The Succession Lie: Why Most Leadership Pipelines Don’t Exist
John Elliott • May 19, 2025

Most companies I speak to say they’re planning for the future.

But it’s a lie. When the CEO resigns, the shortlist is blank.
The board scrambles. I get a call for help.

The talent that was supposed to be “next in line” either isn’t ready — or quietly left two years ago.

That’s not succession planning.
That’s performance.

And in Australia’s mid-market, it’s happening everywhere.


If You Have a Deck but No Decision, You Don’t Have a Pipeline

Look at your last board strategy pack.

There’s a succession slide — probably colour-coded.
Key roles mapped. Names in boxes. Risk flags on anyone nearing retirement.


But what happens when that person leaves tomorrow?

Does someone step up — with board confidence, cultural alignment, and commercial readiness?
Or does everything go into pause mode?


Most leadership pipelines aren’t pipelines at all.
They’re documentation exercises.
Names written down so the company appears prepared — not because anyone’s seriously investing in readiness.

And the data backs it up.

In the 2024 CEW Senior Executive Census, just 27% of ASX300 companies had gender-balanced executive leadership teams.
Only 1 in 8 CEO appointments in 2024 were women — a sharp drop from 1 in 4 the year before.


Worse still, 20 ASX300 companies had no women at all in their executive teams.
And
82% of pipeline roles like COO, CFO and Group Exec are still held by men.



Why Is This Happening?

Because it’s easier to pretend you’re planning than to actually commit to it.

Real succession means risk.


It means stretching people before they’re “ready.”
It means visibility. Investment. Accountability.
It means putting someone in the room who might one day replace you.

That’s uncomfortable.


So companies hedge.
They focus on process instead of outcome.
They delegate it to HR.
They call it “talent mapping” or “development planning” — and convince themselves that’s enough.

But when succession is treated as a compliance task, you get structure without substance.


Most Pipelines Are Demographically Narrow — and Strategically Passive

The succession conversation is often framed as a future-looking exercise. But the truth is, it reveals everything about a business now.

Who’s trusted.
Who’s stretched.
Who’s seen.

And if the answer is: people who already look and think like the current executive team — the pipeline is a mirror, not a mechanism.


According to CEW, it could take another 54 years to reach gender parity in CEO roles at the current rate.

Not because women aren’t ready — but because succession is still being run by legacy instincts, not performance or potential.

This isn’t a gender issue. It’s a visibility issue.


It shows just how narrow — and self-reinforcing — most internal pipelines are.


Boards Are Talking Succession — But Avoiding Succession Events

In public statements, succession is always described as a “priority.”
But when a CEO departs, the replacement is usually external.

Why?

Because the plan wasn’t real.

It wasn’t built into performance cycles, role design, or investment decisions.
It wasn’t modelled for readiness.
It wasn’t supported by real-world testing.


So when the vacancy comes, the board looks around and realises:
no one’s actually ready.


And that’s when they default to external search — time pressured, high-stakes, and often misaligned.

Even companies with formal succession frameworks fail to develop internal successors who can genuinely step up. According to McKinsey, only 29% of high-potential employees globally say they are being actively developed for future leadership roles.


Real Pipelines Aren’t Built on Potential — They’re Built on Pressure

Most “high-potential” employees never get tested.

They’re praised for being strategic, collaborative, well-liked.


But they haven’t led transformation.
They haven’t navigated crisis.

They haven’t made the call when it really counted.

That’s not their fault — it’s the system’s.


If your future leaders aren’t being put in rooms where the stakes are high, the talent is being wasted. Because without context, potential is just a guess.


Real succession means stress-testing people before the vacancy. Not waiting for a resignation to find out if they’re ready.


Why Leaders Say Succession Is a Priority — Then Undermine It

Because it forces difficult conversations.

  • What happens if the COO is better suited to the CEO role than the founder’s chosen successor?

  • What if your most capable future CFO is currently in HR?

  • What if your only succession-ready leader doesn’t want the job?

