Leadership succession focus: Why leadership renewal starts with culture, not process

Although many organizations see succession planning as a strategic priority, CEO and board member confidence in their planning remains startlingly low.¹ In this conversation, Claudia Parzani, chair of Borsa Italiana and senior advisor at Linklaters, argues that the greatest obstacle is not a lack of process but a lack of the right governance culture. She explores why boards often favor familiar leaders over disruptive talent, how diversity strengthens decision making when viewed through a performance lens, the critical role of boards and HR in developing future leaders, and why building a broad, adaptable leadership pipeline is essential in today's uncertain business environment. Ultimately, she contends that organizations that treat succession as a continuous leadership capability—not a periodic governance exercise—will be best positioned to thrive over the long term.

Sara Gay: Leaders at many organizations agree that succession planning is important for future success. Yet successful leadership transitions are less common. Why?

Claudia Parzani: We often think of succession planning as a technical exercise. In reality, the biggest barrier is culture.

In Italy especially, leadership has traditionally been associated with permanence and individual identity. But succession requires organizations to embrace the idea that every leadership role is, by nature, temporary: an adjustment that can prove challenging in contexts where leadership is traditionally so closely tied to continuity and individual legacy. Instead, organizations must introduce a culture of transition. Effective succession starts long before a role becomes vacant. It requires clear timelines, rules, and limits on the number of mandates, and an understanding that no one is suited to every season. Before we change succession plans, we need to change mindsets about leadership itself.

Sara Gay: If organizations recognize the importance of renewal, why do they still tend to appoint leaders who look very similar to their predecessors?

Claudia Parzani: Continuity feels safer than disruption. Many are concerned about the “onboarding cliff”—the risk of failure during integration.

Boards often express a desire for leaders who can challenge conventional thinking or bring fresh perspectives. Yet when appointment decisions are made, organizations frequently gravitate toward candidates with reassuring profiles, and headhunters often discard disruptive candidates in the final stages of the selection process.

This is understandable. Every leadership appointment carries risk, and concerns about integration or execution naturally influence decision making. But excessive caution can also limit an organization's ability to evolve.

Cross-industry leadership is an underrated lever for renewal. Organizations increasingly recognize the value of bringing in leaders with diverse experiences and sectors who can introduce new capabilities and encourage less conventional perspectives.

Sara Gay: Diversity is another area where many organizations express strong ambitions yet progress often feels slower than expected. Why?

Claudia Parzani: I think we've created a false choice. We often talk about diversity as a values issue, but we should also discuss it as a performance and strategic issue.

Organizations need more effective ways to evaluate the impact of different leadership profiles. Traditional performance metrics naturally tend to reward continuity as they measure past success. Yet strong performance today does not necessarily mean it cannot be further improved, especially by bringing in a broader range of perspectives. Governance therefore has an important role in ensuring succession decisions balance historical performance with future potential.

That shifts the conversation considerably. Diversity is not simply about representation; it is about improving decision making, strengthening governance, and increasing an organization's capacity to navigate complexity.

Sara Gay: You suggested earlier that some of the governance challenges around succession are particularly evident in the Italian context. What did you mean?

Claudia Parzani: I’ve become convinced that governance creates the conditions in which succession either succeeds or fails. In Italy, one of the recurring challenges is the weak separation between shareholders, CEOs, and boards of directors.

As a result, boards are not always empowered to provide effective oversight or constructive challenges. Without that independence, organizations can default to continuity and preservation rather than actively planning for leadership renewal.

Strengthening governance means creating a culture that establishes the conditions for more robust debate and better decision making. That includes clearer rules around board tenure and leadership transitions, mechanisms that encourage independent challenges, and governance structures that view succession as an ongoing responsibility rather than a one-off event.

Sara Gay: What roles do HR leaders and nomination committees play in creating that culture?

Claudia Parzani: They play a critical role because succession begins long before a leadership transition.

In my experience, organizations too often invest in people only after they have already demonstrated exceptional performance. Instead, they should identify potential [successors] earlier, create more opportunities for cross-functional experiences, and build development paths that prepare leaders for increasingly complex roles over time.

That also means challenging long-held assumptions about what leadership looks like. Gender stereotypes continue to influence career opportunities, and organizations are often reluctant to move talented people across functions or invest in less conventional leadership profiles. As a result, second-line leaders with significant potential can be overlooked.

An empowered HR function can help change this dynamic. Rather than serving primarily administrative purposes, HR should be a strategic partner to the board and executive team in succession, diversity, board evolution, and organizational development.

Sara Gay: How has today's business environment changed the way organizations think about succession?

Claudia Parzani: The paradox is that succession has never been more important, yet organizations often have less time to think about it.

Leaders are operating in an environment characterized by constant disruption and pressure for immediate results. That naturally encourages short-term decisions and makes it harder to invest consistently in long-term leadership development.

At the same time, many CEOs express a desire for stronger internal challenges—people who think differently, complement existing leadership styles, and are prepared to question assumptions. Developing those capabilities, however, requires sustained investment over time.

This is where succession planning becomes a strategic advantage. The goal shouldn’t be to identify one successor. It should be to build a diverse pipeline of leaders with different experiences, capabilities, and leadership styles. That optionality gives boards and executive teams greater flexibility to respond as markets evolve, ensuring they have leaders who are equipped for different scenarios rather than assuming the future will follow a single path.