36 Succession Planning Statistics and Research for 2026

Succession planning is not a list of names stored for emergencies. It is an operating discipline for identifying critical roles, testing successor readiness, developing credible candidates and protecting continuity when leadership changes.

The latest research shows a large gap between intent and readiness. Succession is a stated priority for many HR and business leaders, yet formal plans and strong leadership benches remain uncommon. At the same time, public-company data shows that leadership transitions are frequent enough to require an ongoing process—not an occasional board exercise.

This guide compiles 36 succession planning statistics from SHRM, DDI, The Conference Board, Spencer Stuart, Korn Ferry, Heidrick & Struggles, LinkedIn and other original research publishers. It focuses on workforce and leadership succession, not the sale or inheritance of family-owned businesses.

For adjacent evidence, see employee development statistics, manager effectiveness statistics and internal mobility statistics.

Last reviewed: October 8, 2026

Key findings

• Only 22% of HR leaders in SHRM's 2025 benchmarking research reported a formal succession plan.
• DDI found that only 20% of organizations had a strong leadership bench in its Global Leadership Forecast 2025.
• Six in ten new S&P 1500 CEOs in Spencer Stuart's 2025 analysis were promoted internally.
• Succession planning must distinguish an emergency replacement from a developed, ready successor.
• Performance evidence, development actions and internal movement should be connected rather than managed as separate annual exercises.

Methodology

Every numbered finding links to the research publisher or study page. Organizational surveys, public-company transition datasets and platform activity describe different populations; their percentages should not be averaged. Vendor research is attributed to the vendor. Associations between a practice and stronger outcomes are not presented as proof that the practice caused those outcomes.

Succession-plan adoption statistics

1. In SHRM's 2025 Talent Management Executives Benchmarking research, only 22% of HR leaders said their organization had a formal succession plan. (SHRM (https://www.shrm.org/executive-network/insights/what-hr-leaders-need-to-know-about-succession-planning-2026))
2. 42% of talent-management executives identified creating a succession strategy as a top focus for 2026. (SHRM (https://www.shrm.org/executive-network/insights/what-hr-leaders-need-to-know-about-succession-planning-2026))
3. An earlier SHRM survey found 21% had a formal plan and 24% had an informal plan. (SHRM (https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/organizational-employee-development/succession-planning--set-your-organization-up-for-success))
4. Among extra-large organizations with more than 5,000 employees, 44% reported a formal succession plan in SHRM's benchmarking data. (SHRM (https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/ceo-succession-how-chros-can-prepare-their-teams-to-lead))
5. In older SHRM research, only about one-fifth of organizations with a formal process extended it to roles considered critical, while approximately 9% limited succession planning to executives. The age of this finding makes it useful as historical context, not a current benchmark. (SHRM (https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/organizational-employee-development/dont-leave-succession-planning-to-chance))

Leadership-pipeline and bench-strength statistics

1. DDI's Global Leadership Forecast 2025 gathered evidence from 10,796 leaders and 2,014 organizations worldwide. (DDI (https://www.ddiworld.com/research/global-leadership-forecast-2025))
2. Only 20% of organizations reported a strong leadership bench, meaning four in five lacked confidence in their pipeline. (DDI (https://www.ddiworld.com/blog/developing-high-potential-talent))
3. Organizations that began development with assessment were twice as likely to report strong leadership pipelines. This is an association, not a randomized causal estimate. (DDI (https://www.ddiworld.com/blog/use-assessment-for-development))
4. Organizations that clearly defined leadership competencies and used them in development reported 1.5 times stronger bench strength. (DDI (https://www.ddiworld.com/blog/competencies))
5. In DDI's earlier forecast data, only 12% of organizations said they had a strong bench for critical leadership roles. (DDI (https://www.ddiworld.com/blog/ceo-priorities-in-2023))
6. In that research, organizations with strong benches were six times more likely to report an ability to engage and retain top talent. (DDI (https://www.ddiworld.com/blog/ceo-priorities-in-2023))
7. They were five times more likely to report an ability to prevent employee burnout. (DDI (https://www.ddiworld.com/blog/ceo-priorities-in-2023))
8. They were three times more likely to rank among the top financial performers in their industry. These are reported associations, not proof that bench strength alone created the results. (DDI (https://www.ddiworld.com/blog/ceo-priorities-in-2023))
9. Conference Board research found organizations with a leadership strategy reported effective succession management 51% of the time, compared with 15% among organizations without one. (The Conference Board (https://www.conference-board.org/pdfdownload.cfm?masterProductID=20712))
10. In the same comparison, organizations with a leadership strategy reported effective development programs 70% of the time, versus 27% without a strategy. (The Conference Board (https://www.conference-board.org/pdfdownload.cfm?masterProductID=20712))