Succession exposes reality.
It tests assumptions about who’s loyal, who’s capable, and who’s trusted.
And many leadership teams would rather protect the illusion of unity than confront the truth of readiness.


So they hold back.
They over-prepare weak candidates and underinvest in strong ones.
They promote for loyalty, not capability.
And they hope tenure will somehow turn into executive presence.


HR Isn’t the Problem — But It’s Often Trapped

HR leaders are often tasked with “running succession.”
But they rarely hold the real power to make it happen.

They can facilitate calibration, run talent reviews, maintain the spreadsheet.
But they can’t override political appointments.
They can’t force development budgets.
And they can’t get future leaders into strategy sessions unless the CEO signs off.


So they manage the optics.

They keep the plan updated.
They run performance frameworks.
But they don’t challenge the organisation’s tolerance for risk or its lack of bold placements.

And succession — like so many other critical issues — becomes theatre.


What a Real Pipeline Looks Like

It’s small. It’s specific. And it’s active.

  • The top 5 succession candidates have documented development goals.

  • They’re being exposed to investor conversations, board updates, or crisis moments.

  • They’re sitting in on decisions they don’t yet own.

  • And they’re receiving feedback not just on performance — but on readiness.

Real succession isn’t about names on a slide.
It’s about signal.


Are you giving your future leaders enough signal — authority, exposure, context — to actually grow?

Or are you keeping them in reserve, hoping they’ll stay warm until you need them?


Most Internal Candidates Are Lost Long Before the Vacancy Opens

Talent attrition isn’t just about pay.

It’s about perceived opportunity.


If your best internal leaders aren’t being stretched, seen, or spoken to, they’ll find someone who will.

That’s not speculation. It’s playing out across Australia right now.


The 2024 CEW Census shows that companies without clear succession action are more likely to lose top talent, especially women in pipeline roles.


And when those people leave, they take with them the last thread of credibility in your internal bench.


The Cost of Cosmetic Succession Planning

The price isn’t just reactive hiring.
It’s loss of culture. Institutional memory. Momentum.

When succession isn’t planned properly, the outgoing leader often overstays.
Or worse — leaves chaos behind.


And the people who could’ve brought continuity and fresh thinking are either too green… or already gone.

You don’t just lose a leader.
You lose your rhythm.

And in the world of FMCG — where category cycles are brutal and competitor innovation is relentless — rhythm matters.


So What Now?

Ask these questions:

  • Who are our five most critical leadership roles?

  • If any one of them left tomorrow, who steps in?

  • Would that person command confidence from the board, the team, and the market?

  • And if not — why haven’t we done something about it?

Succession isn’t about the future.
It’s about the decisions you make now — when you still have time to act.

Because when the vacancy hits, theatre ends.
And only the real work will matter.


