When Tim Cook’s planned departure from Apple made global headlines in April, it did more than spark speculation about Apple’s next chapter; it put succession planning back where it belongs – on the leadership agenda.

Apple may be unusual in the level of attention its leadership transitions attract, with investors, employees, customers and competitors all watching closely. But the question it raises is one every business will face sooner or later: When a leader moves on, who will be ready to step up? Too often, the answer is unclear, because conversations around succession have not occurred early enough.

Plan for the unexpected

Robert Half research shows 27 percent of Australian business leaders do not have a succession plan in place for their own role, and 23 percent have no plan for other executive and senior leadership positions. The most common reasons for the lack of planning are because 49 percent say they are not planning to leave anytime soon, while 42 percent say other priorities get in the way.

These are understandable explanations, but they also introduce risk. Succession planning is often framed around retirement or expected exits, but in reality, leadership change is rarely predictable. Promotion, illness, burnout, relocation, restructuring, performance issues or external opportunities can all create sudden gaps. When planning only begins once a departure is imminent, the business is already exposed.

The research from Robert Half shows this is not just an Australian issue. While 87 percent of organizations have some form of succession planning in place, only 52 percent have a comprehensive, documented strategy. A further 36 percent limit planning to a few senior positions, while 12 percent have no plan at all. The biggest challenge identified is knowledge transfer from departing leaders, cited by 53 percent of hiring managers.

When a leader leaves, they don’t simply vacate a role. They take with them years of institutional knowledge, client relationships, commercial judgement, context behind decisions, informal influence, team history, stakeholder trust and the ability to spot risks before they become visible to others – assets that are rarely documented but are critical to how a business operates.

In my experience helping organizations plan for leadership change, too many businesses underestimate the real value of succession planning. Rather than it being about naming a replacement, it’s a disciplined process for identifying capability, developing talent, transferring knowledge and reducing operational risk.

Taking stock

The most effective succession plans start well before a vacancy exists. They identify the roles that are most critical to business performance, assess whether there is internal talent ready or near ready to step into them and determine what development is required to close the gap.

This should include executive and senior leadership roles, but it should not stop there. In many businesses, risk sits with specialist technical experts, long-serving finance leaders, project heads, relationship managers and operational employees whose knowledge is central to how the organization functions.

A common mistake is treating succession planning as a board or executive exercise alone. In practice, it must be closely connected to workforce planning, recruitment, retention and learning and development. Businesses need to understand not only who could step up, but whether those individuals want to, what support they need, and how likely they are to stay.

This is especially important in a talent market where skilled professionals have choices. High-potential employees are more likely to remain engaged when they can see a future for themselves inside the organization. If they do not understand their pathway, they may seek growth elsewhere and this is a common reason I hear from senior candidates searching for a new role. In that sense, succession planning is also a retention strategy.

Some leaders are hesitant to start succession planning because it feels personal. It could be perceived as signaling departure, which could introduce uncertainty. While these concerns are understandable, they can also hold organizations back. Strong leaders do not make themselves indispensable by keeping knowledge close. They strengthen the business by building capability around them.

The best succession conversations are transparent, practical and future-focused. They ask questions like:

• “What would happen if this role became vacant tomorrow?”
• “Who could step in immediately?”
• “Who could be ready in six, 12 or 24 months?”
• “What experience, mentoring or exposure is required to get them get there?”
• “What knowledge must be documented or shared?”
• “Where might we need to hire externally?”

This last question is important. Succession planning does not mean every future leader must come from inside the organization. Internal pipelines are valuable for retention and continuity, but they must be realistic. Some roles may require skills the business does not yet have and others benefit from an external perspective, particularly during periods of transformation. Strong succession plans consider both internal development and external market mapping.

Another area often underestimated is the structure required for effective knowledge transfer. Too often, it is left until a leader’s final weeks, when handovers become rushed and reactive. A more effective approach is to embed knowledge sharing into day-to-day operations through mentoring, shadowing, cross-functional projects, documented decision-making processes visibility into key relationships and regular exposure to board or executive discussions. Future leaders need context to understand not just what decisions were made but why.

Start with the basics

For smaller and medium-size businesses, the challenge can feel even more acute. There may be fewer layers of management and fewer obvious successors. But that makes planning even more important. In a lean organization, the departure of one senior person can create immediate pressure on clients, teams, revenue and decision-making. A simple, practical plan is far better than no plan at all.

The starting point does not need to be complex to be effective. Businesses can begin by identifying critical roles, assessing current bench strength, documenting key responsibilities and relationships and creating development plans for potential successors. These plans should be reviewed regularly as business needs, market conditions and individual ambitions evolve.

The real question is not whether a key leader will leave. They will. The question is whether the business will be ready when they do. And the lesson for companies is clear: succession question planning should not begin when a key leader moves on. It should already be in place.

Opinions expressed by The CEO Magazine contributors are their own.