See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/341709000

Determinants Linked to Executive Succession Planning in Public Sector

Organizations

Article  in  Vision-The Journal of Business Perspective · May 2020

DOI: 10.1177/0972262920932405

CITATIONS READS
14 1,556

4 authors:

Muna Al Suwaidi Fauzia Jabeen

Abu Dhabi National Oil Company Abu Dhabi University
1 PUBLICATION   14 CITATIONS    125 PUBLICATIONS   1,446 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Agata Stachowicz-Stanusch Matthew J. Webb

Canadian University Dubai Khalifa University
10 PUBLICATIONS   27 CITATIONS    23 PUBLICATIONS   173 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Estimating causes of cyber crime: Evidence from panel data FGLS Estimator View project

Studies of Police Personnel in the UAE View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fauzia Jabeen on 26 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article
Vision
1–16
Determinants Linked to Executive © 2020 MDI
Reprints and permissions:
Succession Planning in Public Sector in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india
DOI: 10.1177/0972262920932405

Organizations journals.sagepub.com/home/vis

Muna Al Suwaidi1, Fauzia Jabeen1 , Agata Stachowicz-Stanusch2

and Matthew Webb3

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.

Key Words
Succession Planning, Succession Planning Management, Executive Succession Planning, High Potential, UAE, Public Sector

Executive Summary planning strategy, organizational culture and leadership

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
development opportunities. All these factors were identi-
fied from previous studies.
Of the 29 sub-criteria, detection of successor candi-
dates and succession planning framework were considered
the most important. Knowledge management, particularly
knowledge transfer, has previously been found to influ-
ence executive succession planning and to provide com-
petitive 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.

1 Department of Management, College of Business, Abu Dhabi University, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
2 Faculty
of Management, Canadian University Dubai, Dubai, UAE.
3 Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, UAE.

Corresponding author:
Fauzia Jabeen, Department of Management, College of Business, Abu Dhabi University, PO Box 59911, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
E-mail: fauzia.jabeen@adu.ac.ae
2
Generally, the results support the initial assumptions
that succession planning is influenced by five main factors,
namely succession planning strategy, knowledge mana-
gement 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 guar-
antee leadership continuity in critical roles and to maintain
and nurture intellectual capital and organizational knowl-
edge. It enables organizations to reach their goals by assur-
ing 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 develop-
ment 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 there-
fore 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 bene-
fits 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 pro-
grammes, 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 organiza-
tions in the UAE. This study therefore aimed to use the
analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to identify factors pro-
moting executive succession planning in the UAE public
Vision
sector. It is also expected to provide insights for practition-
ers, 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 consider-
able gap in the conceptual and practical foundations for
Suwaidi et al. 3
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 neces-
sary 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 mana-
gement 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 devel-
opment programmes in place. Development also needs to
be linked to business strategy, after defining expectations
of selected talent. Murray (2007) suggested that identify-
ing 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 develop-
ment plans. Many researchers have examined talent devel-
opment 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) sug-
gested that boards should determine which positions need
succession plans, including contingency plans for emer-
gencies. The selection of successors should be reviewed
against the competencies required for optimum organiza-
tional 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 competen-
cies 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 con-
duct 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 manage-
ment 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 experi-
enced 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 organi-
zational learning (Islam et al., 2015). Knowledge manage-
ment 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) sug-
gested 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 distrib-
uted 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 succes-
sion planning is usually affected by changes in the structure
and culture of the institution through increased diversity,
new technologies, takeovers and reduction in management
4
levels. Organizational culture has a strong mediating influ-
ence on executive succession planning and organization
growth (Mugo et al., 2015). When an executive is recruited
externally, they need intensive orientation about the institu-
tional 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 communica-
tion, 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) sug-
gested that emotionally intelligent people may show better
performance. Allen et al. (2011) emphasized that organiza-
tions 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 succes-
sion 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 recom-
mended building profiles for all current talent, including
outstanding performers and those with future potential.
The effectiveness of leadership development can there-
fore only be assessed against leadership competence and
organizational performance. Most, if not all, leadership
Vision
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 plan-
ning models followed an action-oriented, continuous learn-
ing 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 man-
agement 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 identi-
fied a single ‘best’ approach to succession planning. They
have, however, distinguished between emergency succes-
sion 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 sig-
nificantly influence executive succession planning.
Vikström and Westerberg (2010) argued that succession
is influenced by attitudes, norms and perceived behav-
ioural 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 contri-
bution and benefiting the organization. Yadav and Dixit
(2017) noted that supportive organizational cultures rein-
force 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 identify-
ing, 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.
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
Suwaidi et al. 5