A group of business people are walking in front of a city skyline.
By John Elliott July 18, 2025
Australia’s FMCG sector is confronting a leadership crisis. CEO turnover is accelerating, succession pipelines are underdeveloped.
By John Elliott June 26, 2025
You don’t hear about it on the nightly news. There’s no breaking story. No panic. No protests. Just rows of vegetables being pulled out of the ground with no plan to replant. Just farmers who no longer believe there’s a future for them here. Just quiet decisions — to sell, to walk away, to stop. And if you ask around the industry, they’ll tell you the same thing: It’s not just one bad season. It’s a slow death by a thousand margins. 1 in 3 growers are preparing to leaveIn September 2024, AUSVEG released a national sentiment report with a statistic that should have set off alarms in every capital city: 34% of Australian vegetable growers were considering exiting the industry in the next 12 months. Another one-third said they’d leave if offered a fair price for their farm. Source: AUSVEG Industry Sentiment Report 2024 (PDF) These aren’t abstract hypotheticals. These are real decisions, already in motion. For many, it’s not about profitability anymore, it’s about survival. This isn’t burnout. It’s entrapment. Behind the numbers are people whose entire identity is tied to a profession that no longer feeds them. Many are asset-rich but cash-poor. They own the land. But the land owns them back. Selling means walking away from decades of history. Staying means bleeding capital, month by month, in a system where working harder delivers less. Every year, input costs rise, fuel, fertiliser, compliance. But the farmgate price doesn’t move. Or worse, it drops. Retail World Magazine reports that even though national vegetable production increased 3% in 2023–24, the total farmgate value fell by $140 million. Growers produced more and earned less. That’s not a market. That’s a trap. What no one wants to say aloud The truth is this: many growers are only staying because they can’t leave. If you’re deep in debt, if your farm is tied to multi-generational ownership, if you’ve invested everything in equipment, infrastructure, or land access, walking away isn’t easy. It’s a last resort. So instead, you stay. You cut your hours. Delay maintenance. Avoid upgrades. Cancel the next round of planting. You wait for something to shift, interest rates, weather, prices and you pretend that waiting is strategy. According to the latest fruitnet.com survey, over 50% of vegetable growers say they’re financially worse off than a year ago. And nearly 40% expect conditions to deteriorate further. This isn’t about optimism or resilience. It’s about dignity and the quiet erosion of it. Supermarkets won’t save them, and they never planned to In the current model, supermarket pricing doesn’t reflect real-world farm economics. Retailers demand year-round consistency, aesthetic perfection, and lower prices. They don’t absorb rising input costs, they externalise them. They offer promotions funded not by their marketing budgets, but by the growers’ margins. Farmers take the risk. Retailers take the profit. And because the power imbalance is so deeply entrenched, there’s no real negotiation, just quiet coercion dressed up as "category planning." Let’s talk about what’s actually broken This isn’t just a market failure. It’s a policy failure. Australia’s horticulture system has been built on: Decades of deregulated wholesale markets Lack of collective bargaining power for growers Retailer consolidation that has created a virtual duopoly Export-focused incentives that bypass smaller domestic producers There’s no meaningful floor price for key produce lines. No national enforcement of fair dealing. No public database that links supermarket shelf price to farmgate return. Which means growers, like James, can be driven into loss-making supply contracts without ever seeing the true economics of their product downstream. But the real silence? It’s from consumers. Here’s what no one wants to admit: We say we care about “buying local.” We say we value the farmer’s role. We share those viral posts about strawberries going unsold or milk prices being unfair. And then we complain about a $4 lettuce. We opt for the cheapest bag of carrots. We walk past the "imperfect" produce bin. We frown at the cost of organic and click “Add to Cart” on whatever’s half price. We’re not just bystanders. We’re part of the equation. What happens when the growers go? At first, very little. Supermarkets will find substitutes. Importers will fill gaps. Large agribusinesses will expand into spaces vacated by smaller players. Prices will stay low, until they don’t. But over time, we’ll notice: Produce that travels further and lasts less. Fewer independent growers at farmer’s markets. Entire regions losing their growing identity. National food security becoming a campaign promise instead of a reality. And when the climate throws something serious at us, drought, flood, global supply shock, we’ll realise how little resilience we’ve preserved. So what do we do? We start by telling the truth. Australia is not food secure. Not if 1 in 3 growers are planning to exit. The market isn’t working. Not when prices rise at the shelf and fall at the farmgate. The solution isn’t scale. It’s fairness, visibility, and rebalancing power. That means: Mandating cost-reflective contracts between retailers and suppliers Enabling collective bargaining rights for growers Building transparent data systems linking production costs to consumer prices Introducing transition finance for smaller producers navigating reform and climate pressure And holding supermarkets publicly accountable for margin extraction But more than anything, it means recognising what we’re losing, before it's gone. Final word If you ate a vegetable today, it likely came from someone who’s considered giving up in the past year. Not because they don’t care. But because caring doesn’t pay. This isn’t about nostalgia. It’s about sovereignty, over what we eat, how we grow it, and who gets to stay in the system.  Because the next time you see rows of green stretching to the horizon, you might want to ask: How many of these fields are already planning their last harvest?