The Succession Blind Spot in Go-to-Market Leadership

What would happen if one or two key players on your go-to-market team left tomorrow?  

A seasoned CRO steps out.  

The Vice President who coaches the middle takes a new role.  

You wouldn’t just lose a title – you’d feel the impact immediately:  

• Forecasts lose signal 

• Pipeline coverage shifts 

• Deals stall at critical moments 

• Decision-making slows 

Our 2025 GTM Leadership & Insights Study shows how common internal disruption has become. Fifty-two percent of respondents cited leadership changes or shifts in strategic direction as a top internal factor impacting performance. 

Leadership change is inevitable. The question is: Have you built continuity into your operating model? 

Without a well-defined succession plan and a ready-now (or soon) bench, a single departure can lead to months, or even quarters, of avoidable instability across your go-to-market function. Succession planning isn’t a last-minute replacement strategy. It’s the discipline of knowing who’s ready before a vacancy arises. 

Why Succession Risk Stays Invisible

Leadership gaps not only create immediate coverage problems; they expose whether the organization was built for continuity in the first place.  

Many teams conflate two different types of risk: 

• Turnover risk is the immediate gap when someone leaves: lost output, disrupted relationships, missing coverage.  

• Succession risk is what happens when the organization can’t adjust, when performance declines because continuity was never built into the role. 

Most GTM leaders aren’t deliberately ignoring succession planning. It just gets deprioritized. Quarterly pressure dominates attention, and star performers can mask underlying weakness until it’s too late. Still, there are common reasons why plans fall to the side: 

Quarterly pressure. Senior leaders expect fast, progressive results, which makes it hard to allocate time for internal development. Bench building stalls, and leadership voids appear at the worst times. 

Assumed readiness. Top performers are often presumed ready to step into senior roles. But competence in one role doesn’t guarantee success in another. Readiness should be tested and proven, not presumed. 

An underdeveloped middle. The most consistent performers often receive the least structured development. Without active investment in this group, execution depends heavily on senior oversight, which limits scalability and resilience. 

Managers promoted without a system. Sales ability alone does not prove leadership. Future managers need mentorship, coaching, and measurable milestones before they earn the role. 

Succession on paper, not in practice. Many companies have a succession document, but it’s static, rarely revisited, and lacks clear ownership. Without cadence and accountability, succession remains theoretical. 

The Bench Test for Continuity  

One of the most practical and effective ways to assess succession risk is to run a bench test. 

If a key member of the GTM team suddenly left, what would the first 48 hours look like? 

Consider each of these areas: 

Forecasting: Can another team member step in and accurately forecast the next 30, 60, 90 days? Without clear ownership, deal stages get misinterpreted, and pipeline health becomes unclear. 

Deal execution: Will deals survive the transition? Momentum stalls when judgment calls, negotiation strategy, and account planning lose experienced leadership. 

Account coverage: Will key accounts stay engaged? Customers notice delays, mixed messaging, and unfamiliar faces – and competitors notice the opening. 

Coaching and onboarding: Will the middle still get developed? When leaders shift entirely to firefighting, rep development and new-hire support disappear, and the bench stays thin. 

If the answers to these questions aren’t clear, succession risk may already be present.  

What Continuity Actually Requires 

Few disruptions expose operational fragility faster than a leadership departure. That’s why succession cannot be treated as a one-time exercise. It requires sustained attention and deliberate development – particularly in the middle layers of the organization. 

The discipline starts with mapping the bench. For every revenue-critical role, leaders should know: 

• Who’s ready now 

• Who’s ready in six months 

• Who’s still emerging 

That clarity turns succession from a document into a decision-making tool.  

It also requires honest assessment. In some cases, internal talent is ready to step in. In others, the bench has not been tested deeply enough. When gaps remain, an external perspective can help calibrate readiness, benchmark leadership capability, and protect execution. 

The best GTM leaders aren’t just building a team. They’re building a team that makes them replaceable. See how leadership changes are reshaping GTM performance in our full 2025 JM Search GTM Leadership & Insights Study.