John was very active, even at the age of 66. As head of business in a large conglomerate, which had three heads of units of information to him. When Guru, the management consultant asked what were the company's plans for his successor, John did not have time to explain that the three heads of unit, one was very new to the organization, the other was simply a type of business and yes, the third might be able to take his place. Guru was very pleased with this response.

John was surprised when Guru said: "He certainly has a plan, but it seems nothing more than planning for replacement. Where is the succession plan?"

Nothing surprising! This is what happens most of the time. John Guru hopes to clarify the difference between succession planning and replacement of Planning … and this is what came of Guru:

By identifying the backup for senior positions the assumption that the structure of the organization will remain the same over a period of time, are turning to alternative planning. Succession planning is much deeper and is aimed at the development of individuals not only against a specific position, but as a set of resources.

Some basic difference between these two approaches can be summarized as follows:

While planning replacement looks only at senior positions, succession planning aims to key positions at various levels. The positions are important and hard to replace that top the list.

Two or three successors are considered for a particular position in the planning of replacement. However, succession planning, the focus is on developing talent pools.

The identification of talent in planning the replacement is based on feedback from senior management. The succession planning takes a systematic process involving multiple tools and multiple data sources for identification.

Replacement planning is a form of risk management with a focus on immediate and short term replacement, but it seems succession planning for the development of people with long term view.

While planning for the replacement is done in isolation, succession planning is an integrated process that includes learning and development, job rotation, job enrichment, etc.

In simple terms, while the replacement planning is reactive in approach, succession planning is proactive. Replacement planning has no role for staff development. Here, planning is aimed simply in search of replacements for those without systematically "preparing" to take a stand. As a result, succession planning, while motivating people, normally replacement planning demoralize them. In fact, the identification of talent, but an essential element, is still the easy part. The most important thing is to provide skills and knowledge necessary for people to fill top positions. They can not be tied to a particular position, but are told they are in an acceleration pool and actually moved in different areas within the organization to widen their horizon, so necessary to move up and shoulder more responsibilities . Aware of this part of it, remain highly motivated and committed force.

For a serious initiative succession planning, top management must take ownership, while supporting the process of human resources. Only then can an organization obtain real benefits from this process seriously.

John nodded in agreement that it was now clear what the real succession planning with respect to the traditional replacement planning. Do you?