because people avoid it. Succession evasion captures this dynamic directly. 

Instead of treating succession as a strategic, risk-mitigating discipline, some leaders behave as if talking about the future threatens their identity, status or control. The behaviour is rarely overt; it shows up in delays, deferrals and a lack of transparency around development.

Recent research identifies four recurring expressions of succession evasion that map into business environments:

1. Fear of succession planning

For many leaders, discussing their successor creates vulnerability: What if it signals I’m replaceable? What if the board decides I’m the problem? What if I’m not ready to leave?  This uncertainty and fear can lead to silence, delay or minimising the need for a plan.

2. Talent suppression (subtly or otherwise)

Incumbents may withhold stretch opportunities, limit exposure, or keep high-potential talent ‘in their lane’ to avoid being overshadowed. Often this isn’t malicious; it’s just a protective instinct that becomes a barrier to organisational resilience. It can, however, thrive in cultures that endorse or ‘turn a blind eye’ to autocratic or command and control leadership, where managers actively reject dynamic individuals or disregard the abilities of competent team members.

3. The belief in role permanence

Having started my career in the Army, where it’s a given that you move on from your role every 3-4 years, the concept of role permanence was somewhat confounding when I came across it (particularly in organisations that grow their own leaders). However, where the system allows it, leaders can behave as if their role is uniquely tied to them. Whether ego-driven, “No one else could do what I do.” or comfort-driven, “I’m here for as long as I want to be.” this mindset makes preparation for succession feel pointless. 

4. Obstructing the growth of potential successors

Sometimes this is passive: not making time for mentoring, not sharing key knowledge, not understanding the full mandate and value of their leadership role. Sometimes it’s active: withholding opportunities, blocking appointments, resisting structural redesign that would enable talent to grow. These behaviours can be hard to spot until a crisis hits, a sudden departure, health issue, reorganisation, or burnout, and then it’s too late.

No organisation is innately immune

While the term succession evasion originated in healthcare, the underlying behaviours are well-documented in other fields: 

• Family businesses - long-standing work documents succession resistance/avoidance by incumbents (founders/owners) and the emotional, governance and relational reasons why families delay or evade succession decisions.
• Corporate governance - research shows boards routinely postpone CEO succession conversations for political and psychological reasons (e.g. fear, identity, loss of control).
• Government and non-profits - see leaders become gatekeepers of institutional knowledge, making transitions unnecessarily difficult.
• Multinational organisations - observe local leaders blocking successors to protect authority or local power structures.

Different sectors, same human dynamics

In a constrained employment market, a number of the behaviours associated with succession evasion are unsurprising: 

• Psychological barriers - fear & vulnerability. Leaders may fear losing status, being judged, or exposing imperfections; avoidance protects identity short-term but harms organisational resilience long-term. 
• Power and status preservation. Incumbents who gain power from their roles may suppress talent or block development to remain irreplaceable.
• Organisational culture & governance gaps. Rigid hierarchies, limited board oversight, or cultures that reward individual heroics over renewal create fertile ground for evasion. 
• Hidden / invisible behaviour. Because evasion is often subtle (delaying, not naming successors, not sharing knowledge), it’s easy to miss until a transition crisis occurs.

Sectoral differences in expression

Often, succession evasion behaviours and dynamics are justified in terms of risk, for example:

• in healthcare, the risk is operational continuity and patient safety; 
• in family firms, it is relational conflict; and
• in corporations, it is strategic and market risk. 

The costs manifest differently but the underlying avoidance dynamics are similar.

Why this matters now (more than ever)

The term Succession evasion offers a simple, unifying name for the behaviour. Language is powerful; once named, something becomes discussable. Once discussable, it becomes actionable. And, there is a need for action:

• Talent expectations and scarcity. If high potentials aren’t being grown because incumbents avoid preparing them, organisations will lose them. 
• Rising expectations and need for organisational resilience. Boards, regulators, investors and employees expect continuity. Succession evasion is a governance and reputational risk.
• Increased leadership churn. With shifting expectations, burnout and demographic change, leadership transitions are more frequent and less predictable.
  
  

What leaders and talent professionals can do

1. Name it. Introduce the concept of succession evasion into your organisational vocabulary. It gives leaders a non-judgmental way to discuss sensitive behaviour and dynamics
2. Diagnose it. Look for early signals:

• No ‘ready-now’ or ‘ready-soon’ candidates appearing in talent discussions
• Leaders delaying development conversations
• Lack of stretch assignments or cross-functional exposure for high potentials
• Knowledge and key relationships concentrated in individuals
• Leaders saying “they’re not ready yet” without evidence

3. Make succession planning a governance requirement vs. a personality preference

Boards and executive teams should expect:

• Annual succession conversations
• Clear criteria for potential
• Transparent development pathways
• Risk assessments on critical roles

When succession is treated as procedural, not personal, evasion becomes harder.

4. Support leaders through the identity transition

Most avoidance is emotional, rather than technical. Executive coaching, peer conversations, and structured transition planning help leaders reframe succession as, for example:

• a legacy issue
• a stewardship responsibility
• a development opportunity for the next generation

Final Thoughts

Succession planning is about organisational continuity. Succession evasion is about people’s vulnerability and identity. Organisations must address both sides of that equation. It’s not just about those identified as succession talent, but also those who will ultimately move on, in order that their successor can be appointed.

For Business Leaders - ask yourself today: If I left unexpectedly tomorrow, who would take over and would they succeed? If the answer is unclear, that’s your strategic priority.

For HR & OD Professionals - run a “succession evasion audit”. Use the four behaviour categories (fear, talent suppression, permanence belief, obstruction) to assess which roles or leaders show risk signals, and design targeted interventions.

Need more information? Contact the Winsborough Team:
winsborough.co.nz | 0800 222 061 | support@winsborough.co.nz

Image credit: Ryan (Unsplash)