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
2 Knowledge management
opportunities
3 Organizational culture
4 Leadership development
opportunities
5 Management commitment
to leadership transition
Source: The authors.
Detection of candidates
Succession planning framework
Identifying current talent
Determining desired skills
Identifying a competency-based
development process
Resource allocation and evaluation
Knowledge management transfer
Knowledge management infrastructure
Knowledge loss
Knowledge retention
Digital transformation
Organizational communication
Gender issues
Employee engagement
Emotional intelligence
Trust
Attitude towards change
Executive employee profile
Leadership competencies
Strategic alignment
Skills shortages
Leadership development
Honour outgoing executive
Created room for new executive to lead
Anticipate learning curve
Manage and monitor transitions
Evaluate the process
Management commitment
Leadership support
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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 indi-
viduals. The value of AHP is its ability to measure inconsist-
ency 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 com-
parisons 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.
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).
6 Vision

Figure 1.  Outline of Analytic Hierarchy Process Method

Source: Saaty (2012).

Figure 2.  Proposed Model Using Analytic Hierarchy Process

Source: The authors.
Suwaidi et al. 7

Data Collection and Interview Procedure
A questionnaire was designed in the form of pairwise com-
parisons based on the proposed hierarchical structure. It
used a nine-point rating scale indicating the relative impor-
tance 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 organiza-
tions agreed to be the part of this study (8 from Abu Dhabi,
2 from Al Ain and 1 from Al Dhafra). Face-to-face inter-
views were conducted with 40 individuals from these organ-
izations 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.
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):
CI = (m max - n) / (n - 1)
where λmax = the maximum eigenvalue of the matrix of the
important ratios and n = number of factors.
Saaty (1990) defined the consistency index as:
CI = ^a max - nh / ^n - 1h
where amax = 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:
CR = CI/RI
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 2.  The Scale Used for Preferences in Analytic Hierarchy Process

Intensity of Importance Definition Explanation

1 Equal importance
3 Moderate importance
5 Strong importance
7 Very strong importance
9 Absolute importance
2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate values
Source: Saaty (1980).
Two criteria contribute equally to the objective
Judgement slightly favours one over another
Judgement strongly favours one over another
A criterion is strongly favoured, and its dominance is demonstrated in practice
Used to show a compromise between the priorities listed above

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).
8 Vision

Figure 3.  Priority of the 30 Sub-criteria

Source: The authors.
Suwaidi et al. 9

Table 4.  Geometric Means of Pairwise Comparisons of Main Criteria

Management
Succession Knowledge Leadership Commitment
Planning Management Organization Development towards
Main Criteria Strategy Opportunities Culture Opportunities Leadership Priority Weight
Succession planning strategy 1.00 4.33 2.15 1.23 0.86 0.31
Knowledge management 0.23 1.00 1.25 1.15 1.18 0.16
opportunities
Organization culture 0.47 0.80 1.00 2.12 1.81 0.21
Leadership development 0.81 0.87 0.47 1.00 2.22 0.18
opportunities
Management commitment to 1.17 0.85 0.55 0.45 1.00 0.15
leadership development
Source: The authors.
Note: Consistency ratio: 0.00 < 0.10 (consistent).

