If talent availability externally is exceptionally tight, strategies have to include robust plans and pathways to develop and grow your successors internally. Ideally, a mix of build and buy strategies is optimal and affords the most flexibility for organizations looking to fill key roles.
As an experienced HCM practitioner, I have had to prepare for a board review or organization review of talent in many organizations. One of the most important tasks of a board is to ensure the continuity of the enterprise in the midst of management change, so the annual succession or talent review is a critical conversation that should include the depth and breadth of talent in the organization. There is always some debate as to how far down in the organization a board review should go—it is two down from the C-level? The top 200 jobs? The top 50 jobs? Is it for all ready-now or ready-in-one-to-three-years candidates? I have done all of the above in response to the needs of different organizations. I have worked with leaders to put together the best view possible of their current slates of high-potential talent for their organizations’ most critical roles.
A defining question when taking your succession plan to the board (or when you are preparing for a C-level review) is: How real is your bench chart and succession plan? I pose this particular question because there's a natural tendency to fill in every space on a bench chart so there are not too many gaps. It's hard, although in some cases necessary and warranted, to show key roles with no real successors and a very sparse or non-existent bench. How do you know if your organization has a phantom bench? Ask yourself: If we had to fill that key role tomorrow, would we choose people on the bench, talent pool, or anyone in our succession plan?