Dr David Cliff explores the impact of poor succession planning on business.
We don’t like to think about it. We took the risks, developed the vision, built the business. We may not have had a meteoric growth that drew headlines, but we poured years of hard work, sincerity, and endeavour into creating something real. We employed people, scaled up, initiated change, always wrestling with that elusive question: When is it enough?
Meteoric or modest, all businesses eventually face the same challenge: change. One of the most profound changes is the moment when the originators – the progenitors of the enterprise – decide to move on.
Many companies are started with an entrepreneurial intent to sell. But more often, the business is deeply personal. It reflects the founder’s passions, skills, and a desire to uniquely shape their field.
The reality is that, after years – often decades – of committed effort, the time comes to move on. Sometimes it’s a matter of health or retirement. Perhaps it’s a longing to do something different – to pursue other ambitions. I’ve seen many businesses whose founders have multiple, unfulfilled agendas for decades.
Age and retirement issues are profound psychological transitions. At a certain point, one has to acknowledge – however reluctantly – that there are fewer days ahead than behind. Physical decline may play a part, but so too does a waning sense of excitement for the familiar stimuli that once fueled entrepreneurial fires within.
Succession planning is closely tied to our existential awareness. We don’t like to think about endings, so we push them out of sight. Our aversion to endings can mean succession plans are vague or nonexistent. Businesses can be left legally, structurally, and managerially unprepared for the day the founder steps away.
Founders tend to create businesses in their own image. Leadership styles, decisionmaking processes, and cultural norms are shaped by their personality and values. This makes transition doubly difficult: no successor will lead in exactly the same way.
For any organisation to thrive, it needs more robust, standardised systems of governance and management than was so on the founder’s watch. That means formalising processes, clarifying responsibilities, and embedding operational standards long before successors are named. Ideally this involves culture change, resilience structuring, positioning talent, incentivization and communication to markets.
When succession is handled through an external sale or merger, founders may be asked to remain in a diminished role but with confused leadership identities – which can be damaging for all.
It is remarkable how many capable business owners neglect the personal side of succession planning. Without such provisions, transitions can become hurried, ill-conceived, and laden with unintended consequences. A poorly planned exit can sour what might otherwise have been a deeply fulfilling achievement.
For my clients, succession is a recurring agenda item. If they don’t raise it, I do periodically. The emotions tied to endings are powerful. They can get swept under the carpet, creating unspoken blocks to practical preparation. Whether those blocks are structural, transactional, organisational, or purely personal, the effect is the same: the future becomes harder to navigate when it ‘arrives’.
At Gedanken, we work with business owners to approach succession with sensitivity, realism, and foresight. We aim for outcomes that are genuinely win-win – allowing founders to step away with dignity and clarity, and ensuring those who remain have the structures, culture, and confidence to thrive.
We are always open for a thoughtful conversation on this subject. You may be surprised how much difference such a discussion can make.
gedanken.co.uk