Table 5.  Geometric Means of Pairwise Comparison of the Succession Planning Strategy Sub-criteria

Identify a
Competency- Resource
Detection Succession Identify based Allocation
of Successor Planning Current Determining Development and Priority
Main Criteria Candidates Framework Talent Desired Skills Process Evaluation Weight
Detection of successor 1.00 1.85 1.53 0.87 0.95 1.15 0.193
candidates
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 1.05 0.76 0.87 0.66 1.00 2.49 0.17
development process
Resource allocation and 0.87 0.73 0.52 0.64 0.40 1.00 0.11
evaluation
Source: The authors.
Note: Consistency ratio: 0.00 < 0.10 (consistent).

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 ik = w i / w j
where wi = the elements of the priority weight vector
corresponding to criteria and wj = the elements of the
priority weight vector corresponding to criteria j.
Table 4 shows that succession planning strategy, organi-
zation culture and leadership development opportunities
were the most significant factors. Succession planning strat-
egy 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 opportu-
nities 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).
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 com-
parison of the sub-criteria of succession planning strategy.
The responses indicate that detection of successor candi-
dates was the most important sub-criterion with a priority
weight of 0.193. It is therefore essential for organizations to
10 Vision

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 poli-
cies. 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).
The comparisons of sub-criteria of other main criteria
are shown in Tables 6–9. Table 6 shows the pairwise com-
parison for the organizational culture sub-criteria. Employee
engagement was first with a priority of 0.24, closely fol-
lowed 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 7 shows the pairwise comparison of the leader-
ship 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.
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 repre-
sented 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 oppor-
tunities had an acceptable level of consistency.
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 execu-
tive to lead (0.20), followed by managing and monitoring
transitions (0.16). Thus, the participants revealed to allow

Table 6.  Geometric Means of Pairwise Comparison of Organizational Culture Sub-criteria

Attitude
Organizational Gender Employee Emotional towards Priority
Organizational Culture Communication Issues Engagement Intelligence Trust Change Weight
Organizational 1.00 3.99 1.10 1.92 0.89 1.10 0.23
communication
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.  Geometric Means of Pairwise Comparison of Leadership Development Opportunities Sub-criteria

Executive
Leadership Development Employee Leadership Strategic Leadership
Opportunities Profile Competencies Alignment Skills Shortages 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).
Suwaidi et al. 11

Table 8.  Geometric Means of Pairwise Comparison of Knowledge Management Opportunities Sub-criteria

Knowledge
Knowledge Management Knowledge Management Knowledge Knowledge Digital
Opportunities Transfer Infrastructure Loss Retention Transformation Priority Weight
Knowledge transfer 1.00 1.56 4.56 2.76 2.80 0.38
Knowledge management 0.64 1.00 4.09 2.45 1.65 0.27
infrastructure
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.  Geometric Means of Pairwise Comparison of Management Commitment towards Leadership Transition Sub-criteria

