Succession planning reveals something about leadership that performance reviews rarely capture: whether a strong leader built an organization that can continue carrying weight when that leader is no longer carrying all of it personally.
That sounds obvious. Yet organizations routinely reward the opposite signal.
The executive who knows every important customer can look indispensable. The leader who approves every major decision can look deeply engaged. The founder who remembers every piece of institutional history can look irreplaceable. Likewise, the manager whose team constantly needs intervention can appear exceptionally valuable because their presence seems necessary everywhere.
Sometimes that dependence reflects genuine excellence. A strong leader may possess years of judgment, trusted relationships, institutional memory, political capital, technical understanding, and credibility that cannot be transferred overnight.
However, dependency still creates a structural question:
How much of that leadership value has become organizational capability, and how much of it still exists only inside one person?
That is where succession planning becomes more than an HR exercise. It becomes a test of leadership itself.
The Culture Ledger Question
If the organization becomes fragile when one excellent leader leaves, how much institutional value did that leadership actually create?
Why Succession Planning Is Really a Leadership Question
Succession planning is usually discussed as preparation for departure. Who takes over when the CEO retires? Who can replace the division president? Which vice president is ready for the next role?
Those questions matter. Still, they arrive too late if succession begins only when the vacancy becomes visible.
A stronger model starts much earlier. It asks whether leadership responsibility, judgment, institutional knowledge, critical relationships, and decision-making capacity are being developed throughout the organization while the current leader is still there.
That turns succession planning from a replacement event into a leadership-development system.
The Succession Problem Is Larger Than the CEO
Organizations can become fragile around people far below the C-suite.
A plant manager may know every workaround in an aging facility. A sales leader may personally own the relationships behind a large percentage of revenue. A department head may be the only person who understands why a critical process works the way it does.
Meanwhile, a senior editor may carry years of institutional judgment that nobody has documented, while a middle manager quietly coordinates teams whose formal structures do not explain how the work actually gets done.
When those people leave, the organization discovers the real balance sheet: some assets belonged to the institution, while others were merely sitting inside an employee.
Groundwork Definition
Leadership Concentration Risk
The institutional vulnerability created when too much decision authority, knowledge, trust, relationship capital, operational judgment, or organizational memory remains concentrated in one leader rather than being converted into broader organizational capacity.
Indispensable Leadership Can Be an Asset—and a Warning
Culture often prices indispensability as evidence of leadership value. The logic seems reasonable: if everyone needs the leader, the leader must be important. Sometimes that is exactly right.
The strongest person in a system may legitimately handle the hardest decisions. Experience creates advantages. Reputation opens doors. Trusted relationships take years to build. Judgment compounds through exposure to consequences that cannot be simulated completely.
The problem appears when the organization begins confusing value with dependency.
A Valuable Leader Should Not Become the Only Bridge
Imagine an executive who personally maintains every major external relationship. That may strengthen the company in the short term.
However, if no one else can speak credibly with those customers, partners, regulators, donors, investors, or institutional allies, the relationship is not fully organizational yet.
The same issue appears with decisions. A leader may make excellent calls, but if capable managers gradually stop deciding because every difficult issue travels upward, personal competence can accidentally reduce organizational competence.
In that situation, the leader gets stronger while the surrounding system gets weaker.
This is the same structural risk examined in Charisma Is a Volatile Asset. Personal capability can create extraordinary acceleration. Yet when too much organizational value depends on continued proximity to one individual, the asset begins carrying concentration risk.
Heroic Leadership Can Hide Weak Architecture
A talented leader can compensate for poor systems for a surprisingly long time. They remember what nobody documented, resolve conflicts that unclear accountability keeps creating, make calls managers were never taught to make, and protect important relationships personally.
They may also know which unofficial workaround keeps a flawed process alive.
Because the leader continually rescues the institution, performance can remain respectable. Then the person leaves, and what looked like leadership strength is suddenly revealed as unpaid structural debt.
If one excellent leader has to compensate for the same weak system every day, the organization may be consuming leadership rather than converting it into capacity.
Succession Planning Is Harder Than Organizations Admit
The difficulty is not a secret.
Wharton Executive Education reported in 2026 that 86 percent of more than 2,500 surveyed business leaders considered succession planning critical to organizational success. At the same time, 70 percent said long-term succession planning can feel futile in a fast-changing environment.
