Determinants Linked to Executive Succession Planning in Public Sector Organizations

Abstract

Succession planning is important for organizational growth and business sustainability in the public sector. However, few organizations have attempted to introduce the concept and practice. This article aimed to identify and prioritize the factors that influence executive succession planning in the public sector in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), using the analytic hierarchy process. A model was developed with 5 criteria and 29 sub-criteria and tested using data collected from 40 interviews with top executives from various public sector organizations. The findings showed that succession planning strategy, organizational culture and leadership development opportunities were the most significant factors linked to executive succession planning in the UAE public sector. A framework for decision-makers was developed which could be used to overcome some of the challenges of executive succession planning. It is hoped that this study will help policymakers to formulate suitable policies and strategies to promote executive succession planning in public sector organizations. It will also help them to implement best practice in this field.

Keywords

Succession Planning Succession Planning Management Executive Succession Planning High Potential UAE Public Sector

Executive Summary

The aim of this study was to identify and prioritize the factors promoting executive succession planning in public sector organizations in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Several researchers have studied succession planning in various national contexts and organizations, but few have examined succession planning in the UAE or Middle East. This study used the analytic hierarchy process, a structured multi-criteria decision-making approach, to investigate possible criteria and provide a best-fit solution to this problem. A questionnaire was designed in the form of pairwise comparisons based on the proposed hierarchical structure. It used a nine-point rating scale to indicate the relative importance of each criterion or sub-criterion in the hierarchy. The study sample was selected from the top-performing public sector organizations in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, UAE.

The respondents were given 5 main criteria and 29 sub-criteria for assessment. They felt that the most important factors in executive succession planning were succession planning strategy, organizational culture and leadership development opportunities. All these factors were identified from previous studies.

Of the 29 sub-criteria, detection of successor candidates and succession planning framework were considered the most important. Knowledge management, particularly knowledge transfer, has previously been found to influence executive succession planning and to provide competitive advantages. The process is also affected by changes in the culture of the institution, so organizations need to foster a culture of trust and care. Respondents also indicated that leadership development, when linked to leadership competencies, has a positive impact on senior management effectiveness. Like previous studies, our findings suggested that organizations are moving away from classic replacement planning to a more inclusive approach focused mainly on the development of internal talent pools. This approach addressed change management and the fulfilment of the organizational mission and strategy.

Generally, the results support the initial assumptions that succession planning is influenced by five main factors, namely succession planning strategy, knowledge management opportunities, organizational culture, leadership development opportunities and management commitment towards leadership transition.

Introduction

Strategic succession planning is important for organizational survival, business continuity, competitive advantage and profitability (Elliott et al., 2016; Motwani et al., 2006). However, it may also be disruptive (Kesner & Sebora, 1994) because it involves change. Wiesman and Baker (2013) defined succession planning management as a way to guarantee leadership continuity in critical roles and to maintain and nurture intellectual capital and organizational knowledge. It enables organizations to reach their goals by assuring the availability of suitable talent to meet the challenges of turbulent business environments (Alvani et al., 2016). Organizations have started to move away from classic replacement planning to an approach involving the development of internal talent pools (Gothard & Austin, 2013).

Like many other countries, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) suffers from both a shortage of qualified executives in several sectors and poor quality of available talent (Hannawi & Salmi, 2014), and demand for well-trained, motivated employees is high. Workforce challenges vary both within and among countries, because of culture, economy and politics (Hannawi & Salmi, 2014). It is therefore important to develop strategic plans to address the enablers who promote executive succession planning in the public sector in the UAE. The public sector in the UAE comprises government entities, Sheikh’s courts (Diwans), state-owned enterprises, regulatory, security and advisory agencies (UAE, 2020).

To date, there has been little research on succession planning in the UAE, although it has acknowledged benefits to public and private sector organizations (Richards, 2008). Vinod et al. (2014) examined cooperation between educational institutions and companies to ensure that college graduates had the skills required for employment. Oudah et al. (2018) discussed the factors leading to family business sustainability in the UAE. They suggested that this issue can only be addressed through strategic programmes, including for succession planning, but they found very few such programmes. Allagui and Al-Najjar (2018) explored the empowerment of women in the UAE as a strategy for national branding. They noted that there has been a recent focus on women in management posts in corporate, political and government agencies. However, most previous studies focused on either family or general succession planning. Few, if any, studies have addressed executive succession planning in public sector organizations in the UAE. This study therefore aimed to use the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to identify factors promoting executive succession planning in the UAE public sector. It is also expected to provide insights for practitioners, policymakers and researchers about the enablers of executive succession planning in the UAE public sector. In particular, it will:

Address the lack of empirical studies about factors affecting executive succession planning in the UAE public sector.

Identify and prioritize factors using the AHP method.

Encourage UAE public sector bodies to implement the proposed model to support long-term business continuity.

Literature Review

Previous scholars (Brunero et al., 2009) provided several conceptualizations and definitions of succession planning. Kesner and Sebora (1994) defined it as a company’s lifeline and suggested that business leaders were critical to its effectiveness. Rayburn et al. (2016) described succession planning as a necessary process for business continuity and improved productivity. Organizations need succession planning to ensure that there are qualified candidates for key managerial positions (Asumptha & Mathan, 2016). Richards (2008) stated that succession planning delivers profitability and leadership by providing a methodical and transparent process to locate and develop internal talent.

Succession Planning

Researchers have studied succession planning in various national contexts and organizations. For example, in the USA, Zhang and Rajagopalan (2010) reported that less than half of public companies have formal succession planning for chief executives (CEOs), or even an emergency CEO replacement plan. Ojeka et al. (2017) examined firms listed on the Nigerian stock exchange and found that forced internal CEO succession was associated with disorderly and deteriorating performance, and external CEO replacement with improved performance. Vikström and Westerberg (2010) studied Swedish family firms and suggested that the theory of planned behaviour could be useful in succession planning because it helps anticipate successors’ perceived behaviours and controls and delineates the attitudes and norms that affect transition. They suggested that succession planning should be considered across three dimensions, namely attitude, norm and perceived behaviour control. This resulted in a more successful role before transition and better post-transition performance.

Succession Planning in the UAE and Middle East

Few studies have examined succession planning in the UAE and Middle East. There is, therefore, a considerable gap in the conceptual and practical foundations for succession planning, particularly for executives in the public sector. Babey et al. (2016) noted that the number of older employees expected to leave the oil and gas sector between 2011 and 2029 will generate a serious labour shortage. Al Hosis et al. (2012) reported that there was little formal or practical succession planning in Saudi Arabia. Aboradi and Masari (2018) found that small- and medium-sized Saudi enterprises employed several expert expatriates but found it harder to use them as resources to develop Saudi managers and executives. Aldulaimi (2017) noted that succession planning at the Education Ministry in Qatar focused on top-level managers. He suggested that technical skills were not sufficient to develop future leaders and that transparency about when leadership positions will be available is necessary so that potential candidates can plan their careers.