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

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 exe-
cutive 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 organi-
zation. 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 exec-
utive. The low values for evaluating the succession process
and leadership support (0.122 and 0.119) suggest that par-
ticipants were not very concerned about reflecting on the
transition process after completion. In addition, all respond-
ents agreed that leadership support including building of
trust and inspiration was least important to achieve manage-
ment commitment towards leadership transition. All res-
ponses indicated an acceptable level of consistency.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to identify and prioritize the
factors that promote effective executive succession plan-
ning in the UAE public sector. A questionnaire was
designed, and interview sessions were conducted with 40
executive leaders of highly successful public sector organi-
zations. 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
12
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 lead-
ership development, as a component of executive succes-
sion 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, espe-
cially knowledge transfer and facilitation of knowledge
storage, retrieval and dissemination from supportive infras-
tructures (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 impor-
tant factor in executive succession planning. Similarly, the
pairwise comparisons of the sub-criteria indicated that
respondents perceived the sub-criteria of succession plan-
ning 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 pro-
grammes. This should encourage organizations and research-
ers to ensure that an effective executive succession planning
framework is in place before any succession process is
initiated.
The main criteria ‘knowledge management opportuni-
ties’ was ranked second to last among the five main crite-
ria, 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 impor-
tant. Organizations should design processes to facilitate the
Vision
transfer and sharing of organizational knowledge to ensure
its retention beyond the departure of executives.
Organizational culture was second of the five main cri-
teria, but of its sub-criteria, only organizational communi-
cation 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 investi-
gate which elements of the organizational culture are most
relevant to their specific situations and ensue that commu-
nication 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 consid-
ered 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 leader-
ship development, an integral element of leader prepara-
tion, was only ranked fifteenth. This is not easily explained
because it is closely related to leadership competencies that
guide development. Several writers have emphasized lead-
ership 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 compe-
tencies because of the direct link between the two. A pos-
sible 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: detec-
tion of succession candidates, executive employee profile
and identifying current talent, all of which are either out-
comes or predecessors of the development process.
The pairwise comparison of the sub-criteria for man-
agement 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 strate-
gies, but there is fear of compromising some of the factors
Suwaidi et al. 13
that ensure organizational continuity, for example, organi-
zational 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 execu-
tive where needed before and after the transition. The rela-
tive 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 emir-
ates 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.
Acknowledgement
We thank Melissa Leffler, freelance language editor, for proof-
reading 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.
ORCID iD
Fauzia Jabeen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3505-5955
References
Aboradi, M. S., & Masari, R. (2018). Small medium sized enter-
prises in Saudi Arabia: Conceptualizing an effective succes-
sion planning. International Journal of Accounting, Finance
and Business, 3(11), 14–32.
Al Dari, T., Jabeen, F., & Papastathopoulos, A. (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, K., Plummer, V., & O’Connor, M. (2012). Nursing man-
agement in Saudi Arabia: Evaluating strategies for succes-
sion planning. Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management,
7(1), 19.
Allagui, I., & Al-Najjar, A. (2018). From women empower-
ment 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 organiza-
