Does Your Succession Plan Rest on Untested Assumptions?
If your plan works, it’s because certain things are already true. Have you checked?
Succession planning often starts with a bunch of assumptions like:
An interim can step in
The team will stay aligned
Funders will continue as planned
So, plans get approved quickly as everyone agrees and moves out with the process. But fast agreement often means no one has tested what’s underneath.
Don’t confuse plans, roles, and conditions
Three things I constantly see mixed up → Plan. Role. Condition.
📄 PLAN
What you intend to do. Interim steps. Search process. Timeline.
Try drafting it in one paragraph. Can everyone restate the plan the same way?
👤 ROLE
Who is responsible. Interim ED. Board. Search committee.
List names under each role. Then ask, Do these people have both the capacity and authority to lead those steps?
⚙️ CONDITION
What must already be true for the plan and roles to hold.
Test one: If your Board Chair resigned tomorrow, would the process still move?
In other words:
The plan outlines.
The role assigns.
The condition determines if any of it works.
Why does this matter? Because most succession plans fail at the condition level and even deeper assumptions:
If the Board of Directors believes an organization is mainly a chart of roles, then succession will focus on coverage.
If it believes an organization is mainly a set of processes, then succession will focus on documentation.
If it believes an organization is mainly shaped by one leader, then succession will focus on replacement.
But if the Board of Directors believes an organization is a living system of trust, judgment, relationships, authority, and coordinated action, then succession planning becomes much more intentional and much more useful.
Three lenses ⤵
For the exiting Executive Director
For the exiting ED, surfacing assumptions is crucial because it forces specifics like “Donors only give because of my relationships” or “Staff productivity drops without my daily check-ins,” preventing these from becoming hidden burdens on the successor during the 90-day handover.
For the Board of Directors
For the Board of Directors, surfacing assumptions means explicitly listing beliefs such as “Our $2M budget needs a 20-year veteran fundraiser” or “The ED must live locally like the last one.” Then testing them against data like candidate track records or market benchmarks during search committee meetings. This concrete step, often via a shared assumptions log or pre-interview scorecard, prevents mismatched hires.
For the first-time Executive Director
For the first-time ED, surfacing assumptions involves mapping out inherited ones like “Board meetings always run 3 hours with no agenda” or “Major grants require the founder’s sign-off” right in the first all-staff meeting or 30-day review, then proposing tests like timed agendas or delegated approvals.
Succession planning doesn’t fail because you didn’t plan. It fails when you don’t test what you’re relying on.
Start with one question: What must be true for this to work? Then go find out if it is.
Cheering you on!
PS
I’ve dropped my assumption surfacing process in the Member Lab.
Surfacing assumptions - so important.