There are questions about whether candidates are best identified internally or externally. Farashah et al. (2011) argued that identifying an internal successor gave immediate positive results and recommended exploring the antecedents and consequences of the process. Kohestany and Yaghoubi (2017) believed that talent management models affected executive succession planning, because talent management aims to retain human resources, enhance employees’ self-esteem, reduce turnover intention and ultimately increase employee satisfaction.

Factors Influencing Executive Succession Planning

Succession planning is influenced by five main factors, namely succession planning strategy, knowledge management opportunities, organizational culture, leadership development opportunities and management commitment towards leadership transition (Table 1). These factors were selected because they were among the most commonly cited in the succession planning literature.

Succession Planning Strategy

Merkus et al. (2019) suggested that organizations should ensure that they were fully ready to implement any new succession planning strategy. Brunero et al. (2009) noted that succession planning has ﬁve key elements, including committing resources. Fulmer et al. (2009) noted that the responsibility for developing future leaders lies with top managers but not many organizations have credible development programmes in place. Development also needs to be linked to business strategy, after defining expectations of selected talent. Murray (2007) suggested that identifying high-potential employees is important to succession planning. The process should start by assessing current leadership readiness status, then move onto evaluating the risks, identifying high-potential employees, developing mentoring programmes and designing individual development plans. Many researchers have examined talent development using sets of competencies (e.g., Boyatzis, 2008; Brunero et al., 2009; Cappelli, 2008; Manning et al., 2015; Murray, 2007; Ojeka et al., 2017). Ojeka et al. (2017) suggested that boards should determine which positions need succession plans, including contingency plans for emergencies. The selection of successors should be reviewed against the competencies required for optimum organizational performance, including attitudes, personal attributes and knowledge (Campion et al., 2011). Vazirani (2010) believed that competencies are the sum of knowledge, skills, self-concepts, traits and motives. These competencies concern behaviours that are the visible results of an idea (Boyatzis, 2008). Most organizations are anxious in selecting suitable successors because this affects corporate performance (Chiang & Yu, 2018). External succession may give better results than internal candidates who may not have the requisite qualities and business acumen (Chiang & Yu, 2018).

Knowledge Management Opportunities

The role of knowledge is to allow organizations to conduct business logically (Asumptha & Mathan, 2016) and to provide competitive advantages (Paulin & Suneson, 2012). Hence, creation of a positive working environment plays a major role in knowledge sharing (Nuaimi & Jabeen, 2020). It is therefore imperative to consider knowledge management programmes. Knowledge transfer in organizations occurs when one subunit benefits from the experience of another (Islam et al., 2015). Harvey (2012) reported that the aging workforce, particularly in developed countries, raises concerns that the knowledge of these older and more experienced employees may vanish when they retire. Al Dari et al. (2018) afﬁrmed that the inspirational leader will succeed in leading the employees and increasing knowledge sharing. The process of knowledge exchange is a precursor of organizational learning (Islam et al., 2015). Knowledge management processes are influenced by organizational design (Claver-Cortés et al., 2007). Appelbaum et al. (2012) stated that succession planning requires changes to both personnel and structures. Organizations need to be aware of this and manage people during transitions to ensure the retention of organizational knowledge. Foerster-Metz et al. (2018) suggested that digitalization influences both organizations and leaders by changing management practices and leadership thinking and actions. This is particularly important to bridge the gap between current and new generations of leaders, and to develop and adapt leadership strategies and methods to fit the new era.

Organizational Culture

A company’s human resources must be effectively distributed to both build economic value and foster a culture of trust and care within the organization (Mirchandani & Ikerd, 2008). Organizational culture is critical for organizational sustainenance (Jabeen & Isakovic, 2018). Executive succession planning is usually affected by changes in the structure and culture of the institution through increased diversity, new technologies, takeovers and reduction in management levels. Organizational culture has a strong mediating influence on executive succession planning and organization growth (Mugo et al., 2015). When an executive is recruited externally, they need intensive orientation about the institutional culture and history to ensure successful alignment and transition (Gothard & Austin, 2013). Executive succession planning is affected by cultural factors such as job security, competition, clarity and availability of advancement options (Mehrtak et al., 2017). The impact on the organization comes from two sources, namely values and beliefs, and trust. For employees, the impact is from commitment, organizational trust, valuing capabilities and rivalry from colleagues (Mehrtak et al., 2017).

Mourougan (2015) called for an enduring leadership culture founded on a common language and organizational values to direct leadership development and keep it focused. He argued that a common language facilitates communication, bridges generational gaps and improves business results. Van Nguyen and Giang (2013) observed that men are more likely to attend leadership and management skills programmes than women, because they aspire to become leaders or managers. They noted that this is consistent with the culture in the UAE, which has generally placed women in family-based roles rather than contributing to the family income by engaging in work. Wisker and Poulis (2015) suggested that emotionally intelligent people may show better performance. Allen et al. (2011) emphasized that organizations need to educate employees to embrace management procedures and actively work towards building, rewarding and sustaining a positive working culture. Ferrin and Dirks (2002) argued that employees’ trust in their leader shapes their behaviour and performance and it is manifested in perceptions of the leader’s character. Seniwoliba (2015) believed that a positive organizational culture maps the values and standards to be followed by employees, and those required in executive succession planning. A culture that supports succession planning is required before any succession initiative is attempted.

Leadership Development Opportunities

Charan et al. (2010) suggested that leaders go through six phases during the leadership pipeline. They develop first from self-management to managing others, and then to managing other managers. The fourth phase is functional management, followed by business management and finally enterprise management. Leadership development has a positive impact on senior management effectiveness, that is, investment in leadership development prepares senior executives to be more effective (Glamuzina, 2015). Hor et al. (2010) stated that leadership competence is important for decisions about succession planning. They recommended building profiles for all current talent, including outstanding performers and those with future potential. The effectiveness of leadership development can therefore only be assessed against leadership competence and organizational performance. Most, if not all, leadership development programmes are built on competency models (Boyatzis, 2008; Culp et al., 2007; Gangani et al., 2006; Jokinen, 2005; Shippmann et al., 2000; Westera, 2001). Murray (2007) found that best-practice succession planning models followed an action-oriented, continuous learning process closely connected to the organization’s strategic needs. Carriere et al. (2009) found that effective succession planning programmes provide mentoring for candidates, education and growth plans and resources for leadership development.