tions (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, H., Benyo, C., Ramadan, S., Sakkal,
F., & Wolff, D. (2012). Transferring corporate knowledge
via succession planning: Analysis and solutions—Part 1.
Industrial and Commercial Training, 44(5), 281–289.
Arabameri, A. (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.
Asumptha, J. A., & Mathan, C. (2016). Succession planning and
knowledge management with knowledge sharing perspective
in business families. International Journal of Management,
7(7), 70–81.
Babey, A. G., Hagel, N., Montilla, C., Robins, R., & Harris, C.
(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
Baj-Rogowska, A. (2015). Application of AHP method for opti-
mal selection of the IT system supporting business operations
in the logistics enterprise. Torun Business Review, 14(1),
111–122.
Boyatzis, R. E. (2008). Competencies in the 21st century. Journal
of Management Development, 27(1), 5–12.
14
Brunero, S., Kerr, S., & Jastrzab, G. (2009). The development and
evaluation of a succession planning programme in nursing, in
Australia. Journal of Nursing Management, 17(5), 576–583.
Campion, M. A., Fink, A. A., Ruggeberg, B. J., Carr, L., Phillips, G.
M., & Odman, R. B. (2011). Doing competencies well: Best
practices in competency modeling. Personnel Psychology,
64(1), 225–262.
Cappelli, P. (2008). Talent management for the twenty-first cen-
tury. Harvard Business Review, 86(3), 74–81.
Carriere, B. K., Muise, M., Cummings, G., & Newburn-Cook,
C. (2009). Healthcare succession planning: An integra-
tive review. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration,
39(12), 548–555.
Charan, R., Drotter, S., & Noel, J. (2010). The leadership pipe-
line: How to build the leadership powered company (vol.
391). John Wiley & Sons.
Chiang, H., & Yu, H. J. (2018). Succession and corporate perfor-
mance: The appropriate successor in family firms. Investment
Management & Financial Innovations, 15(1), 58.
Ciampa, D. (2016). After the handshake. Harvard Business
Review, 94(12), 60–68.
Claver-Cortés, E., Zaragoza-Sáez, P., & Pertusa-Ortega, E. (2007).
Organizational structure features supporting knowledge man-
agement processes. Journal of Knowledge Management,
11(4), 45–57.
Culp, K., McKee, R., & Nestor, P. (2007). Identifying volun-
teer core competencies: Regional differences. Journal of
Extension, 45(6), 1–9.
De Meuse, K. P. (2017). Learning agility: Its evolution as a psy-
chological construct and its empirical relationship to leader
success. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, 69(4), 267–295.
De Meuse, K. P., Dai, G., & Hallenbeck, G. S. (2010). Learning
agility—A construct whose time has come. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(2), 119–130.
Elliott, N., Begley, C., Sheaf, G., & Higgins, A. (2016). Barriers
and enablers to advanced practitioners’ ability to enact their
leadership role: A scoping review. International Journal of
Nursing Studies, 60, 24–45.
Farashah, A. D., Nasehifar, V., & Karahrudi, A. S. (2011).
Succession planning and its effects on employee career atti-
tudes: Study of Iranian governmental organizations. African
Journal of Business Management, 5(9), 3605–3613.
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
Foerster-Metz, U. S., Marquardt, K., Golowko, N., Kompalla,
A., & Hell, C. (2018). Digital transformation and its implica-
tions on organizational behavior. Journal of EU Research in
Business, 30, 1–14.
Fulmer, R. M., Stumpf, S. A., & Bleak, J. (2009). The strategic
development of high potential leaders. Strategy & Leadership,
37(3), 17–22.
Gangani, N., McLean, G. N., & Braden, R. A. (2006). A
competency-based human resource development strategy.
Performance Improvement Quarterly, 19(1), 127–139.
Getha-Taylor, H., Fowles, J., Silvia, C., & Merritt, C. C.
(2015). Considering the effects of time on leadership
Vision
development: A local government training evaluation. Public
Personnel Management, 44(3), 295–316. https://doi.org/10.
1177/009102601558626
Glamuzina, M. (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.
Gothard, S., & Austin, M. J. (2013). Leadership succession plan-
ning: Implications for non-profit human service organiza-
tions. Administration in Social Work, 37(3), 272–285.
Groves, K. (2007). Integrating leadership development and suc-
cession planning best practices. Journal of Management
Development, 26(3), 239–260.
Hannawi, S., & 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.
Harvey, J. F. (2012). Managing organizational memory with
intergenerational knowledge transfer. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 16(3), 400–417.
Hor, F. C., Huang, L.-C., Shih, H.-S., Lee, Y.-H., & Lee, E. S.
(2010). Establishing talent management for company’ succes-
