Developing Bench Strength Before You Need It
At the executive level, bench strength is rarely discussed until it becomes painfully relevant.
A VP of Operations resigns three months before peak season. A CFO leaves midway through a refinancing. A Chief People Officer burns out just as the brand crosses 100 units. In each case, the organization scrambles—not because the leader was irreplaceable, but because there was no credible internal successor and no prepared external alternative.
In the restaurant industry, where execution risk is high and leadership transitions ripple quickly to the field, executive bench strength is not a “nice-to-have.” It is a governance issue, a growth enabler, and increasingly, a valuation driver.
Yet many restaurant companies treat VP and C-level succession as something to address later. Recent industry research suggests this is a widespread issue. Food and beverage executives consistently cite leadership continuity as a major risk, while far fewer report having formal succession plans for senior roles. The gap between risk awareness and readiness remains significant.
The most sophisticated operators are closing that gap. They are building executive bench strength deliberately—before they need it—and doing so with the same rigor they apply to unit economics or development strategy.
Why executive bench strength is harder—and more critical—than ever
1. Executive roles are expanding faster than the talent pool
The scope of senior restaurant leadership has changed materially in the last five years. Today’s VPs and C-suite leaders are expected to manage:
Multi-channel revenue (on-premise, off-premise, digital, catering)
Complex labor strategies and compliance environments
Technology ecosystems that touch every restaurant
Franchisee or investor relationships
Data-driven decision-making at scale
As roles expand, the pool of leaders who have already done the job at the right level shrinks. Waiting until a role opens to search for “someone who has done this exact thing before” is increasingly unrealistic.
2. External executive hires carry more integration risk
At the executive level, success is highly contextual. Culture, decision rights, capital structure, and operating cadence matter as much as functional expertise.
Even strong external hires often need 9–12 months to reach full effectiveness. When a company hires reactively—under time pressure or following an unexpected departure—that ramp period becomes a real business risk.
Bench strength gives leadership teams optionality: promote internally when continuity matters most, or hire externally with intention rather than urgency.
3. Investors and boards are paying closer attention
Private equity sponsors, lenders, and boards are increasingly asking direct questions about executive succession:
“Who could step in if this leader left tomorrow?”
“Do we have a next-generation COO or CFO in the organization?”
“How dependent is performance on one or two individuals?”
The absence of credible answers doesn’t just create operational risk—it can impact confidence, capital decisions, and exit outcomes.
What executive bench strength really means
Executive bench strength is not a replacement plan written on a slide once a year. It is a systematic approach to leadership continuity that answers three questions for every critical VP and C-level role:
If this leader left, who could step in immediately?
Who is one to two years away with the right development and exposure?
Where do we need external perspective or capability we cannot realistically build internally?
Strong executive bench strength blends internal readiness with external awareness. It acknowledges that not every role should be filled internally—but no role should be left unprotected.
Executive-level examples that matter
Consider a few common scenarios we see across restaurant organizations:
A VP of Operations who has grown with the brand but has never led through a major systems conversion or national expansion. Without a successor developing underneath them, the organization becomes exposed during the most operationally intense moments.
A CFO who has taken the company from 30 to 80 units but has not navigated a recap, debt restructuring, or exit process. Boards often realize too late that the next phase requires a different leadership profile.
A Chief People Officer who built foundational HR processes but is now expected to lead enterprise workforce analytics, executive succession, and leadership development at scale—without a bench behind them.
In each case, the issue is not performance. It is future readiness.
What leading restaurant companies are doing differently
Some of the most successful brands have been explicit about building leadership capacity internally—well beyond the GM level.
Starbucks has long emphasized internal advancement and leadership continuity, publicly stating its intent to promote the vast majority of senior retail leaders from within. That philosophy extends upward, ensuring institutional knowledge and cultural consistency as leaders scale.
Chipotle continues to position leadership development as a pipeline to enterprise leadership, frequently highlighting how internal operators progress into senior and executive roles over time.