Management Commitment to Leadership Transition

Gothard and Austin (2013) suggested that organizations were moving away from classic replacement planning to a more inclusive approach focused on the development of internal talent pools. This approach addresses change management and the fulfilment of the organizational mission and strategy. It is only achievable with commitment at every level of the organization. Previous studies have not identified a single ‘best’ approach to succession planning. They have, however, distinguished between emergency succession planning following the unplanned, sudden departure of a leader, and departure-based planning, which is linked to strategic plans and leadership development. In both cases, organizations need to consider how to manage the transition, which affects many internal and external stakeholders. Pila et al. (2016) found that public sector organizations often experienced high rates of loss of skilled talent, and rarely had executive succession planning programmes. They affirmed that factors such as organization and managers, talent recruitment and systems to manage performance significantly influence executive succession planning.

Vikström and Westerberg (2010) argued that succession is influenced by attitudes, norms and perceived behavioural control. When these are positive, the result is a more successful role before transition and better post-transition performance. Ciampa (2016) noted that exiting CEOs could play several roles reflecting respect for their contribution and benefiting the organization. Yadav and Dixit (2017) noted that supportive organizational cultures reinforce leaders in goal achievement and allow new leaders to develop skills and go through learning experiences. Many authors proposed that learning agility is critical in identifying, selecting and developing future leaders, and that it is the most powerful indicator of high potential (De Meuse, 2017; De Meuse et al., 2010; Yadav & Dixit, 2017). The criteria and sub-criteria used in this study are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Criteria and Sub-criteria of Executive Succession Planning in the Public Sector

Sl. No.	Main Criteria	Sub-criteria	References
1	Succession planning strategy	Detection of candidates Succession planning framework Identifying current talent Determining desired skills Identifying a competency-based development process Resource allocation and evaluation	Boyatzis (2008), Brunero et al. (2009), Campion et al. (2011), Cappelli (2008), Chiang and Yu (2018), Fulmer et al. (2009), Manning et al. (2015), Merkus et al. (2019), Murray (2007), Ojeka et al. (2017), Vazirani (2010)
2	Knowledge management opportunities	Knowledge management transfer Knowledge management infrastructure Knowledge loss Knowledge retention Digital transformation	Al Dari et al. (2018), Appelbaum et al. (2012), Asumptha and Mathan (2016), Claver-Cortés et al. (2007), Foerster-Metz et al. (2018), Harvey (2012), Islam et al. (2015), Nuaimi and Jabeen (2020), Paulin and Suneson (2012)
3	Organizational culture	Organizational communication Gender issues Employee engagement Emotional intelligence Trust Attitude towards change	Allen et al. (2011), Ferrin and Dirks (2002), Gothard and Austin (2013), Jabeen and Isakovic (2018), Mehrtak et al. (2017), Mirchandani and Ikerd (2008), Mourougan (2015), Mugo et al. (2015), Seniwoliba (2015), Van Nguyen and Giang (2013), Wisker and Poulis (2015)
4	Leadership development opportunities	Executive employee profile Leadership competencies Strategic alignment Skills shortages Leadership development	Boyatzis (2008), Carriere et al. (2009), Charan et al. (2012), Culp et al. (2007), Gangani et al. (2006), Glamuzina (2015), Hor et al. (2010), Jokinen (2005), Murray (2007), Shippmann et al. (2000), Westera (2001)
5	Management commitment to leadership transition	Honour outgoing executive Created room for new executive to lead Anticipate learning curve Manage and monitor transitions Evaluate the process Management commitment Leadership support	Ciampa (2016), De Meuse (2017), De Meuse et al. (2010), Gothard and Austin (2013), Pila et al. (2016), Vikström and Westerberg (2010), Yadav and Dixit (2017)

Source: The authors.

Research Methodology

Overview of the AHP

AHP is a multi-criteria decision-making approach that investigates both qualitative and quantitative dimensions to develop appropriate conclusions. It is often used at the design stage of a process to choose the best option from a set of alternatives (Thampi et al., 2016). It is a structured process that uses quantitative and qualitative methodologies to arrive at the best-fit solution for a problem (Ramírez et al., 2016). However, it can be problematic because of the possibility of rank reversal, which can lead to changes in the relative rankings of alternatives if the number of alternatives is increased or decreased (Arabameri, 2014).

The decision-making procedure was prioritized in several stages (Saaty, 2008). First, suitable criteria and sub-criteria were identified from the literature. These were then explored with executives to understand their relative importance in the executive succession planning process and develop a model.

AHP uses paired comparisons made by experts to deduce priority scales for variables (Saaty, 2008). The scales are absolute judgements that indicate the relative superiority of one item over another. These judgements vary between individuals. The value of AHP is its ability to measure inconsistency and support better decisions. The process starts by specifying the problem, then organizing the decision ranking order, starting at the top with the decision goal, followed by the broad objectives and cascading down. Each component is compared with the component immediately below it in the same category. The ranking obtained from the pairwise comparisons is used to measure the priorities in the next level. The values for the lower level elements are summed to give each one an overall ranking, and the process is performed for all elements at all levels (Saaty, 2012) (Figure 1). This approach was chosen as it was deemed the most suitable method for this study.

Figure 1.

Source: Saaty (2012).

AHP Model

The process of identifying and ranking the factors promoting executive succession planning in the UAE public sector was very complex. From the literature, we identified succession planning strategy, knowledge management opportunities, organizational culture, leadership development opportunities and management commitment to leadership transition as the 5 main criteria with 29 sub-criteria. The problem was stated in a hierarchical form, and a hierarchical model was then developed based on expert judgements, giving a networked matrix (Baj-Rogowska, 2015) (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Source: The authors.

Data Collection and Interview Procedure

A questionnaire was designed in the form of pairwise comparisons based on the proposed hierarchical structure. It used a nine-point rating scale indicating the relative importance of each criterion or sub-criterion in the hierarchy. The criteria and sub-criteria were generated through a literature review and expert interviews were used to further screen the identified elements. The questionnaire was validated in a pilot test among a focus group of two CEOs, two academic experts on the public sector and two heads of human resources from public sector organizations. The group was asked to comment on the meaningfulness, relevance and clarity of the criteria, and some sub-criteria were then moved and replaced. All focus group members agreed with the final hierarchy. The sample was chosen from executives in public sector organizations that had received the Sheikh Khalifa Excellence Award for performance between 2008 and 2018, because these organizations were considered to be the best performers in their sectors. In total, 15 public sector award-winners were listed (Sheikh Khalifa Excellence Award, n.d.). Their top executives were contacted, and 11 organizations agreed to be the part of this study (8 from Abu Dhabi, 2 from Al Ain and 1 from Al Dhafra). Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 40 individuals from these organizations to obtain their views on the relative significance of the identified criteria and sub-criteria.