sion planning through analytic network process: Application
to an MNC semiconductor company in Taiwan. Computers &
Mathematics with Applications, 60(3), 528–540.
Islam, Z. M., Hasan, I., & Rahman, M. (2015). Factors affecting
knowledge transfer in public organization employees. Asian
Social Science, 11(4), 223–233.
Jabeen, F., & 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.
Jokinen, T. (2005). Global leadership competencies: A review
and discussion. Journal of European Industrial Training,
29(3), 199–216.
Kesner, I., & Sebora, T. (1994). Executive succession: Past, pre-
sent & future. Journal of Management, 20(2), 327–372.
Kohestany, Z., & 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.
Manning, V., Jones, A., Jones, P., & Fernandez, R. S. (2015).
Planning for a smooth transition: Evaluation of a succes-
sion planning program for prospective nurse unit managers.
Nursing Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 58–68.
Mehrtak, M., Farzaneh, E., Habibzadeh, S., Kamran, A., Zandian,
H., & Mahdavi, A. (2017). Explaining the role of organiza-
tional culture on succession-planning at the Ministry of Health
and Medical Education: A qualitative study. Electronic
Physician, 9(11), 5806.
Merkus, S., Willems, T., & Veenswijk, M. (2019). Strategy imple-
mentation as performative practice: Reshaping organization
into alignment with strategy. Organization Management
Journal, 16(3), 140–155.
Mirchandani, D., & Ikerd, J. (2008). Building and maintain-
ing sustainable organizations. Organization Management
Journal, 5(1), 40–51.
Motwani, J., Levenburg, N. M., Schwarz, T. V., & Blankson, C.
(2006). Succession planning in SMEs: An empirical analysis.
International Small Business Journal, 24(5), 471–495.
Suwaidi et al. 15
Mourougan, S. (2015). Succeeding at succession through talent
management to retain intellectual capital for business conti-
nuity. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 3(17), 4.
Mugo, M., Minja, D., & Njanja, L. (2015). The mediating effect
of culture on management succession and corporate growth
strategy among local family businesses in the manufactur-
ing sector in Nairobi County, Kenya. European Journal of
Business and Management, 7(5), 171–179.
Murray, A. (2007). Growing your own: Developing leaders
through succession planning. Liber Quarterly, 17(3/4). http://
doi.org/10.18352/lq.7886
Nuaimi, M. A., & Jabeen, F. (2020). A study of factors influenc-
ing knowledge transfer in organisations in the United Arab
Emirates. International Journal of Knowledge Management
Studies, 11(2), 170–189.
Ojeka, S., 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.
Oudah, M., Jabeen, F., & Dixon, C. (2018). Determinants linked
to family business sustainability in the UAE: An AHP
approach. Sustainability, 10(1), 246.
Paulin, D., & Suneson, K. (2012). Knowledge transfer, knowl-
edge sharing and knowledge barriers—Three blurry terms
in KM. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management,
10(1), 81–91.
Pila, M. M., Schultz, C., & Leigh-Anne, P. D. (2016). Factors
related to succession planning in a government department in
Gauteng. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 14(4),
145.
Ramírez, L. M., Flores, J. M., & Vargas, A. T. (2016). The ana-
lytical hierarchy process an optimal methodology for research
in entrepreneurship. Problemy Zarządzania, 3/2016(62), t. 2,
172–186.
Rayburn, W., Grigsby, K., & Brubaker, L. (2016). The strategic
value of succession planning for department chairs. Academic
Medicine, 91(4), 465–468.
Richards, P. (2008). Succession planning: Does it matter in the
context of corporate leadership? Australian Journal of Adult
Learning, 48(3), 445–464.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning,
priority setting, resources allocation. McGraw.
Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hier-
archy process. European Journal of Operational Research,
48(1), 9–26.
Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierar-
chy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1),
83–98.
Saaty, T. L. (2012). Decision making for leaders: The analyti-
cal hierarchy process for decision in complex world. RWS
Publication.
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
Sharma, A., & Agarwal, N. (2016). Succession planning in SMEs:
Emergence, importance & process. Journal of Business and
Management, 18(6), 1–9.
Sheikh Khalifa Excellence Award. http://www.skea.ae/English/
SKEAWinners/Pages/Default.aspx
Shippmann, J. S., Ash, R. A., Batjtsta, M., Carr, L., Eyde, L. D.,
Hesketh, B., & Sanchez, J. I. (2000). The practice of compe-
tency modeling. Personnel Psychology, 53(3), 703–740.
Sivagiri, N. (2018). The effects of knowledge management infra-
structure capability on knowledge management effectiveness
