DDBA 8581 Week 11 Dated Succession Plan Example

A Development Pool for the Plants' Technical Roles and Named Cover for the Sales Seat: A Dated Succession Plan That Argues Its Model Against Cappelli's Critique of Long-Range Planning and Says What Happens When the People It Depends On Leave First

Student Name

Walden University

DDBA 8581: Succession Planning: A Survival Tool of the Fittest

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

A Development Pool for the Plants' Technical Roles and Named Cover for the Sales Seat: A Dated Succession Plan That Argues Its Model Against Cappelli's Critique of Long-Range Planning and Says What Happens When the People It Depends On Leave First

The Model

This plan adopts a development pool for the technical roles at the composite chemicals manufacturer's two plants, controls engineering, scheduling, process chemistry and maintenance planning, rather than naming a single successor for each. For the Gulf regional sales director role, it uses a named development candidate supported by interim cover. The reason is uncertainty. The technical roles face a control system upgrade in 2028 whose demands are not yet fully known, so preparing several people for a family of roles is safer than betting on one person for one role as it exists today. The sales role is a single, relationship-heavy seat whose requirements are stable, so a named candidate makes sense there.

The Critique

Cappelli (2008) argued that traditional succession planning, which forecasts specific vacancies years ahead and grooms specific replacements, fails in uncertain environments: forecasts are wrong, planned successors leave and the organization ends up with too many or too few prepared people. He proposed managing talent like a supply chain, developing pools of people for families of roles, accepting some outside hiring and adjusting continuously. His critique applies fully to the technical roles, where the upgrade makes long-range forecasts unreliable. It applies less to the sales role, where the requirements are stable and the risk is losing relationships, not mispredicting skills.

Assembling the Term's Work

The Week 4 exposure ranking put the controls engineer first and the sales director second. The Week 5 bench review found turnaround inventory builds and the larger plant's control logic held by one person. The Week 6 route develops the smaller plant's controls engineer toward the larger plant's role. The Week 7 plan transfers the scheduler's capabilities to two recipients over eighteen months. The Week 9 comparison recommended developing the inside sales lead with interim cover.

Master Schedule

[after]

Table 1

Succession Actions by Quarter

Contingency Register

[after]

Cannella and Shen (2001) found that many designated heirs apparent leave before succeeding, and Lee and Mitchell (1994) showed that many departures follow unpredictable shocks. Both findings argue for planning on the assumption that someone the plan depends on will leave early, which is why every row names a fallback.

Table 2

What Happens if Key People Leave Early

Why the Mixed Model Suits This Company

A single model for all roles would fit poorly. Pure replacement planning for the technical roles would bet on forecasts the upgrade makes unreliable. A pool for the sales role would spread development across people when the need is for one person to inherit nine specific relationships quickly. Rothwell (2010) noted that succession approaches should fit the organization's circumstances; here the circumstances differ by role family.

Costs

Retention arrangements cost about $160,000 over three years; the interim executive about $125,000 for five months; overlap time for transfers and development about 1,800 hours of incumbents' time. These are small beside the cost of an unplanned control system failure or the loss of the Gulf distributors.

Review

The plan will be reviewed each spring with the coverage report, adjusting the pool and the schedule as the upgrade's requirements become clearer.

The Emergency Layer

For every top-five role, the plan also names emergency cover for the first two weeks of an unexpected vacancy, following the Week 8 memo's approach.

Limits

The plan depends on the upgrade timeline and on candidates' willingness. It covers ten roles; others may prove exposed.

References

Cannella, A. A., Jr., & Shen, W. (2001). So close and yet so far: Promotion versus exit for CEO heirs apparent. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 252-270. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069454

Cappelli, P. (2008). Talent on demand: Managing talent in an age of uncertainty. Harvard Business Press.

Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (1994). An alternative approach: The unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover. Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 51-89. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1994.9410122008

Rothwell, W. J. (2010). Effective succession planning: Ensuring leadership continuity and building talent from within (4th ed.). AMACOM.