That tension makes sense. Organizations know continuity matters, yet the job itself may change before the planned successor ever takes it.
The Future Role May Not Look Like the Current One
A company can spend years preparing someone to inherit today’s leadership job only to discover that technology, competition, regulation, strategy, workforce expectations, or organizational design changed the requirements.
Therefore, succession planning cannot simply ask who resembles the current executive most closely. It has to ask what leadership capabilities the institution will likely need next.
That changes the unit of analysis. Instead of developing a replacement for one person, the organization develops a deeper pool of people capable of operating under changing conditions.
This is also why the Groundwork principle Structure Builds Freedom belongs here. Optionality becomes more durable when multiple capable pathways exist before the original path becomes unavailable.
Formal Plans Are Still Far From Universal
SHRM reported in early 2026 that only 22 percent of HR leaders surveyed in 2025 said their organization had a formal succession plan.
A written plan does not guarantee readiness. Still, the gap illustrates how frequently organizations recognize succession as strategically important without turning that recognition into a durable operating practice.
That is the difference between awareness and architecture.
Replacement Planning Is Not the Same as Succession Planning
This distinction carries much of the article.
Replacement planning asks who takes the job. Succession planning asks whether the institution has enough leadership capacity to continue operating, adapting, and making decisions through the transition.
The difference is substantial.
A Name in a Box Is Not Leadership Readiness
An organization can identify a successor years in advance and still be badly prepared.
The candidate may have the title trajectory but not the relationships. They may understand strategy but lack operating experience. Perhaps they have never handled the political pressure attached to the senior role.
Critical customers may barely know them, while the board may never have watched them make a difficult decision. Meanwhile, the organization may have transferred very little institutional knowledge.
In that case, the succession chart looks complete while the transition system remains thin.
Succession Planning Should Create Readiness Before Selection
SHRM describes modern succession planning as a future-oriented process of identifying the knowledge, skills, and abilities required for critical functions and developing people who may eventually perform them.
That framing matters because preparation is not the same as pre-selection.
Several people can become more ready even though not all of them will receive the job. The development still creates value because managers gain broader experience, knowledge spreads, relationships deepen, and leadership risk becomes less concentrated.
The institution becomes stronger even before anyone leaves.
Watch This
Do Not Turn Succession Into a Secret Coronation
Developing several future-ready leaders is healthier than quietly deciding years in advance that one person is the heir. Readiness should expand organizational capacity even when the final leadership choice remains open.
Strong Succession Planning Transfers Load Before the Transition
A leadership transition should not be the first time responsibility moves. By then, the institution is already operating under pressure.
The transfer should happen earlier. Decision authority moves in selected areas. Relationship ownership expands. Critical knowledge gets documented and taught. Emerging leaders handle increasingly consequential work.
Senior leaders remain available, but they stop being the only capable point in the system.
Transfer Decisions, Not Just Tasks
Delegation can remain shallow. A manager gives someone work but keeps all judgment, so the employee executes while the leader still makes every meaningful choice.
That distributes labor. It does not necessarily distribute leadership capacity.
Succession planning requires more. Future leaders need exposure to ambiguity, tradeoffs, incomplete information, stakeholder pressure, resource constraints, and consequences.
They also need room to make bounded decisions and learn from the results. Otherwise, the organization may create excellent assistants rather than credible successors.
Transfer Context Along With Authority
Decision authority without context can produce avoidable mistakes.
A strong senior leader often knows why an apparently irrational policy exists, remembers which prior strategy failed and why, understands the history behind a difficult stakeholder relationship, and sees second-order consequences because they have watched similar decisions unfold before.
That judgment cannot be copied into a document completely. Still, it can be transferred deliberately.
Explain the reasoning. Expose emerging leaders to important conversations. Review decisions after the fact. Teach what changed your mind. Most importantly, make institutional memory available before somebody needs it in a crisis.
Knowledge Transfer Is Part of Leadership Succession
Succession conversations often become overly focused on titles, but knowledge moves differently.
Some knowledge can be documented. Some is relational or political. Other lessons become visible only through experience.
That makes knowledge transfer an operating discipline rather than an exit checklist.
Write Down What Can Be Written Down
Organizations should not romanticize tribal knowledge.
If a process can be documented, document it. If decision criteria can be made visible, make them visible. If key relationships need context, preserve enough context for the next person to understand them.
Likewise, if recurring failures have known causes, stop requiring future leaders to rediscover them from scratch.
