Rethinking succession planning in an AI‑enabled, always‑changing world

Succession planning can no longer be an annual, box‑ticking exercise. In a world of hypergrowth, AI and constant change, it must become a living, future‑focused discipline.

For many organisations, succession planning still means filling out a template once a year and agreeing a list of “ready now” and “ready later” names.

That model is struggling under the pressure of today’s realities: markets shifting within months, AI reshaping entire categories of work, and leaders increasingly expected to orchestrate both humans and technology.

In a recent conversation with Emelie Kusoffsky, senior director, talent development and performance at AirTrunk, it was clear that these pressures are forcing a fundamental rethink of how succession is done.

From filling vacancies to building future capability

The most important shift in modern succession planning is moving from “who replaces this leader?” to “what capabilities will we need in three to five years?”

Instead of starting with today’s job description and looking for a like‑for‑like replacement, the focus turns to how roles themselves will evolve.

At AirTrunk, Kusoffsky noted that talent discussions deliberately explore “what’s the future capability that we need for those roles three to five years from now,” rather than stopping at what makes someone effective in the job today.

That change of lens alters how potential successors are identified. It encourages leaders to think about strategy, market shifts and technology trends, and to view successors as people who can grow into a changing role, not just step neatly into an existing one. It also pushes HR to ensure succession tools and templates are anchored in future requirements, not historical expectations.

Potential is not performance

High performance today does not automatically translate into high potential for tomorrow’s leadership roles.

One of the more candid points Kusoffsky makes is that “performance doesn’t equate to a great future leader.” It is a trap many organisations fall into: star performers are placed at the top of the succession chart, almost by default. In reality, the qualities that drive short‑term results are not always the ones that sustain long‑term leadership in a changing environment.

At the heart of her approach is learning agility and adaptability. If someone is “constantly willing to learn and have that self-reflection about what can I do differently, that is how you stay dynamic as a leader.” This willingness to evolve, question one’s own habits and adjust to new contexts becomes at least as important as any track record of hitting targets.

Human skills take on new weight as well. Kusoffsky pointed to the growing body of research that “our human skills … continues to be what sets us apart from AI,” and argues that empathy, genuine care for people and clear communication are emerging as defining traits of effective leaders. The way leaders praise their people, hold difficult conversations and give constructive feedback is no longer peripheral to succession discussions; it is central.

Critical thinking is another standout. As AI tools become embedded in workflows, leaders still “have a very, very important role to play” in reviewing outputs, questioning assumptions and intervening when work is heading in the wrong direction. Succession planning that simply assumes comfort with technology is not enough; it must seek out those who pair that comfort with sound judgment.

Planning for ‘humans plus bots’ leadership

Succession pipelines now need to prepare leaders for a reality where they manage teams made up of both people and technology.

At AirTrunk, the future is imagined very explicitly as one where leaders “are able to manage a team of humans and bots.” Growth is not expected to come from endlessly adding headcount, but from “amplifying the trajectory of that growth by using AI.”

This vision reshapes what succession planning must deliver. It is not enough to surface people who understand the business and can inspire a human team. Successors also need to be ready to redesign work around automation, to decide which tasks belong with people and which with machines, and to lead a skills transition for their teams and themselves.

They must also be able to communicate that transition effectively. If AI is framed purely as a cost‑cutting tool, it risks damaging engagement and trust. If it is framed, as Kusoffsky does, as an opportunity to unlock growth and shift people to higher‑value work, it can become a source of energy and innovation. Succession planning in this context is about finding leaders who can hold that narrative and live it.

Psychological safety as a core leadership requirement

In a context of experimentation and rapid change, the ability to create psychological safety is a succession criterion, not a side note.

Kusoffsky is clear that AI‑enabled transformation cannot succeed if people are afraid to try new things. Leaders at all levels are expected to foster “an environment for your teams where it feels safe to experiment” and “safe to fail,” because “if you don’t have that psychological safety for your team, then you’re not going to get anywhere.”

That expectation is carried directly into succession conversations. When potential successors are discussed, HR and leaders look beyond whether someone can execute and influence; they also ask how that person responds to mistakes, whether they invite ideas, and whether their team feels secure enough to innovate.

Succession planning that ignores this dimension risks elevating leaders who will unintentionally shut down the very experimentation the organisation needs.

Succession as a continuous, ‘living’ practice

In fast‑changing environments, treating succession as a once‑a‑year event produces plans that are 

One of the most striking shifts Kusoffsky described is how succession planning is becoming more frequent and embedded in everyday leadership conversations. “The more we do it, the more frequent we have these conversations at that leadership level, the more it becomes part of a day-to-day way of working,” she said.

This is driven by necessity. Because “things change so quickly,” there is a “natural need to look at this continuously.” Strategy can pivot, markets can move and key roles can evolve in a matter of months. In that context, a snapshot taken once a year is insufficient.

Kusoffsky is also a strong advocate of treating succession plans as working documents rather than fixed commitments. Once a plan is set, it does not mean that when a role becomes available you simply “plunk the next person in that role,” because by that time “things might have changed.” The listed successor is just that: a potential candidate whose fit must be reassessed considering current needs and timing.

Her broader philosophy is to pilot and refine rather than design for perfection on paper. Any new framework or approach, including succession, is rolled out with the expectation that feedback will lead to adjustments. The question she keeps returning to is how to “tweak it to make it the best it can be,” acknowledging that the organisation itself is evolving.

Creating a clear, consistent and inclusive way of doing succession

As organisations scale and leaders arrive with different backgrounds, HR must define a shared, simple way of approaching succession – and embed diversity into its core.

At AirTrunk, some leaders have “grown up with the company” while others come from large, established businesses. That mix brings “so many different ways that people are used to doing talent reviews and succession planning,” she said, which can make it hard to compare and align decisions.

Part of her mandate is to introduce a framework that “balances simplicity with clarity,” so that leaders know exactly what is expected without being overwhelmed by complexity. The framework is being anchored in the organisation’s strategy and the future capabilities it has identified as critical, to ensure succession conversations are not divorced from where the business is heading.

Diversity is not treated as an after‑the‑fact check. There is always “a big focus on diversity of thought and, gender diversity, cultural diversity in our pipelines,” Kusoffsky added.

This lens is built into how talent is reviewed and how succession pipelines are constructed. The intent is to ensure that the next generation of leaders reflects the complexity of the markets, customers and communities the organisation serves.

HR as challenger and thought partner

Perhaps the most powerful theme is the role HR must play in challenging assumptions about succession – even when past approaches have ‘worked’.

Kusoffsky urged leaders to not be afraid to challenge. There will always be strong leaders with firm views “of how things should be done,” but even if those approaches have delivered results in the past, “it doesn’t mean it’s the right way moving forward.”

She sees HR, particularly in roles like hers, as a thought partner who helps leaders look around the corner: bringing in external perspectives, balancing ideas, and “help educate our leaders” about new ways of thinking about talent and potential.

Underpinning all of this is the same learning agility that Kusoffsky looks for in succession candidates. She applies it to the work of succession planning itself: piloting new approaches, learning from what works, discarding what does not and continually iterating.

In an AI‑enabled, unpredictable world, succession planning cannot be a static grid completed once a year. It has to become an ongoing, collaborative practice that anticipates future capability, prizes learning and human skills, embraces diversity, and is brave enough to question its own assumptions.