Workplace succession fears hurt productivity

Not every performance problem begins with a lack of talent.
In many organisations, the deeper problem is that knowledge, authority and context are kept in too few hands. Decisions then depend on gatekeepers rather than systems, making institutions slower, weaker and more fragile than they appear.
This is not just a management flaw. It is an economic one.
When too much knowledge sits with one person, work slows. Decisions are delayed, mistakes are repeated and teams spend time relearning what should already be part of institutional memory. The cost may not appear immediately on a balance sheet, but it is visible in longer project timelines, uneven performance, rising inefficiency and missed opportunities.
At the heart of the problem is not always incompetence. Often, it is insecurity.
Some workplaces do not reward knowledge-sharing. They reward control. Information is passed selectively. Junior staff are given tasks, but not the wider context needed to understand them. Responsibilities are distributed in ways that preserve dependence rather than build capability. The result is an unhealthy culture in which people may perform routine duties, yet remain unprepared to lead, decide or improve the way work is done.
That weakens human capital at its core.
An organisation cannot claim to be developing talent if it keeps talent away from real responsibility. It cannot claim to be efficient if decisions are constantly trapped in narrow channels. And it cannot claim to be resilient if the departure of one individual creates confusion, delay or institutional drift.
The damage is especially clear in project-based sectors, where delivery depends on coordination, timely decisions and accumulated experience. When knowledge is not transferred properly, the same errors recur. When communication is restricted, rework rises. When authority is concentrated too tightly, delivery slows and quality suffers.
Over time, this creates a serious structural imbalance. Too few people are ready to take ownership, while too many remain dependent on a small group of decision-makers. That may protect internal hierarchies, but it weakens institutional performance.
For Oman, this matters beyond the office.
Oman Vision 2040 is built around productivity, efficiency, governance and the development of national talent. But those goals cannot be achieved through training programmes alone. They require workplaces that genuinely develop people by sharing knowledge, widening responsibility and embedding experience into the institution itself.
A workplace that hoards knowledge is working against that national direction.
It is also working against the basic logic of economic progress. No economy can improve productivity if institutions remain dependent on a few individuals instead of building systems that allow performance to continue, improve and scale. Real efficiency comes when knowledge moves across teams, decisions are understood and capable successors are prepared before they are urgently needed.
That does not reduce the value of strong individuals. It redefines what strength means.
Strong organisations are not built around people who make themselves indispensable. They are built around systems that continue to perform when key people move on. Knowledge should be documented. Delegation should be routine. Communication should be clear. Coaching and exposure should be part of daily management, not last-minute responses to retirement, resignation or crisis.
Just as importantly, performance must be measured properly.
Efficiency should not remain a slogan. It should show in faster delivery, fewer repeated mistakes, better coordination and stronger continuity. If those things are not improving, then institutions are not becoming more efficient, no matter how often they claim otherwise.
In the end, the real test of an organisation is not whether one person performs brilliantly inside it. It is whether the institution itself is built to perform.
Where successors are blocked, productivity slows. Where knowledge is hoarded, resilience weakens. Where institutions depend too heavily on individuals, economic value is lost.
Moving from dependence on people to confidence in systems is not a soft management idea. It is an economic necessity.