Analysis and Results

The data provided by the executives were examined to identify the relative priority of each criterion. The pairwise comparisons were filtered to strengthen the consistency levels of judgements (Saaty, 2012). The assignment of weights and judgements was evaluated using the nine-point scale in Table 2.

Table 2.

The Scale Used for Preferences in Analytic Hierarchy Process

Intensity of Importance	Definition	Explanation
1	Equal importance	Two criteria contribute equally to the objective
3	Moderate importance	Judgement slightly favours one over another
5	Strong importance	Judgement strongly favours one over another
7	Very strong importance	A criterion is strongly favoured, and its dominance is demonstrated in practice
9	Absolute importance
2, 4, 6, 8	Intermediate values	Used to show a compromise between the priorities listed above

Source: Saaty (1980).

The five main criteria were used as the basis of the questionnaire design. For instance, if a respondent felt that succession planning framework was absolutely more important than determining desired skills, then it was rated as 9 and determining desired skills as 1/9. The consistency index was applied to ensure consistency of responses (Saaty, 1990):

C I = (λ_{\max} - n) / (n - 1)

where λ_max = the maximum eigenvalue of the matrix of the important ratios and n = number of factors.

Saaty (1990) defined the consistency index as:

C I = (a_{\max} - n) / (n - 1)

where a_max = the maximum eigenvalue of the matrix of the important ratios and n = number of factors. It was used to test the consistency. The consistency ratio (CR) was computed by dividing the consistency index for the set of decisions by a random index matrix of comparison:

C R = C I / R I

Average random indices for different matrix sizes were simulated for the random pairwise comparisons (Table 3), where the CR value must be smaller or equal to 0.10 to be accepted. Figure 3 shows that the respondents considered succession planning strategy to be the most important factor supporting executive succession planning in the UAE public sector, giving it a weight of 28.6 per cent. It was followed by organizational culture on 19.1 per cent, leadership development opportunities on 18.4 per cent, management commitment towards leadership transition (18 per cent) and knowledge management opportunities (15.8 per cent).

Table 3.

Random Index (RI)

Matrix (RI)
N	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
RI	0.00	0.00	0.52	0.89	1.11	1.25	1.35	1.40	1.45	1.49

Source: Saaty (1990).

Figure 3.

Source: The authors.

The geometric means of pairwise comparisons of the five main criteria are shown in Table 4. The last column shows the relative priorities of the criteria, given as the priority vectors. These were computed using the consistency principle (Saaty, 1990):

a_{i k} = w_{i} / w_{j}

where w_i = the elements of the priority weight vector corresponding to criteria and w_j = the elements of the priority weight vector corresponding to criteria j.

Table 4 shows that succession planning strategy, organization culture and leadership development opportunities were the most significant factors. Succession planning strategy was the top priority with a weight of 0.31, followed by organization culture with 0.21 and leadership development opportunities with 0.18. Succession planning strategy and organization culture together accounted for >50 per cent of variation in executive succession planning in the UAE public sector. This suggests that the respondents felt that a successful succession planning strategy must be aligned with the organizational culture. They also unanimously agreed that it is challenging to balance transparency with confidentiality with respect to timely communication. The respondents indicated that knowledge management opportunities and management commitment towards leadership were the least important main criteria with weights of 0.16 and 0.15. There was consensus of all responses in Table 4, with an acceptable consistency level (CR = 0.001).

Table 4.

Geometric Means of Pairwise Comparisons of Main Criteria

Main Criteria	Succession Planning Strategy	Knowledge Management Opportunities	Organization Culture	Leadership Development Opportunities	Management Commitment towards Leadership	Priority Weight
Succession planning strategy	1.00	4.33	2.15	1.23	0.86	0.31
Knowledge management opportunities	0.23	1.00	1.25	1.15	1.18	0.16
Organization culture	0.47	0.80	1.00	2.12	1.81	0.21
Leadership development opportunities	0.81	0.87	0.47	1.00	2.22	0.18
Management commitment to leadership development	1.17	0.85	0.55	0.45	1.00	0.15

Source: The authors.

Note: Consistency ratio: 0.00 < 0.10 (consistent).

The last step in the data analysis is to calculate the global priorities by multiplying the weights of the sub-criteria by those of the main criterion (Saaty, 1990) (see Figure 3). The most important factor for executive succession planning in the UAE public sector was detection of successor candidates (0.063), followed by knowledge transfer (0.053).

Table 5 shows the priority listing of the pairwise comparison of the sub-criteria of succession planning strategy. The responses indicate that detection of successor candidates was the most important sub-criterion with a priority weight of 0.193. It is therefore essential for organizations to identify potential successor candidates to ensure a smooth succession process. A succession planning framework was the second most important factor with 0.19. This indicates that organizations need a well-functioning framework to provide smooth succession planning. This framework should be improved on an ongoing basis, building on existing policies. Identifying current talent, determining desired skills and identifying a competency-based development process all had a relative importance of 0.17. Resource allocation and evaluation ranked the lowest with a priority weight of 0.11. All sub-criteria of succession planning strategy had an acceptable level of consistency (CR = 0.00).

Table 5.

Geometric Means of Pairwise Comparison of the Succession Planning Strategy Sub-criteria

Main Criteria	Detection of Successor Candidates	Succession Planning Framework	Identify Current Talent	Determining Desired Skills	Identify a Competency-based Development Process	Resource Allocation and Evaluation	Priority Weight
Detection of successor candidates	1.00	1.85	1.53	0.87	0.95	1.15	0.193
Succession planning framework	0.54	1.00	2.14	1.12	1.32	1.37	0.19
Identify current talent	0.65	0.47	1.00	1.84	1.15	1.92	0.17
Determining desired skills	1.15	0.89	0.54	1.00	1.51	1.57	0.17
Identify a competency-based development process	1.05	0.76	0.87	0.66	1.00	2.49	0.17
Resource allocation and evaluation	0.87	0.73	0.52	0.64	0.40	1.00	0.11

Source: The authors.

Note: Consistency ratio: 0.00 < 0.10 (consistent).

