The CIO succession gap nobody admits

I have sat with three CIOs in the last two years who wanted to leave their seat and could not. One was being recruited into a larger enterprise role. One was ready to retire. One had been offered a board seat that required stepping down. In every case, the same thing stopped them. When the CEO asked who could step in, the CIO could not give a credible name. The person they had been calling their number two was technically brilliant and operationally reliable, and every one of them had been groomed into an architect, not a leader. The board would not approve an external hire during an active transformation. So the CIO stayed. One of them is still stuck.

The CIO role has the weakest succession bench in the C-suite, and most CIOs discover it the same way those three did. Not during a quarterly talent review. Not during a board retreat. They discover it the moment they try to leave. By then, the decision is already made for them. This is a leadership design problem CIOs build into their own orgs, and they inherit it when it is too late to fix quickly.

The architect trap

I have watched the same pattern form in almost every IT organization I have worked in. The people who rise to the top of the CIO’s direct reports are the ones who can hold the most architectural complexity in their heads. They are the ones the CIO trusts with the platform decisions, the vendor consolidations, the integration maps. They earn that trust legitimately. They are excellent at what they do.

But architectural trust is a different currency than leadership trust. When a CIO promotes based on architectural depth, what they get is a deputy who can design the org but cannot run it. I have seen deputies who have never owned a P&L conversation with a CFO. Deputies who have never delivered hard news to a business unit president. Deputies who have never had to defend a budget line item in a room full of people trying to take it from them. They were not hiding from those conversations. The CIO was holding the conversations for them because the CIO was good at those conversations and the deputy was good at the architecture.

The result is a bench that looks deep from inside the IT org and looks empty from the boardroom. I have watched a CEO walk out of a succession conversation saying, “I like your people, but I cannot see any of them in your chair.” That is not a compliment to the CIO. That is a verdict on how the CIO built the team.

Three moves I make before I need them

After watching this happen enough times, I stopped treating succession as something I would address later and started treating it as a design choice I had to make inside my first year. I changed how I build the bench in three ways, and I make each move early enough that the person has time to grow into it or fail out of it.

First, I give them a standing decision domain, not a “next in line” title. A deputy who is told they are being groomed for the CIO seat will manage their career instead of their work. A deputy who is given full authority over, say, all vendor escalations above a defined threshold will start making real decisions in real rooms with real consequences. That is where judgment gets built. The domain has to be something I would otherwise own myself. If I am still approving everything inside it, I am building a forwarder, not a successor.

Second, I put them in rooms where they have to lose something. One of the most damaging things a CIO can do is protect a high-potential deputy from conflict. I used to do this without realizing it. I would pull the hard conversations back to my level because I wanted to spare the deputy the political damage. The deputy came out looking clean and came out completely unprepared. Now I deliberately put deputies into conversations where they have to defend a position against a peer executive who will push back hard. Sometimes they hold the line. Sometimes they fold. Either outcome tells me something I needed to know before anyone was counting on them.

Third, I make the bench visible to the board before I have to. If the board does not know my top two or three deputies by name and track record, I do not have a succession plan. I have private notes. The CIOs I described at the beginning of this article all had deputies they believed in. None of those deputies had ever presented to the board on anything substantive. The board had no reference point. So when the succession question came up, the deputies did not exist in the board’s imagination, and the CIO’s personal endorsement was not enough to create them.

The first time I put a deputy in front of the board, they came back different. The board did not go easy on them. They came back knowing what a board conversation actually feels like, which meant the next one would not be a first impression. The board needs reps with my deputies before the seat is vacant. Once it is vacant, the reps are a job interview and a job interview is not where anyone does their best work.

What the gap actually costs

The cost of a shallow bench is not abstract. I have seen CIOs delay their own career moves by eighteen months or longer because they could not produce a credible successor. I have seen organizations pay two and a half times market to hire externally because the internal candidate did not survive a board interview. I have seen transformations stall because the CIO could not delegate enough to step back and think, because there was no one qualified to hold what they put down.

The cost to the deputies is also real. The architect-track deputy who spends six or seven years being the CIO’s most trusted technical lieutenant, and then gets passed over for the CIO role because the board does not see a leader, rarely recovers that momentum. Some of them leave. Some of them stay and quietly disengage. A few of them become the reason the new CIO’s first ninety days are harder than they should be. None of that is the deputy’s fault. It is the consequence of a design choice the previous CIO made years earlier, usually without knowing they were making it.

CIO.com has published strong guidance on this, including work on grow your own CIO strategies that treat succession as a deliberate pipeline rather than an accident of tenure.

The test is simple. If you had to leave in ninety days, could you hand the CEO a name and get a nod? If you cannot picture that nod, you do not have a successor. You have a list of people you like and trust, which is not the same thing. The successor you can actually name is the one you built on purpose, not the one who happened to look ready when the chair emptied. I have learned this by watching peers run out of time to build what they meant to build. I am trying not to be one of them.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?