Documentation does not replace judgment. It prevents judgment from wasting energy reconstructing information the institution already paid to learn.
Some Wisdom Has to Be Experienced
Other knowledge cannot be transferred through a manual.
A future leader may need to sit in the difficult meeting, own a negotiation, explain disappointing results to senior stakeholders, or make a call where every option creates a cost.
This is why CCL’s current succession work emphasizes developing future-ready leaders and transferring critical knowledge rather than merely maintaining static lists of names.
Leadership readiness is built through exposure.
The Best Succession Plan Is a Leadership Pipeline
The strongest institution does not bet everything on one future executive. It develops depth.
Several managers become more capable. More people understand the business. Important relationships gain multiple trusted points of contact. Decision rights become clearer, while potential leaders receive progressively larger assignments.
As a result, the organization gains options.
Succession Depth Creates Strategic Optionality
Imagine two organizations facing an unexpected senior departure.
The first has one named successor. Unfortunately, that person leaves for another company three months before the vacancy occurs. The plan has effectively disappeared.
The second organization has developed several leaders with different strengths. None is a perfect replica of the departing executive, but each has meaningful experience, relationships, context, and demonstrated judgment.
The board now has choices.
That is not redundancy for its own sake. It is strategic resilience.
Development Should Be Valuable Even Without Promotion
Leadership development fails when every developmental opportunity becomes an implied promise of promotion.
Organizations need a larger pool than the number of available senior seats. Therefore, people must be able to become more capable without automatically receiving the top role.
The development still matters. A stronger vice president is valuable even if someone else becomes CEO. A more capable plant manager remains useful even if the regional role goes elsewhere.
Likewise, a leader who learns to carry larger decisions can strengthen the institution from multiple positions.
Succession planning should increase organizational capability, not merely produce winners and losers in an internal tournament.
Leadership Succession Also Tests the Current Leader’s Ego
There is a human problem underneath the structural one.
Developing successors means helping other people become capable of doing work that once made you special. That can be uncomfortable.
A leader may sincerely support development while unconsciously retaining the most important decisions, relationships, or visibility. The organization says it wants successors, but the senior leader keeps all the oxygen.
Development Requires Giving Away Meaningful Work
You cannot prepare someone for senior responsibility using only safe assignments. They need work with consequence.
That means the current leader must tolerate a certain amount of controlled imperfection. The emerging leader may approach an issue differently, move more slowly at first, or ask questions the senior leader no longer needs to ask.
They may even make a defensible call the incumbent would not have made.
That difference is not automatically failure. Succession should produce capable leadership, not replicas.
A Successor Should Not Have to Become a Copy
This matters culturally too.
Organizations can turn a successful incumbent into the template for what leadership is supposed to look like. Future candidates then get evaluated by resemblance: same communication style, same temperament, same career path, same relationships, same instincts.
That can protect continuity while quietly destroying adaptation.
The next environment may require different strengths. Therefore, the goal is to transfer the institution’s durable capabilities without freezing its leadership identity in place.
Succession Planning Should Extend Beyond People
There is another weak assumption inside traditional succession discussions: organizations often act as if continuity is primarily about finding another person.
Sometimes the deeper problem is the role itself.
Perhaps one executive controls too many decisions. Maybe critical knowledge is concentrated because the process was never designed to distribute it. The reporting structure may also create bottlenecks no successor should inherit.
In those cases, replacing the leader without redesigning the system simply transfers the fragility.
The Vacancy Can Reveal a Design Problem
Before filling a critical role, ask whether the role should remain exactly as it was.
Which responsibilities still belong together? Which decisions could move downward? What knowledge should become institutional rather than positional? Which relationships need broader ownership?
Most importantly, where has the organization been relying on one person’s unusual stamina, memory, or judgment to compensate for structural weakness?
Succession can be a redesign opportunity. Used well, leadership transition does not merely restore the old structure. It improves it.
Succession Planning Is Also a Culture Test
Formal programs matter, but culture decides whether they work.
Does the organization reward leaders for developing people, or for being irreplaceable? Are managers celebrated when their people get promoted, or treated as if losing strong talent weakens their standing?
Can emerging leaders receive visibility without threatening the incumbent?
Those incentives shape succession long before a spreadsheet is updated.
Organizations Get More of What They Reward
If prestige belongs to the person who knows everything, people will hoard knowledge.