The comparisons of sub-criteria of other main criteria are shown in Tables 6–9. Table 6 shows the pairwise comparison for the organizational culture sub-criteria. Employee engagement was first with a priority of 0.24, closely followed by organizational communication with 0.23. The combined priority of these two (0.47) suggests that the organizational environment, in particular interaction with employees, has a strong influence on succession planning. The results on trust (0.17), gender issues (0.13), emotional intelligence (0.12) and attitude towards change (0.10) suggest that individuals in the study organizations tend to maintain cognitive consistency rather than changing behaviour to reflect social influences. All sub-criteria of organizational culture showed an acceptable level of consistency.

Table 6.

Geometric Means of Pairwise Comparison of Organizational Culture Sub-criteria

Organizational Culture	Organizational Communication	Gender Issues	Employee Engagement	Emotional Intelligence	Trust	Attitude towards Change	Priority Weight
Organizational communication	1.00	3.99	1.10	1.92	0.89	1.10	0.23
Gender issues	0.25	1.00	0.85	1.48	0.94	1.24	0.13
Employee engagement	0.91	1.18	1.00	3.46	1.78	2.40	0.24
Emotional intelligence	0.52	0.67	0.29	1.00	1.22	1.46	0.12
Trust	1.12	1.06	0.56	0.82	1.00	2.71	0.17
Attitude towards change	0.91	0.81	0.42	0.68	0.37	1.00	0.10

Source: The authors.

Note: Consistency ratio: 0.00 < 0.10 (consistent).

Table 7 shows the pairwise comparison of the leadership development opportunities sub-criteria. Leadership competencies was the top priority on 0.32, followed by executive employee profile with 0.23. These two factors probably complemented each other, giving a combined contribution of 55 per cent, because the competencies are reflected in the executive profile required for successful leadership. All sub-criteria of leadership development opportunities showed an acceptable level of consistency.

Table 7.

Geometric Means of Pairwise Comparison of Leadership Development Opportunities Sub-criteria

Leadership Development Opportunities	Executive Employee Profile	Leadership Competencies	Strategic Alignment	Skills Shortages	Leadership Development	Priority Weight
Executive employee profile	1.00	1.22	1.12	1.96	1.20	0.23
Leadership competencies	0.82	1.00	3.13	3.68	1.78	0.32
Strategic alignment	0.90	0.32	1.00	4.26	1.65	0.22
Skill shortage	0.51	0.27	0.23	1.00	1.27	0.10
Leadership development	0.83	0.60	0.60	0.79	1.00	0.14

Source: The authors.

Note: Consistency ratio: 0.00 < 0.10 (consistent).

The pairwise comparison for the knowledge management opportunities sub-criteria in Table 8 showed that knowledge transfer was the most important factor with a priority of 0.38, followed by knowledge management infrastructure with 0.27 and digital transformation with 0.14. These three sub-criteria contributed with 0.79 to exploit knowledge management opportunities. The lowest ranks were represented by knowledge retention with 0.11 and knowledge loss with 0.09. All respondents agreed that those two factors were less important, since the relevant knowledge for the executive position is involved in the knowledge transfer process. All sub-criteria of knowledge management opportunities had an acceptable level of consistency.

Table 8.

Geometric Means of Pairwise Comparison of Knowledge Management Opportunities Sub-criteria

Knowledge Management Opportunities	Knowledge Transfer	Knowledge Management Infrastructure	Knowledge Loss	Knowledge Retention	Digital Transformation	Priority Weight
Knowledge transfer	1.00	1.56	4.56	2.76	2.80	0.38
Knowledge management infrastructure	0.64	1.00	4.09	2.45	1.65	0.27
Knowledge loss	0.22	0.24	1.00	0.80	0.87	0.09
Knowledge retention	0.36	0.41	1.25	1.00	0.63	0.11
Digital transformation	0.36	0.61	1.16	1.59	1.00	0.14

Source: The authors.

Note: Consistency ratio: 0.00 < 0.10 (consistent).

Table 9 shows the pairwise comparison of the sub-criteria of management commitment towards leadership transition. The most important factor was creating room for new executive to lead (0.20), followed by managing and monitoring transitions (0.16). Thus, the participants revealed to allow the new executive freedom in leadership techniques, while simultaneously monitoring the actions pursued. These respondents prefer to avoid unnecessary risks and therefore mange the transition carefully. Anticipate learning curve was prioritized with 0.14, indicating a necessity for the new executive to efficiently incorporate organizational practices. The management commitment towards leadership was ranked with 0.134 and indicates a moderate priority to ensure that policies are taken seriously within the organization. This means that a leader’s emphasis and actions should demonstrate the importance of policies to employees. Furthermore, honouring the outgoing executive was ranked as the fifth important sub-criteria, accounting for 0.13. Respondents indicated to emphasise the focus on the new executive, rather than the transition from the previous executive. The low values for evaluating the succession process and leadership support (0.122 and 0.119) suggest that participants were not very concerned about reflecting on the transition process after completion. In addition, all respondents agreed that leadership support including building of trust and inspiration was least important to achieve management commitment towards leadership transition. All responses indicated an acceptable level of consistency.

Table 9.

Geometric Means of Pairwise Comparison of Management Commitment towards Leadership Transition Sub-criteria

Management Commitment towards Leadership Transition	Honour Outgoing Executive	Created Room for New Executive to Lead	Anticipate Learning Curve	Manage and Monitor Transitions	Evaluate the Process	Management Commitment	Leadership Support	Priority Weight
Honour outgoing executive	1.00	1.14	1.26	0.70	0.83	0.94	0.63	0.13
Created room for new executive to lead	0.88	1.00	1.98	1.64	1.38	1.78	1.58	0.20
Anticipate learning curve	0.80	0.50	1.00	1.47	1.54	1.17	0.90	0.14
Manage and monitor transitions	1.42	0.61	0.68	1.00	1.92	1.22	1.63	0.16
Evaluate the process	1.21	0.72	0.65	0.52	1.00	1.09	1.27	0.122
Management commitment	1.06	0.56	0.86	0.82	0.92	1.00	1.96	0.134
Leadership support	1.59	0.63	1.11	0.61	0.79	0.51	1.00	0.119

Source: The authors.

Note: Consistency ratio: 0.00 < 0.10 (consistent).

Discussion

The aim of this study was to identify and prioritize the factors that promote effective executive succession planning in the UAE public sector. A questionnaire was designed, and interview sessions were conducted with 40 executive leaders of highly successful public sector organizations. Of the five main criteria, the respondents agreed that succession planning strategy has the most significant impact on the success of executive succession planning. This is in line with previous findings (Chiang & Yu, 2018; Ojeka et al., 2017). These studies have provided several elements of executive planning strategy that are important for organizational success.