CEO succession and transition statistics

1. Spencer Stuart recorded 59 new CEOs at S&P 500 companies in 2025, an 11% year-over-year increase. (Spencer Stuart (https://www.spencerstuart.com/research-and-insight/2025-sp-1500-ceo-transitions-behind-the-ceo-moment))
2. Across the S&P 1500, 60% of new CEOs in 2025 were promoted from within. (Spencer Stuart (https://www.spencerstuart.com/research-and-insight/2025-sp-1500-ceo-transitions-behind-the-ceo-moment))
3. The comparable internal-appointment share was 57% in 2024. (Spencer Stuart (https://www.spencerstuart.com/research-and-insight/2025-sp-1500-ceo-transitions-behind-the-ceo-moment))
4. 84% of incoming S&P 1500 CEOs in 2025 were first-time CEOs, showing that succession frequently involves appointing someone who has not previously held the top job. (Spencer Stuart (https://www.spencerstuart.com/research-and-insight/2025-sp-1500-ceo-transitions-behind-the-ceo-moment))
5. The average incoming S&P 1500 CEO was 54.4 years old in 2025, down from 55.8 in 2024. (Spencer Stuart (https://www.spencerstuart.com/research-and-insight/2025-sp-1500-ceo-transitions-behind-the-ceo-moment))
6. The average departing S&P 500 CEO was 62.9 years old in 2025. (Spencer Stuart (https://www.spencerstuart.com/research-and-insight/2025-sp-1500-ceo-transitions-behind-the-ceo-moment))
7. The Conference Board projected an S&P 500 CEO succession rate of 13% in 2025, up from 10% in 2024. (The Conference Board (https://www.conference-board.org/press/ceo-succession-2025))
8. In lower-performing companies, 2025 turnover reached 14% in the S&P 500 and 18% in the Russell 3000. (The Conference Board (https://www.conference-board.org/press/ceo-succession-2025))
9. Heidrick & Struggles reported that 63% of CEOs were promoted from inside their organizations in its Route to the Top 2025 research. (Heidrick & Struggles (https://www.heidrick.com/en/insights/chief-executive-officer/route-to-the-top-2025-the-ascent-redefined-detailed-survey-insights))
10. Only 26% of surveyed CEOs and board members said CEO succession was treated as a top priority. (Heidrick & Struggles (https://www.heidrick.com/-/media/heidrickcom/publications-and-reports/route-to-the-top-2025_the-ascent-redefined.pdf))
11. Korn Ferry found that 68% of external successors had previously served as CEOs, compared with 35% of internal appointments. (Korn Ferry (https://www.kornferry.com/institute-articles/the-choreography-of-leadership-transition))
12. The average 2025 CEO transition period in Korn Ferry's study was approximately 78 days. (Korn Ferry (https://www.kornferry.com/institute-articles/the-choreography-of-leadership-transition))
13. Six months after turnover, companies that named successors early outperformed their industry benchmark by 1.1 percentage points, while those that delayed trailed by 2.7 points. The comparison is observational. (Korn Ferry (https://www.kornferry.com/institute-articles/the-choreography-of-leadership-transition))