If status belongs to the leader whose team cannot function without them, dependency becomes proof of importance. Likewise, if high performers leave a manager’s team only after that manager develops them, some managers will learn to protect talent rather than release it.
Those are not individual character failures alone. They are incentive failures.
A serious succession culture has to make development itself a leadership outcome. The leader who creates stronger leaders should receive credit for creating institutional capacity.
The Groundwork Succession Test
A succession plan should do more than identify a replacement.
Use this framework to test whether leadership value is actually becoming institutional value.
Groundwork Framework
The Succession Test
1. Decision Transfer
Can capable leaders make increasingly consequential decisions without unnecessary escalation to the senior leader?
2. Knowledge Continuity
Has critical institutional knowledge been documented, taught, experienced, or distributed beyond one person’s memory?
3. Relationship Depth
Do important customers, partners, employees, regulators, donors, investors, or stakeholders trust more than one person inside the institution?
4. Leadership Depth
Are several people becoming more capable, or is the organization betting continuity on one named heir?
5. Operating Independence
Can teams and managers continue functioning at a high standard when the senior leader is unavailable?
6. Development Exposure
Are future leaders receiving real responsibility, difficult assignments, feedback, and opportunities to exercise judgment before the transition?
7. Institutional Memory
Can the organization explain why major systems, standards, relationships, and decisions evolved the way they did?
8. Transition Durability
If leadership changed tomorrow, which parts of the organization would continue normally—and which would reveal that too much value was still concentrated in one person?
The Test Is Not Designed to Make Leaders Disposable
A great leader should be difficult to replace perfectly. That is normal because people are not interchangeable parts.
The Succession Test asks a narrower question: has the organization become unnecessarily fragile because the leader failed to distribute enough capacity?
Those are different standards. The goal is not replaceability. The goal is continuity.
How Leaders Can Build Succession Before They Are Ready to Leave
The best time to build succession is when departure still feels distant, because distance removes panic from the process.
Give Other Leaders Real Decisions
Start by identifying decisions that do not require senior-level ownership anymore. Move them deliberately, clarify boundaries, and define what still requires escalation.
Then resist the urge to reclaim every decision merely because another capable person handles it differently.
Expand Relationship Ownership
Bring future leaders into consequential relationships before a transition forces the introduction.
Customers should know them. Partners should trust them. Boards should observe them. Teams should experience their judgment.
Relationship continuity becomes stronger when trust is broadened gradually rather than transferred ceremonially on the last day.
Make Judgment Visible
Senior leaders often underestimate how much reasoning happens silently.
Explain why. What information mattered? Which risk changed the decision? What tradeoff was accepted? Which option looked attractive but failed a deeper test?
Future leaders need access to the reasoning architecture, not merely the final answer.
Build More Than One Candidate
Do not force the organization to predict one future too early.
Develop several people, give them different assignments, watch how they perform, and let evidence accumulate.
Succession planning becomes more resilient when the institution has options rather than a prophecy.
What Boards and Senior Teams Should Measure
Boards frequently focus on whether a successor exists. They should also ask whether succession capacity exists.
Ask About Readiness, Not Just Names
Who could take the role now? Who could become credible within one year? Who might be ready in three years?
Then ask what experiences are missing, which important relationships remain too concentrated, and where critical knowledge still lives in one person’s head.
Those questions turn succession into a moving readiness system.
Audit Dependency Around the Incumbent
The more successful the leader, the more important this becomes.
Which meetings stop without them? Which decisions wait? Which customers insist on speaking only to them? Which managers defer issues they should already own?
Finally, which systems depend on undocumented judgment?
Those points identify leadership concentration risk before the vacancy exposes it publicly.
Succession Is One of the Cleanest Tests of Leadership Legacy
Legacy is often discussed sentimentally. What did the leader accomplish? How much did the institution grow? Which transformation happened during their tenure?
Those questions matter. Yet another question may reveal more:
What became possible for other people because this person led?
Did Capability Compound?
A leader arrives with judgment. Over time, did more people gain judgment?
The leader arrives with relationships. Did institutional relationships deepen beyond them?
They arrive with expertise. Did knowledge spread?
The leader carries authority. Did other people learn to carry responsibility?
They know the standards. Did those standards become part of the institution?
This connects directly to Leverage Is Currency. Leadership creates more durable value when capability can travel beyond the person’s direct labor and become embedded in systems, people, ownership, knowledge, and infrastructure.
