1. The evidence presented here implies that Bank of America's board of directors lacked a succession plan for CEO even when the directors had concerns about the current CEO. Why might it be difficult to engage in succession planning during a crisis? Why might it be necessary?
2. Imagine that you are an HR executive. How would you make the case to your company's board of directors to create a specific succession plan for the company's top executives? If they are uncomfortable with the conversation, how would you overcome objections to the topic?

By any definition, the role of chief executive officer is crucial. The person in this top position is expected to set the tone and direction for the whole organization.
If something happens that causes a company to lose its CEO, no one is in charge unless there's a plan for someone to take over immediately. So every company has a succession plan for at least the CEO, right? Surprisingly, the answer is no.
Beverly Behan, who consults with boards of directors on this issue, says often they have just a vague idea about a replacement: a list of some high-potential managers and a list of who is supposed to phone whom in the event of an emergency. A phone tree is a handy tool, but it's no substitute for a leader.
This embarrassing situation came to light recently at Bank of America. In the wake of the financial crisis, rumors swirled that CEO Ken Lewis would be pressured to leave the bank. The board even removed him from the post of chairman, suggesting some lack of confidence. Still, when Lewis announced his retirement, weeks passed without the board naming a replacement. Evidently, if the board had discussed a succession plan, it hadn't reached a final decision on who would get the job.
Being caught without a succession plan when the company needs one is, at best, a real embarrassment.
Perhaps it feels too frightening or awkward to contemplate something bad taking away the leader. But as the Bank of America example reminds us, leadership changes.