Organizational culture was considered the second most important factor in successful executive succession planning, which was also supported by previous studies (Gothard & Austin, 2013; Mehrtak et al., 2017; Mugo et al., 2015). The third factor was leadership development opportunities, consistent with studies that found that leadership development, as a component of executive succession planning, leads to employee satisfaction and enhances organizational performance (Manning et al., 2015; Stewart & Kuenzi, 2018; Yadav & Dixit, 2017).

Knowledge management opportunities was the fourth most important factor. Previous studies have found that it affects executive succession planning in many ways, especially knowledge transfer and facilitation of knowledge storage, retrieval and dissemination from supportive infrastructures (Asumptha & Mathan, 2016; Sivagiri, 2018).

Management commitment towards leadership transition was perceived by the respondents to be the least important of the main criteria. However, this does not minimize its impact on effective executive succession planning, because many previous studies have found that it influences the process by allowing new executives the space to lead in their own way. A smooth leadership transition requires the support of all levels in the organization, but especially from the organization’s leaders, including the board (Ciampa, 2016; Gothard & Austin, 2013; Yadav & Dixit, 2017).

Discussion of the Findings on the Sub-criteria

The results of the pairwise comparisons of the main criteria found that succession planning strategy was the most important factor in executive succession planning. Similarly, the pairwise comparisons of the sub-criteria indicated that respondents perceived the sub-criteria of succession planning strategy as among the most important of the 29 sub-criteria. Detection of successor candidates, succession planning framework and identifying a competency-based development process were ranked first, third and fourth of the 29 sub-criteria. Identifying current talent was ranked eighth; determining desired skills ninth and the allocation and evaluation of resources twelfth. All the sub-criteria of succession planning strategy were therefore viewed as very critical for effective executive succession planning programmes. This should encourage organizations and researchers to ensure that an effective executive succession planning framework is in place before any succession process is initiated.

The main criteria ‘knowledge management opportunities’ was ranked second to last among the five main criteria, but the sub-criterion knowledge transfer was found to be highly important, ranking second of the 29 sub-criteria. Knowledge management infrastructure was tenth. This indicates that the transfer of knowledge, particularly between an existing executive and their successor, is very important. Organizations should design processes to facilitate the transfer and sharing of organizational knowledge to ensure its retention beyond the departure of executives.

Organizational culture was second of the five main criteria, but of its sub-criteria, only organizational communication was in the top 10, at seventh. Employee engagement was eleventh and trust fourteenth. However, this does not mean that the sub-criteria of organizational culture are not important. Organizations and researchers should investigate which elements of the organizational culture are most relevant to their specific situations and ensue that communication in particular is given priority and emphasis.

Leadership development opportunities was the third among the main criteria, but its sub-criteria leadership competencies and executive employee profile were considered very important: the respondents designated them fifth and sixth. These two elements should therefore be given due consideration when designing executive succession planning programmes, possibly during the design of the framework to ensure that they are aligned with the overall succession strategy. It is interesting; however, that leadership development, an integral element of leader preparation, was only ranked fifteenth. This is not easily explained because it is closely related to leadership competencies that guide development. Several writers have emphasized leadership development as a cornerstone of preparing future talent and grooming executive positions candidates (e.g., Gothard & Austin, 2013; Groves, 2007; Sharma & Agarwal, 2016). Many others have emphasized the importance of increasing the opportunities for enabling high potential employees to access training and development programmes (e.g., Getha-Taylor et al., 2015; Zhang & Rajagopalan, 2010). This sub-criterion was therefore expected to be given a much higher priority closer to leadership competencies because of the direct link between the two. A possible and plausible explanation for this finding is that the respondents took leadership development as a given based on their organizations’ practices, that is, they viewed it as implicit within their organization and therefore redundant as a stand-alone factor. Another reason might be the high ranking they assigned to three related sub-criteria: detection of succession candidates, executive employee profile and identifying current talent, all of which are either outcomes or predecessors of the development process.

The pairwise comparison of the sub-criteria for management commitment towards leadership transition was generally consistent with the overall ranking of the main criteria, which was last of the five main criteria. However, honour outgoing executive was ranked sixteenth among the 29 sub-criteria and creating room for the new executive to lead was seventeenth, both higher than managing and monitoring transition, which was expected to be higher. This finding may highlight two conflicting interests: organizations need to ensure the outgoing executive leaves as early as possible so that the incoming executive can assume the full responsibilities and start to develop strategies, but there is fear of compromising some of the factors that ensure organizational continuity, for example, organizational knowledge. The challenge of succession planning lies in its ability to achieve a successful balance between these two, giving the new executive enough freedom to lead while retaining the cooperation of the outgoing executive where needed before and after the transition. The relative ranking assigned to these sub-criteria probably reflects an attempt to achieve this balance.

Implications and Limitations

This study aimed to explore executive succession planning status and practice in the UAE, identifying and prioritizing the factors that affect the process. It has developed a tentative model for executive succession planning rooted in practice in the UAE public sector. Future studies may wish to examine the model in other Middle East countries or sectors.

The outcomes of this study are expected to guide leaders and policymakers in the UAE public sector on the factors that promote executive succession planning. It will also help in implementing best practices in this area by enabling the design of a suitable policy. This study will help experts to apply new models that will facilitate their work.

This study did, however, have some limitations. First, the accessible population was limited to the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, and potential sources of information from other emirates were not included. Second, the intent was to identify sources with knowledge of executive succession planning from within reputable and successful organizations, so the number of both organizations and executives was small, giving a relatively small sample. Finally, the scope of this study was limited to the most frequently cited factors of effective executive succession planning programmes, and there could be other factors that are also important.

Conclusion

This research addresses the shortage of empirical studies about factors promoting executive succession planning in the UAE public sector. The factors identified were succession planning strategy, knowledge management opportunities, organization culture, leadership development opportunities and management commitment towards leadership transition. Further empirical studies on the proposed framework are needed to determine its strength and validity. However, it is hoped that the findings of this study will support public sector organizations in their business continuity planning.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank Melissa Leffler, freelance language editor, for proofreading a draft of this manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Aboradi

M. S.

, & Masari

(2018). Small medium sized enterprises in Saudi Arabia: Conceptualizing an effective succession planning. International Journal of Accounting, Finance and Business, 3(11), 14–32.