The Organization Is the Asset
The strongest leader is not necessarily the person whose absence is never felt.
A great leader can leave an enormous gap. But the gap should not become a crater.
People should still know what matters. Managers should still make decisions. Customers should still trust the institution. Standards should still hold. Knowledge should still exist.
Most importantly, future leaders should already be capable of carrying more.
That is how personal leadership becomes institutional value.
What This Means
Indispensability and Leadership Value Are Not the Same Asset
A strong leader can be extraordinarily valuable without making the institution permanently dependent on them. Succession planning tests whether judgment, relationships, knowledge, authority, and capability are gradually becoming part of the organization rather than remaining concentrated in one person.
Frequently Asked Questions About Succession Planning
What is succession planning?
Succession planning is the structured process of preparing an organization for future leadership and critical-role transitions. Strong succession planning identifies important capabilities, develops potential future leaders, transfers knowledge, expands relationships, and reduces unnecessary dependency on individual incumbents.
Why is succession planning important?
Succession planning protects leadership continuity. It also strengthens development before any vacancy occurs. Organizations can use the process to distribute knowledge, deepen leadership capacity, reduce concentration risk, and create more options when planned or unexpected transitions happen.
What is the difference between succession planning and replacement planning?
Replacement planning focuses mainly on who will fill a role when it becomes vacant. Succession planning is broader. It develops leadership readiness, institutional knowledge, decision capacity, relationships, and multiple potential leaders so the organization remains capable through change.
When should succession planning begin?
Before a departure becomes urgent. Leadership succession is stronger when future leaders receive difficult assignments, relationship exposure, decision authority, feedback, and institutional context while experienced leaders are still available to guide development.
Should every organization have a named successor?
Not necessarily. Some organizations may need identified emergency successors for critical roles. However, long-term leadership continuity is generally stronger when the institution develops several future-ready leaders rather than depending on one predetermined heir.
Is succession planning only for CEOs?
No. Leadership continuity can become fragile around any critical role where knowledge, relationships, technical expertise, operational judgment, or decision authority are highly concentrated. Strong succession systems extend beyond the C-suite.
How does succession planning reduce risk?
It reduces risk by spreading critical knowledge, developing leadership depth, creating relationship continuity, clarifying decision rights, documenting institutional memory, and giving future leaders experience before a transition forces them to learn under emergency conditions.
What makes a good succession plan?
A good succession plan creates readiness rather than merely listing names. It identifies future leadership requirements, develops several capable people, transfers knowledge and relationships, provides real decision experience, measures progress, and remains adaptable as the organization changes.
Receipts
The evidence underneath the argument—and the boundaries on what it can establish.
Wharton Executive Education — Succession Planning, Reimagined
Evidence: Wharton reports that in a global survey of more than 2,500 business leaders, 86 percent said succession planning is critical to organizational success, while 70 percent said long-term succession planning can feel futile in today’s rapidly changing environment.
Why it matters: Organizations broadly recognize the importance of continuity while simultaneously struggling with the uncertainty involved in preparing leaders for roles whose future requirements may change.
SHRM — What HR Leaders Need to Know About Succession Planning in 2026
Evidence: SHRM reports that only 22 percent of HR leaders surveyed in 2025 said their organization had a formal succession plan.
Why it matters: The finding illustrates a gap between the strategic importance organizations place on leadership continuity and the degree to which formal succession architecture has actually been established.
Center for Creative Leadership — Succession Planning Reimagined
Evidence: CCL’s current succession work argues for moving beyond static lists of successor names toward dynamic networks of future-ready leaders and stronger connections between succession planning and leadership development.
Why it matters: Succession becomes more resilient when the organization builds leadership depth rather than depending on a single predicted replacement for each critical role.
SHRM — Why Succession Planning Should Go Beyond the C-Suite
Evidence: SHRM argues that succession planning should extend beyond senior executives and include scalable systems for leadership development and knowledge transfer deeper in the organization.
Why it matters: Institutional dependency can accumulate around critical managers, specialists, and operational leaders as easily as it can around a CEO.
SHRM — Modernize Succession Planning for Better Results
Evidence: SHRM describes succession planning as a future-oriented process focused on identifying the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed for critical functions and developing people who could potentially perform them. The guidance emphasizes preparation rather than automatic pre-selection.
