Dear Jawaid,
May I add a few additional comments specific to succession planning;
Main features of modern succession planning
Definition
Succession planning can be broadly defined as identifying future potential leaders to fill key positions. Wendy Hirsh defines succession planning as 'a process by which one or more successors are identified for key posts (or groups of similar key posts), and career moves and/or development activities are planned for these successors. Successors may be fairly ready to do the job (short-term successors) or seen as having longer-term potential (long-term successors).'
According to Hirsh, succession planning sits inside a very much wider set of resourcing and development processes called 'succession management', encompassing management resourcing strategy, aggregate analysis of demand/supply (human resource planning and auditing), skills analysis, the job filling process, and management development (including graduate and high-flyer programmes).
Coverage
Organisations differ in size, scope and type, so it is difficult to point to any single model of succession planning. However, it is most common for succession planning to cover only the most senior jobs in the organisation, plus short-term and longer-term successors for these posts.
The latter group are in effect on a fast-track, and are developed through job moves within various parts of the business. This focus on the most senior posts - perhaps the top two or three levels of management - means that even in large organisations, only a few hundred people at any given time will be subject to the succession planning process. It also makes the process more manageable, because it is much easier to concentrate on a few hundred individuals rather than (say) several thousand. That said, however, many large organisations attempt to operate devolved models in divisions, sites or countries where the same or similar processes are applied to a wider population.
Balance between individuals and organisations
The old succession planning was purely about organisational needs. The modern version takes account of the growing recognition that people - men as well as women - increasingly need to make their own career decisions and to balance career and family responsibilities. So the emphasis is about balancing the aspirations of individuals with those of their employing organisations, as far as possible customising moves to meet the needs of employees, their families and the changing skill requirements of the organisation.
Broadening experience by lateral moves
Traditionally, people would have gained experience by upward moves, with accompanying increases in status and salary. Nowadays that may not be possible, because organisations are less hierarchical, with fewer management layers. A sideways move into a different job may be all that is available, without any extra cash. Traditional fast-tracking created expectations of upward progression, and if status and money are thought to be motivators, different methods of generating commitment may have to be found.
Roles, not jobs
In the past, people would move up to specific, often specialist, jobs. Now (although some jobs will always require specialists) the main focus is on identifying and developing groups of jobs to enable potential successors to be identified for a variety of roles. So jobs might be clustered by role, function and level so that the generic skills responsible for particular roles can be developed. The aim is to develop pools of talented people, each of whom is adaptable and capable of filling a number of roles. Because succession planning is concerned with developing longer-term successors as well as short-term replacements, each pool will be considerably larger than the range of posts it covers.
Hope this will of help in clarifying the isuue
Cheers
Prof.Lakshman