of doctors: An empirical study. Journal of Management, 5(5),
218–231.
Stewart, A. J., & Kuenzi, K. (2018). The nonprofit career ladder:
exploring career paths as leadership development for future
nonprofit executives. Public Personnel Management, 47(4),
359–381.
Thampi, L., Manickema, M. S., Kuppuswamy, S., & Muralidharan,
C. (2016). Applying analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in the
selection of best method for the preparation of solid disper-
sion as a carrier for the controlled drug delivery of delayed
release tablets. Der Pharmacia Lettre, 8(4), 315–323.
UAE (2020). Government entities. https://u.ae/en/help/contact-us/
the-government
Van Nguyen, H., & Giang, T. T. (2013). Gender difference in
academic planning activity among medical students. PLoS
One, 8(2), e55845.
Vazirani, N. (2010). Competencies and competency model—
A brief overview of its development and application. SIES
Journal of Management, 7(1), 121.
Vikström, A., & Westerberg, M. (2010). Success with succes-
sion: An empirical study of small Swedish family firms.
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business, 11(3), 223–241.
Vinod, S., Sudhakar, B., Mihir, H., Varghese, A. M., & Bobby,
M. (2014). Talent management among UAE national women.
Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management
Sciences, 5(5), 474–479.
Westera, W. (2001). Competences in education: A confusion of
tongues. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(1), 75–88. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00220270120625
Wiesman, J., & Baker, E. L. (2013). Succession planning and
management in public health practice. Journal of Public
Health Management and Practice, 19(1), 100–101.
Wisker, Z. L., & Poulis, A. (2015). Emotional intelligence and
sales performance. A myth or reality. International Journal
of Business and Society, 16(2), 185–200.
Yadav, N., & Dixit, S. (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.
Zhang, Y., & Rajagopalan, N. (2010). CEO succession plan-
ning: finally, at the centre stage of the boardroom. Business
Horizons, 53(5), 455–462.
About the Authors
Muna Al Suwaidi (mydpa68@yahoo.com) is currently
serving as Vice President—Human Resources, ADNOC
Refining in Abu Dhabi, UAE. She is also pursuing her
doctoral degree in business management at College of
Business, Abu Dhabi University (UAE).
Fauzia Jabeen (fauzia.jabeen@adu.ac.ae) has been with
the College of Business at Abu Dhabi University (ADU)
 16
since 2010. She holds a PhD in Management and has over
18 years of experience in teaching, consulting and research.
Her teaching assignments are extensive and include inter-
national business, business ethics and corporate govern-
ance and organizational behaviour at the undergraduate,
graduate and doctoral levels. Additionally, she is a prolific
writer, with many publications on productivity/perfor-
mance management, organizational development, gender
studies, enterprise development, social responsibility,
sustainability, etc., in high impact-factor journals.
Agata Stachowicz-Stanusch (agata@cud.ac.ae) is a
Professor of Management, Canadian University Dubai,
UAE. She has published widely with an emphasis on ethics
in management and management education, including
more than 80 research papers in high-impact journals
including the Journal of Business Ethics, Management
Decision, Vision, The Journal of Business Economics and
Management and Crime, Law, and Social Change. She has
20 books published by leading houses such as Emerald,
Greenleaf, Palgrave Macmillan and Information Age
Publishing (IAP). In the UN Global Compact/PRME
View publication stats
Vision
initiative, she has managed an international research team
as part of the project ‘Sensitizing Future Business Leaders:
Developing Anti-Corruption Guidelines for Curriculum
Change’. She has served as the Academy Of Management
(AOM) ITC Chair and has chaired the AOM Carolyn
Dexter Award Committee. She is the recipient of AOM
MED’s Division Best PDW and Outstanding Reviewer
awards. Agata is an editor of book series in IAP, USA. Pro
bono she is a World Engagement Institute International
Fellow and member of the Anti-Corruption Academic
Initiative (ACAD).
Matthew Webb (matthewwebb2@gmail.com) is an
Associate Professor in the Department of Humanities and
Social Sciences at Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi. He has
taught at universities in the UAE, Japan, Australia and
New Zealand. His research has been published in South
Asia Research, Defense & Security Analysis, Contemporary
South Asia, Defense and Peace Economics, The
International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change
Management and Global Economy Journal.