Why it matters: The distinction supports developing a broader pool of capable leaders instead of treating succession as a secret commitment to one heir.
Center for Creative Leadership — Wisdom Transfer for Leadership Transitions
Evidence: CCL emphasizes the transfer of critical knowledge and leadership wisdom as part of preparing future leaders rather than relying only on paper succession candidates.
Why it matters: Leadership continuity depends partly on whether institutional memory, judgment, and context can travel beyond the incumbent before a transition occurs.
Harvard Business Review — Where Traditional Succession Planning Falls Short
Context: HBR’s 2025 analysis argues that many traditional succession approaches remain too reactive and should shift from narrow replacement exercises toward broader future readiness.
Why it matters: A succession process can appear complete on paper while failing to build the leadership capacity needed for a changing organization.
Evidence Boundary
These sources support the strategic importance of succession planning, the gap between recognized importance and formal practice, the value of developing multiple future-ready leaders, the need for knowledge transfer, and the movement away from narrow replacement planning. They do not prove that every highly indispensable leader has failed, establish one universal succession model for every organization, or show that leadership transitions can be made risk-free. Leadership Concentration Risk and The Succession Test are Groundwork Daily analytical frameworks built from these mechanisms.
The Groundwork: Build an Organization That Can Carry More Than You
Succession planning should not begin with the question, “Who gets my job?”
Start with a harder one:
What does the institution still need me personally to carry that it should eventually be capable of carrying without me?
Transfer Judgment
Do not merely hand off tasks. Explain decisions, expose other leaders to the tradeoffs, and give them responsibility before an emergency forces the issue.
Transfer Relationships
Expand trust before succession becomes public. Introduce capable leaders into important relationships while continuity still feels normal rather than urgent.
Transfer Knowledge
Document what can be documented. Teach what must be taught. Then create experience where a document cannot carry the lesson.
Transfer Authority
Move decisions to the lowest level capable of making them well. Afterward, allow evidence to show whether the capability is actually there.
Build Depth
Develop several people—not one clone, one favorite, or one person whose departure would simply create another succession crisis.
Test the Structure
Take a real vacation. Step out of recurring decisions. Let a capable manager own an important meeting. Then observe what stops.
Whatever cannot move without you is telling you something.
That signal should not automatically offend your ego. It should improve the system.
Leadership value is not reduced when other people become more capable. It compounds.
Great leadership does not merely carry the organization. It builds enough capacity for the organization to keep carrying the load when leadership changes.
Groundwork Principle
Build What Holds
A leadership system should face the same durability test as any other structure.
Load. Pressure. Maintenance. Transfer. Durability.
Succession is the transfer test.
If the institution cannot carry the load after leadership changes, too much of the structure may have been standing on the individual.
Continue the Build
Further Groundwork
→ The Executive Presence Trap
Looking like a leader can create opportunity. Leadership effectiveness is tested by what the organization becomes capable of carrying.
→ Charisma Is a Volatile Asset
Personal influence can accelerate trust and coordination while creating risk when the institution becomes overly dependent on its source.
→ Accountability Is a Form of Strength
Leadership gets stronger when standards and correction can reach the people with the most authority.
→ Leverage Is Currency: Turning Ideas Into Equity
Explore how capability becomes more valuable when systems and assets allow its value to travel beyond one person’s direct labor.
→ Explore Culture Ledger
Follow the gap between what culture teaches us to value and what actually produces durable value.
Explore the Category
Culture, Media & Leadership
Leadership is partly cultural valuation. Institutions decide what authority should look like, which behaviors deserve promotion, whose knowledge gets protected, and whether being needed everywhere is evidence of value or evidence of dependency.
→ Explore Culture, Media & Leadership
→ Explore Culture Ledger
Culture Ledger
Keep the Ledger
See what culture is overpricing before you build your life around it.
Attention can masquerade as value. Intensity can masquerade as connection. Prestige can hide weak fundamentals. Culture Ledger follows those gaps and asks what is actually carrying the weight.
Get the next Groundwork analysis on leadership, institutions, culture, incentives, ownership, trust, and the systems underneath what we are taught to value.
Meet the Builder
André Toussaint
Culture Ledger | Culture, Media & Leadership
André Toussaint is the Builder behind Groundwork Daily, where he examines what sits beneath everyday outcomes and what might work better. In Culture Ledger, he follows the gap between what culture teaches us to value and what actually produces durable value.