Internal talent and succession statistics

1. LinkedIn data found employees at companies with high internal-mobility rates stayed 60% longer than employees at companies with low rates. (LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/business/talent/blog/learning-and-development/companies-that-are-getting-internal-mobility-right))
2. Employees who made an internal move had a 75% probability of remaining after two years, compared with 56% among employees who did not move. (LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/business/talent/blog/learning-and-development/what-is-internal-mobility-and-how-to-get-it-right))
3. LinkedIn's 2023 Future of Recruiting research found 75% of recruiting professionals expected internal recruiting to be an important influence over the following five years. (LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/business/talent/blog/learning-and-development/what-is-internal-mobility-and-how-to-get-it-right))
4. In LinkedIn's research, only 20% of employees believed they had the right conditions for career growth at their organization. (LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/business/talent/blog/learning-and-development/what-is-internal-mobility-and-how-to-get-it-right))
5. The Conference Board found only 28% of global organizations considered their total-talent-mobility programs effective or very effective. (The Conference Board (https://www.conference-board.org/topics/future-of-work/Total-Talent-Mobility-Strategic-Purposes-Barriers-Practices))
6. The World Economic Forum's Future of Jobs 2025 research ranked improved talent progression and promotion processes third among employer retention practices and second among employees' reasons to stay. (World Economic Forum (https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-report-2025/in-full/4-workforce-strategies/))
7. Only 44% of organizations expected their ability to retain talent to improve, down from 53% in the prior WEF edition. (World Economic Forum (https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-report-2025/in-full/4-workforce-strategies/))
8. Organizational culture and resistance to change were identified by 46% of surveyed employers as a barrier to workforce transformation, a reminder that succession depends on operating conditions as well as candidate lists. (World Economic Forum (https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-report-2025/in-full/4-workforce-strategies/))

What the statistics mean

The evidence points to five practical requirements:

1. Cover critical roles, not only executives. Identify positions where vacancy, failure or knowledge loss would materially disrupt the organization.
2. Separate nomination from readiness. A potential successor is not necessarily able to perform the role now. Define readiness windows and the evidence required for each one.
3. Use multiple signals. Combine sustained performance, capability, feedback, aspiration, mobility and development evidence. A single review rating is too narrow.
4. Give candidates real experiences. Stretch assignments, lateral moves, acting roles and cross-functional projects reveal more than a private label in a talent grid.
5. Review the pipeline continuously. Roles change, candidates leave and strategy moves. Succession data should be revisited after reorganizations, acquisitions and material changes in direction.

EvalFlow helps organizations connect performance reviews, feedback, objectives, development evidence and 9-box discussions in one performance management system. The EvalFlow team can configure the initial workflow, validate it with process owners and train managers before launch through the customer launch kit.

Frequently asked questions

What percentage of organizations have a formal succession plan?

SHRM's 2025 benchmarking research reported 22%. The figure was higher—44%—among organizations with more than 5,000 employees. Use those as study-specific findings, not a universal census of all employers.

What is leadership bench strength?

Bench strength describes whether an organization has credible people who could assume important leadership roles within a relevant timeframe. A useful measure distinguishes ready now, ready with targeted development and longer-term potential.

Should succession planning cover every position?

Not necessarily. Start with roles whose vacancy would create high operational, customer, regulatory, knowledge or leadership risk. Broaden the process after the critical-role methodology is stable.

Is an internal successor always better than an external hire?

No. Internal candidates bring organizational context and a visible record; external candidates may bring missing capabilities or strategic change. The purpose of succession planning is to create credible options and evidence—not to predetermine every appointment.

Can these statistics be cited?

Yes. Cite the linked original research source. If you also cite this collection, use: “EvalFlow, 36 Succession Planning Statistics and Research for 2026, last reviewed October 8, 2026.”

Editorial note

EvalFlow reviews this resource for new leadership-pipeline studies, public-company transition data, methodology changes and broken links. Send corrections with the statistic number and original source.