Somewhere in that list the succession check rarely gets a look in, and that omission tends to matter more than most of what does make the cut every December.

A stock discrepancy costs money. A missed filing costs a penalty. A senior person leaving without anyone ready to step into their role can cost a client relationship, a key supplier, or six months of drift while the business relearns things one person used to hold in their head. It is a bigger exposure than almost anything on the standard year-end list, and it is examined almost nowhere on it.

A succession audit is not the same exercise as a succession plan, and mixing the two up is a large part of why so many SMEs never properly get round to either. A plan names a successor. An audit answers a more basic question first: what actually happens to the business if the person in a given seat left with four weeks’ notice. Most owners have never put the question to themselves in those specific terms, and when they do, the answer is usually less comfortable than they expected.

Start with the roles nobody thinks to check

The obvious place to begin a succession review is the owner or managing director, and it is right to start there. But an audit that only looks at the top job misses where the real exposure usually sits. In a business of twenty people or two hundred, there is nearly always someone well below board level who carries a disproportionate share of institutional memory: the operations manager who holds the only real relationship with a key supplier, the senior bookkeeper who understands quirks in the accounts nobody else has learned, the long-serving account handler who is the actual reason two or three big clients stay. None of these people carry a grand title. All of them can stop a business in its tracks if they leave unexpectedly, and a review that only maps the top of the org chart will not catch a single one of them.

What the audit needs to produce

A useful audit does not end with a list of names to keep an eye on. For every role reviewed, it should produce three things: how much damage the business would take if the person left with short notice, how ready any internal candidate genuinely is to step in, and how long an external hire would realistically take if there is no one ready. Ranking roles against those three measures, rather than against seniority or salary, turns a vague sense of unease into a specific list the business can act on. A role with low impact and an obvious internal successor needs nothing more than a note on file. A role with high impact and no credible successor, internal or external, is the one that should be keeping an owner up at night, whatever the job title says.

The mistake most audits make when they happen at all

Where businesses do attempt this, the most common error is treating readiness as a matter of tenure rather than capability. The longest-serving deputy is not automatically the right successor. Loyalty and familiarity are real assets, but they are not the same thing as the judgement, outside perspective or technical range a role will demand in two or three years, particularly if the business itself is changing shape. An honest audit sometimes concludes that the safest-looking internal choice is not actually ready, and that the business needs to plan for an external hire well before the vacancy is real. That is an uncomfortable conclusion to reach in October. But it is a far better one to reach in October than to discover it the week after someone hands in their notice.

It also does double duty if you are thinking about selling

There is a second reason this exercise matters that has nothing to do with retention. Buyers of SMEs, and the advisers who represent them, look hard at how dependent a business is on one or two individuals, because that dependency shows up directly in the price. A business where every senior relationship and every piece of institutional knowledge sits with the departing owner is worth noticeably less than one where a capable team can visibly run without them. An owner even loosely considering a sale in the next few years gets something from this audit beyond avoiding an awkward gap: it becomes, almost as a side effect, a list of the exact weaknesses a buyer’s due diligence would find anyway. Fixing them ahead of a sale process, rather than having them discovered during one, tends to show up in the number on the front page of the offer.

Why year-end is the natural moment to do it

Year-end already forces a certain kind of honesty. Budgets get revisited, headcount plans get scrutinised, and owners are asked, in one form or another, what the business needs to look like next year. A succession audit fits naturally into that same conversation, because the two questions are really the same question asked from different angles: what does this business need to be able to do, and who is actually going to do it. Running the audit alongside the annual budget also means any resulting hire, whether that is internal development or an external search, gets built into next year’s plan rather than becoming an unbudgeted scramble halfway through it.

There is no need to turn this into a formal governance exercise with external advisers and a lengthy report, at least not on the first pass. A single afternoon spent listing every role whose sudden absence would genuinely hurt the business, and answering the three questions above for each one, will surface most of what matters. The value is not really in the document it produces. It is in the owner knowing, in specific terms, exactly where the business is one resignation letter away from a serious problem, rather than simply hoping it isn’t.

Novo Executive Search works with SMEs and growing businesses on exactly this kind of exposure, helping owners identify where a departure would do real damage and building the right external search into the plan before it becomes urgent rather than after. Where a key person leaves before anyone is ready, interim management can hold the role steady while the permanent search runs.

Read the full article →