The commonality is not the specific program—it’s the belief that executive readiness must be cultivated, not assumed.
A practical framework for VP and C-suite bench strength
1. Identify enterprise-critical roles
Not all executive roles carry equal risk. Start with positions where vacancy would materially disrupt performance, strategy, or investor confidence:
CEO / President
COO or VP of Operations
CFO
Chief People Officer
Chief Technology / Digital / Data Officer (in tech-forward brands)
For each role, ask: If this seat were vacant for six months, what breaks?
2. Define “next-level ready” clearly
Executive readiness is often vague. Clarify it.
For each VP or C-level role, define what readiness means across dimensions such as:
Strategic decision-making
Financial acumen
Scale and complexity exposure
Leadership presence and board interaction
Change management and crisis leadership
This clarity helps distinguish between high performers and true successors.
3. Build intentional development for executive successors
At senior levels, development is less about training and more about exposure and judgment:
Board and investor interaction
Leading enterprise initiatives (systems, restructures, integrations)
Owning P&L responsibility beyond functional silos
Navigating ambiguity and trade-offs
Executive bench strength grows when leaders are trusted with real risk—not just additional workload.
4. Maintain an external executive bench
Even the strongest internal pipeline benefits from market awareness. High-performing companies maintain an ongoing view of external talent by:
Benchmarking roles against the market
Building relationships with potential future executives before roles open
Understanding where internal talent is strong—and where external capability will be required
This is where retained executive search becomes a strategic partner, not just a transactional one.
5. Make bench strength a leadership expectation
One of the clearest signals of a mature organization is this question being asked regularly:
“Who are you developing to take your role one day?”
When VPs and C-suite leaders are accountable for building successors—not protecting turf—bench strength becomes part of the culture.
The cost of waiting
Organizations that delay executive bench planning often encounter the same challenges:
Reactive executive searches under time pressure
Compromised hires due to urgency
Loss of momentum during leadership transitions
Increased reliance on interim solutions
Reduced confidence from boards and investors
By contrast, companies that invest early in executive bench strength move through transitions with stability—and often emerge stronger.
Bench strength as a value-creation lever
Ultimately, executive bench strength is not just a defensive strategy. It is an offensive one.
It enables faster growth, smoother transitions, better decision-making, and stronger investor confidence. It signals maturity. And in an industry defined by thin margins and high execution risk, it is one of the clearest indicators that a restaurant company is built to last.
As an executive search firm focused exclusively on the restaurant industry, we see this firsthand: the strongest leadership teams are rarely the ones scrambling to replace executives. They are the ones preparing successors quietly, thoughtfully, and well ahead of need.
And when change inevitably comes, they are ready.
For CEOs Preparing for What’s Next
If you’re a CEO, you already know that VP and C-suite transitions are inevitable. What’s not inevitable is disruption, lost momentum, or rushed decisions when they happen.
The most effective CEOs don’t wait for a resignation, retirement, or investor question to think about executive succession. They treat bench strength as part of how they run the business—quietly assessing readiness, pressure-testing their leadership structure, and staying close to the external market long before a change is required.
If you’re asking yourself questions like:
Who could realistically step into this role if I needed them to?
Which of my VPs is ready for broader enterprise responsibility—and which still needs exposure?
Where do I need to build internally, and where will I eventually need to hire from the outside?
…it may be time for a more intentional conversation.
At Wray Executive Search, we partner with restaurant CEOs, founders, boards, and investors to help de-risk VP and C-suite transitions—whether that means developing internal successors, benchmarking critical roles, or building a forward-looking external executive bench. Our work isn’t just about filling roles; it’s about ensuring leadership continuity as your business scales and evolves.
If you’re thinking ahead about your next phase of growth—or simply want an objective perspective on your executive bench—we’d welcome a confidential discussion. The best time to prepare for a leadership transition is before you need one.
