Not Ready Is a Conclusion, Not a Diagnosis
Not ready is the most expensive phrase in a succession conversation.
It sounds like an assessment. It is a conclusion. Somebody watched a leader for years, formed a judgment and compressed it into two words. The judgment is usually right. It carries no information about what is in the way.
That matters because the two words trigger spending. A program gets bought. A coach gets assigned. A stretch role gets invented. Money moves before anyone names the problem.
There is a worse version. Executive teams do not articulate why somebody is not ready. They stop discussing them.
That leader is respected and not considered, and has nothing to work on, because from where he sits nothing happened.
What firms do when someone is described as not quite ready
Watch what happens after the phrase lands in a room.
Somebody, usually the CHRO, gets asked to do something about it. Fair request. It arrives without a specification, and every available response is off the shelf.
A program. An external course, an internal academy, a week with a cohort. It gives the leader time to think and it signals investment, which counts for more than people admit.
A coach with a general brief. Work on executive presence. Get her ready for the next level.
A stretch role. Give the leader a bigger job and let the role do the developing. Firms like this one because it costs nothing and looks decisive.
Or wait. Revisit in a year. The seat is not open yet.
All four are real tools and I have seen all four work.
They are being used as guesses. The cost shows up eighteen months later, when the same conversation happens about the same person and the team concludes he has plateaued rather than that the plan was aimed at nothing in particular.
Why the four standard responses are guesses
Ask what each one assumes.
A program assumes the gap is knowledge. Most stalled senior leaders in engineering firms are not short of frameworks. They can describe delegation accurately and still not do it. A curriculum built for forty people cannot address what this one does in his own meetings.
A coach with a general brief assumes the coach will find the problem. A good coach will find something. Whether it is what the senior team is reacting to is a different question, and the odds are poor when nobody told the coach what that was.
A stretch role assumes the gap is exposure. Sometimes it is. If the real gap is that the leader keeps decisions instead of moving them, a bigger job makes it worse. You have doubled the volume through the same bottleneck and put a larger client at the end of it.
Waiting assumes time is the variable. That one deserves the most scrutiny because it is the most comfortable. A leader described as almost ready for eighteen months is at risk. A missed transition does not resolve itself, and another year of the same behavior produces the same conclusion.
The leader is drawing conclusions too. Somebody outside will eventually offer him the role his own firm could not decide to give him.
Each of the four is a solution picked before anyone defined the problem. No engineer accepts that sequence on a technical issue.
The better question, and why it has to be specific
The question is not is this person ready.
It is this. What is stopping us from trusting this person with the next level, and which of us decided that?
Two things happen when a senior team gets asked that out loud.
The answers differ. The CEO names something about commercial judgment. The COO names delegation. The CHRO has heard something from the leader's peers that nobody else knew. Three development plans, and until that moment everyone believed they agreed.
The disagreement is the point, and it is why the question has to be asked in a room rather than collected on a form.
Then accountability. Which of us decided that is uncomfortable on purpose. Conclusions about readiness get carried by one person and absorbed by everyone else without examination. Sometimes the whole thing traces back to one meeting two years ago that went badly.
Worth knowing before you spend on it.
Then push for specifics. Be more strategic is not an answer. Neither is lacks executive presence. Keep asking what that looks like on a Tuesday.
He brings analysis to the executive committee and waits to be asked for a view. She has never led anything outside her own region. He has never had a hard conversation with a client about money.
Those can be worked. Not ready cannot.
Four leaders, one label, four completely different problems
Take the same two words applied to four people in one firm.
The first has not made the delegation transition. His team is busy and his calendar is the bottleneck. Work moved down, decisions did not. The firm reads the congestion as a capacity ceiling. Structural fix, about two quarters, starting with which responsibilities move and who catches them.
The second has made every transition and sends none of the signals. In executive settings she delivers thorough analysis and stops short of a recommendation. The analysis is right. The room wanted a view with reasoning behind it and reads completeness as hesitation. This one moves fastest, because a communication change is visible within weeks to exactly the people forming the judgment.
The third runs his practice well and is invisible across the rest of the firm. He protects his people, his clients and his margin, which is what the firm asked him to do for a decade. Now the senior team weighs firm-wide behavior heavily in promotion decisions and describes it badly, so he is being measured against a standard nobody stated.
The fourth has no development problem. He has no sponsor. Nobody senior spends capital on him or argues for him when the list gets made. Coaching will not change that. Find the sponsor or tell him the truth.
One label, four problems, and only one of them is a coaching engagement in the ordinary sense.
How to run a real diagnosis before the development budget moves
Three weeks in most firms.
Define the target seat. Not the next level in general. A specific role, what it requires beyond the current one, written down and agreed by the people who will decide.
Collect evidence from the people whose judgment matters. A 360 helps. Stakeholder interviews help more, because senior people say things in conversation that they will not write on a survey.
Hold the room conversation. What is stopping us, and which of us decided. Push until the answers are observable.
Separate the transitions from the signals. Both matter and they move at different speeds. Progress on one without the other will not change a promotion decision.
Check for a sponsor before you spend anything. Firms skip this, and it determines whether the rest of it returns anything.
Give the leader the honest read. Most have never been told what their organization concluded. Uncomfortable, and the highest-return conversation a manager can have. It is also the point where the plan stops being something done to the leader and becomes his to run.
Then move money.
One more reason to take this seriously. Published estimates of managerial derailment run from 30 to about 67 percent depending on the study, with a median near 50. Derailment research going back to McCall and Lombardo describes derailed executives as people who succeeded over long careers and then stalled involuntarily. Bright, identified early, strong records.
These are the people your succession plan is built on. The strengths that got them promoted became liabilities at a level nobody prepared them for, and the label they got described the result.
Ready to diagnose one leader instead of guessing?
If your senior team has quietly stopped discussing somebody, start there.
The next step is not a program. It is a specific answer to what is stopping you trusting that person with the next level, and agreement on who reached that conclusion.
A short conversation turns the label into two or three variables you can work, and tells you whether there is a sponsor before you spend a development dollar.
Comments