Three corporate presidents, one vice-president, two chairmen and six CEOs were gone. As their colleagues scrambled to fill the resulting leadership gaps, most would quickly discover that, like many American corporations, theirs had neither the "bench strength" nor the necessary succession plans to replace, not just the top leaders, but even leaders well below this level.

A survey of 502 human resource professionals, conducted in 1996 by Foresight Survey Systems International of Chicago, indicated that 63% of the organizations polled did not have a well-developed management succession plan.

It is difficult to understand why this is true. Why do organizations meticulously plan their capital requirements, product development, distribution systems, advertising, and so forth, yet fail to deal with their current and future "people requirements."

The current business environment contributes somewhat to this omission in planning. Thanks to downsizing, organizations must choose their successors from an ever-shrinking talent pool. Their inability to offer long-term employment means a less stable, less loyal work force. Good candidates, pursuing unpredictable career paths, often move on before a growth opportunity becomes available.

Of course, corporate motives don't have to be rational. Thinking of ourselves as replaceable can be rough on the ego. Few of us are comfortable with the thought of an overly ambitious successor waiting in the wings. Cajoling executives into discussing their own "planned obsolescence" is at least as difficult as convincing a 20-year-old to buy life insurance.