Al Dari

, Jabeen

, & Papastathopoulos

(2018). Examining the role of leadership inspiration, rewards and its relationship with contribution to knowledge sharing: Evidence from the UAE. Journal of Workplace Learning, 30(6), 488–512.

Aldulaimi

S. H.

(2017). The role of leadership improvement with succession planning. International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management United Kingdom, 5(6), 468–476.

Al Hosis

, Plummer

, & O’Connor

(2012). Nursing management in Saudi Arabia: Evaluating strategies for succession planning. Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management, 7(1), 19.

Allagui

, & Al-Najjar

(2018). From women empowerment to nation branding: A case study from the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Communication, 12, 18.

Allen

R. S.

, Evans

W. R.

, & White

C. S.

(2011). Affective organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behaviour. Examining the relationship through the lens of equity sensitivity. Organization Management Journal, 8(4), 218–228.

Alvani

S. M.

, Souteh

R. G.

, Jandaghi

G. R.

, & Inaloo

A. B.

(2016). Presenting a succession management model based on organizational capabilities in knowledge-based organizations (case study: Science and Technology Park of Tehran University and Science and Technology Park of Tarbiat Modares University). Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2 S2), 199.

Appelbaum

S. H.

, Gunkel

, Benyo

, Ramadan

, Sakkal

, & Wolff

(2012). Transferring corporate knowledge via succession planning: Analysis and solutions—Part 1. Industrial and Commercial Training, 44(5), 281–289.

Arabameri

(2014). Application of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for locating fire stations: Case study Maku City. Merit Research Journal of Art, Social Science and Humanities, 2(1), 1–10.

10.

Asumptha

J. A.

, & Mathan

(2016). Succession planning and knowledge management with knowledge sharing perspective in business families. International Journal of Management, 7(7), 70–81.

11.

Babey

A. G.

, Hagel

, Montilla

, Robins

, & Harris

(2016). Leading oil and gas into the future. Society of Petroleum Engineers. https://doi.org/10.2118/181281-MS. https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/SPE-181281-MS

12.

Baj-Rogowska

(2015). Application of AHP method for optimal selection of the IT system supporting business operations in the logistics enterprise. Torun Business Review, 14(1), 111–122.

13.

Boyatzis

R. E.

(2008). Competencies in the 21st century. Journal of Management Development, 27(1), 5–12.

14.

Brunero

, Kerr

, & Jastrzab

(2009). The development and evaluation of a succession planning programme in nursing, in Australia. Journal of Nursing Management, 17(5), 576–583.

15.

Campion

M. A.

, Fink

A. A.

, Ruggeberg

B. J.

, Carr

, Phillips

G. M.

, & Odman

R. B.

(2011). Doing competencies well: Best practices in competency modeling. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 225–262.

16.

Cappelli

(2008). Talent management for the twenty-first century. Harvard Business Review, 86(3), 74–81.

17.

Carriere

B. K.

, Muise

, Cummings

, & Newburn-Cook

(2009). Healthcare succession planning: An integrative review. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration, 39(12), 548–555.

18.

Charan

, Drotter

, & Noel

(2010). The leadership pipeline: How to build the leadership powered company (vol. 391). John Wiley & Sons.

19.

Chiang

, & Yu

H. J.

(2018). Succession and corporate performance: The appropriate successor in family firms. Investment Management & Financial Innovations, 15(1), 58.

20.

Ciampa

(2016). After the handshake. Harvard Business Review, 94(12), 60–68.

21.

Claver-Cortés

, Zaragoza-Sáez

, & Pertusa-Ortega

(2007). Organizational structure features supporting knowledge management processes. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(4), 45–57.

22.

Culp

, McKee

, & Nestor

(2007). Identifying volunteer core competencies: Regional differences. Journal of Extension, 45(6), 1–9.

23.

De Meuse

K. P.

(2017). Learning agility: Its evolution as a psychological construct and its empirical relationship to leader success. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 69(4), 267–295.

24.

De Meuse

K. P.

, Dai

, & Hallenbeck

G. S.

(2010). Learning agility—A construct whose time has come. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(2), 119–130.

25.

Elliott

, Begley

, Sheaf

, & Higgins

(2016). Barriers and enablers to advanced practitioners’ ability to enact their leadership role: A scoping review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 60, 24–45.

26.

Farashah

A. D.

, Nasehifar

, & Karahrudi

A. S.

(2011). Succession planning and its effects on employee career attitudes: Study of Iranian governmental organizations. African Journal of Business Management, 5(9), 3605–3613.

27.

Ferrin

D. L.

, & Dirks

K. T.

(2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628. Research Collection Lee Kong Chian School of Business. http://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/675

28.

Foerster-Metz

U. S.

, Marquardt

, Golowko

, Kompalla

, & Hell

(2018). Digital transformation and its implications on organizational behavior. Journal of EU Research in Business, 30, 1–14.

29.

Fulmer

R. M.

, Stumpf

S. A.

, & Bleak

(2009). The strategic development of high potential leaders. Strategy & Leadership, 37(3), 17–22.

30.

Gangani

, McLean

G. N.

, & Braden

R. A.

(2006). A competency-based human resource development strategy. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 19(1), 127–139.

31.

Getha-Taylor

, Fowles

, Silvia

, & Merritt

C. C.

(2015). Considering the effects of time on leadership development: A local government training evaluation. Public Personnel Management, 44(3), 295–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/009102601558626

32.

Glamuzina

(2015). Levels of leadership development and top management’s effectiveness: Is there a clear-cut relationship? Management: Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, 20(special issue), 89–131.

33.

Gothard

, & Austin

M. J.

(2013). Leadership succession planning: Implications for non-profit human service organizations. Administration in Social Work, 37(3), 272–285.

34.

Groves

(2007). Integrating leadership development and succession planning best practices. Journal of Management Development, 26(3), 239–260.

35.

Hannawi

, & Salmi

I. A.

(2014). Health workforce in the United Arab Emirates: Analytic point of view. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 29(4), 332–341.

36.

Harvey

J. F.

(2012). Managing organizational memory with intergenerational knowledge transfer. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(3), 400–417.

37.

Hor

F. C.

, Huang

L.-C.

, Shih

H.-S.

, Lee

Y.-H.

, & Lee

E. S.

(2010). Establishing talent management for company’ succession planning through analytic network process: Application to an MNC semiconductor company in Taiwan. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 60(3), 528–540.

38.

Islam

Z. M.

, Hasan

, & Rahman

(2015). Factors affecting knowledge transfer in public organization employees. Asian Social Science, 11(4), 223–233.

39.

