Succession planning without fit bias

Succession planning is how an organization prepares for the loss of key people and knowledge. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management describes it as identifying, assessing and developing talent to support continuity, built on workforce analysis, competency modeling and gap analysis. The point is not to crown an heir for each manager. It is to make sure critical knowledge is shared and that several people are developing toward important roles.

Succession planning is also where bias can hide. When leaders are asked who could step into a role, they often name people who remind them of themselves. Sociologist Lauren Rivera studied hiring in elite professional service firms and found that evaluators often weighed cultural similarity, or fit, heavily. They tended to construct merit in their own image, using their own experiences to judge ability, and felt more excitement about candidates who shared their interests. Her study was in a particular private-sector setting, so it does not prove the same thing happens in state government, but the mechanism is familiar. Words like fit, polish, presence and leadership potential can carry a lot of unexamined preference.

The fix is to decide what the role needs before thinking about people. Start with the competencies and knowledge the role actually requires, drawn from the position description and the work. Describe each in observable terms: for example, can explain a rule change to county partners in plain language, or has managed a contract through a dispute. Then ask who has shown those things and who could, with development. Build a pool of several people rather than one designated successor. Share the criteria openly so staff know what to build toward.

Include people who have been left out of informal networks. Minnesota Management and Budget guidance on retaining employees with disabilities calls for succession planning that includes a strategy to recruit and retain people with disabilities for the positions and career paths they are interested in. The same logic applies more broadly: ask people what paths they want, instead of assuming. Finally, remember that succession planning is a development tool, not a hiring decision. Formal selection for a vacancy still follows state hiring rules and any labor agreement, and HR is your partner in keeping it fair.

Fictional case: The DSD leadership team is asked to identify successors for three manager roles expected to open through retirements. In the discussion, one director, Barnaby, says the obvious choice for one role is Declan, who has great presence and fits the team. Another manager, Solveig, notices that no one has described what the role requires, and that two strong analysts who work mostly with Tribal and county partners have not come up at all.

Pick one critical role in your area. Write four to six observable competencies it requires, without naming anyone. Then list who has shown each one and who could develop it.

When you think of someone as a natural leader, what are you actually noticing? Which of those qualities are required by the work, and which are familiar to you?