Jabeen

, & Isakovic

A. A.

(2018). Examining the impact of organizational culture on trust and career satisfaction in the UAE public sector: A competing values perspective. Employee Relations, 40(6), 1036–1053.

40.

Jokinen

(2005). Global leadership competencies: A review and discussion. Journal of European Industrial Training, 29(3), 199–216.

41.

Kesner

, & Sebora

(1994). Executive succession: Past, present & future. Journal of Management, 20(2), 327–372.

42.

Kohestany

, & Yaghoubi

N. M.

(2017). Investigating the impact of talent management on the retention of human resources: A study in Zahedan municipality. International Review of Management and Marketing, 7(3), 138–142.

43.

Manning

, Jones

, & Fernandez

R. S.

(2015). Planning for a smooth transition: Evaluation of a succession planning program for prospective nurse unit managers. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 58–68.

44.

Mehrtak

, Farzaneh

, Habibzadeh

, Kamran

, Zandian

, & Mahdavi

(2017). Explaining the role of organizational culture on succession-planning at the Ministry of Health and Medical Education: A qualitative study. Electronic Physician, 9(11), 5806.

45.

Merkus

, Willems

, & Veenswijk

(2019). Strategy implementation as performative practice: Reshaping organization into alignment with strategy. Organization Management Journal, 16(3), 140–155.

46.

Mirchandani

, & Ikerd

(2008). Building and maintaining sustainable organizations. Organization Management Journal, 5(1), 40–51.

47.

Motwani

, Levenburg

N. M.

, Schwarz

T. V.

, & Blankson

(2006). Succession planning in SMEs: An empirical analysis. International Small Business Journal, 24(5), 471–495.

48.

Mourougan

(2015). Succeeding at succession through talent management to retain intellectual capital for business continuity. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 3(17), 4.

49.

Mugo

, Minja

, & Njanja

(2015). The mediating effect of culture on management succession and corporate growth strategy among local family businesses in the manufacturing sector in Nairobi County, Kenya. European Journal of Business and Management, 7(5), 171–179.

50.

Murray

(2007). Growing your own: Developing leaders through succession planning. Liber Quarterly, 17(3/4). http://doi.org/10.18352/lq.7886

51.

Nuaimi

M. A.

, & Jabeen

(2020). A study of factors influencing knowledge transfer in organisations in the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies, 11(2), 170–189.

52.

Ojeka

, Adetula

D. T.

, Mukoro

D. O.

, & Kpokpo

O. P.

(2017). Does chief executive officer succession affect firms’ financial performance in Nigeria? International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 7(2), 530–535.

53.

Oudah

, Jabeen

, & Dixon

(2018). Determinants linked to family business sustainability in the UAE: An AHP approach. Sustainability, 10(1), 246.

54.

Paulin

, & Suneson

(2012). Knowledge transfer, knowledge sharing and knowledge barriers—Three blurry terms in KM. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(1), 81–91.

55.

Pila

M. M.

, Schultz

, & Leigh-Anne

P. D.

(2016). Factors related to succession planning in a government department in Gauteng. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 14(4), 145.

56.

Ramírez

L. M.

, Flores

J. M.

, & Vargas

A. T.

(2016). The analytical hierarchy process an optimal methodology for research in entrepreneurship. Problemy Zarządzania, 3/2016(62), t. 2, 172–186.

57.

Rayburn

, Grigsby

, & Brubaker

(2016). The strategic value of succession planning for department chairs. Academic Medicine, 91(4), 465–468.

58.

Richards

(2008). Succession planning: Does it matter in the context of corporate leadership? Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 48(3), 445–464.

59.

Saaty

T. L.

(1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resources allocation. McGraw.

60.

Saaty

T. L.

(1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9–26.

61.

Saaty

T. L.

(2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83–98.

62.

Saaty

T. L.

(2012). Decision making for leaders: The analytical hierarchy process for decision in complex world. RWS Publication.

63.

Seniwoliba

J. A.

(2015). Succession planning: Preparing the next generation workforce for the university for development studies. http://udsspace.uds.edu.gh/handle/123456789/424

64.

Sharma

, & Agarwal

(2016). Succession planning in SMEs: Emergence, importance & process. Journal of Business and Management, 18(6), 1–9.

65.

Sheikh Khalifa Excellence Award. http://www.skea.ae/English/SKEAWinners/Pages/Default.aspx

66.

Shippmann

J. S.

, Ash

R. A.

, Batjtsta

, Carr

, Eyde

L. D.

, Hesketh

, & Sanchez

J. I.

(2000). The practice of competency modeling. Personnel Psychology, 53(3), 703–740.

67.

Sivagiri

(2018). The effects of knowledge management infrastructure capability on knowledge management effectiveness of doctors: An empirical study. Journal of Management, 5(5), 218–231.

68.

Stewart

A. J.

, & Kuenzi

(2018). The nonprofit career ladder: exploring career paths as leadership development for future nonprofit executives. Public Personnel Management, 47(4), 359–381.

69.

Thampi

, Manickema

M. S.

, Kuppuswamy

, & Muralidharan

(2016). Applying analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in the selection of best method for the preparation of solid dispersion as a carrier for the controlled drug delivery of delayed release tablets. Der Pharmacia Lettre, 8(4), 315–323.

70.

UAE (2020). Government entities. https://u.ae/en/help/contact-us/the-government

71.

Van Nguyen

, & Giang

T. T.

(2013). Gender difference in academic planning activity among medical students. PLoS One, 8(2), e55845.

72.

Vazirani

(2010). Competencies and competency model—A brief overview of its development and application. SIES Journal of Management, 7(1), 121.

73.

Vikström

, & Westerberg

(2010). Success with succession: An empirical study of small Swedish family firms. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 11(3), 223–241.

74.

Vinod

, Sudhakar

, Mihir

, Varghese

A. M.

, & Bobby

(2014). Talent management among UAE national women. Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences, 5(5), 474–479.

75.

Westera

(2001). Competences in education: A confusion of tongues. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270120625

76.

Wiesman

, & Baker

E. L.

(2013). Succession planning and management in public health practice. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 19(1), 100–101.

77.

Wisker

Z. L.

, & Poulis

(2015). Emotional intelligence and sales performance. A myth or reality. International Journal of Business and Society, 16(2), 185–200.

78.

Yadav

, & Dixit

(2017). A conceptual model of learning agility and authentic leadership development-moderating effects of learning goal orientation and organizational culture. Journal of Human Values, 23(1), 40–51.

79.

Zhang

, & Rajagopalan

(2010). CEO succession planning: finally, at the centre stage of the boardroom. Business Horizons, 53(5), 455–462.