08 Fall

7KEYS

1 | P a g e

Seven

Keys to

Successful

Succession

By Paul Rattray

7KEYS

2 | P a g e

Seven Keys to Successful Succession

v. 1.0

By Paul Rattray

Published by Sacrificial Succession

26 Spring Myrtle Avenue

Nambour Queensland

Australia

http://www.sacrificialsuccession.com/

This work is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-

ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0).

You are free to:

Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work

Remix — to adapt the work

Make commercial use of the work

Under the following conditions:

Attribution — You must attribute the work as follows: “Original

work available at:

Attribution statements in derivative works should not in any way

suggest endorsement of you or your use of this work.

ShareAlike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you

may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar

license to this one.

7KEYS

3 | P a g e

Contents

Contents ................................................................................................... 3

Preface .................................................................................................. 5

Introduction ......................................................................................... 8

Successional Leadership ............................................................... 11

Selfish to sacrificial successions ................................................... 13

7Keys-1 ................................................................................................... 16

Overturn Orders ................................................................................ 16

First last, last first........................................................................... 17

Peace not Disorder ........................................................................ 18

Changing course ............................................................................ 20

Breaking down barriers ................................................................ 23

Conclusion ..................................................................................... 26

7Keys-2 ................................................................................................... 28

Ready Replacements ........................................................................ 28

Selfish to sacrificial orientations ................................................... 30

Ministry mediates mastery ........................................................... 32

Direct succession relationships .................................................... 35

Conclusion ..................................................................................... 38

7Keys-3 ................................................................................................... 41

Expose Egos ....................................................................................... 41

Successor characteristics ............................................................... 42

Heart before head .......................................................................... 44

Bred or built? ................................................................................. 45

Cultural character .......................................................................... 47

Assessing altruism ......................................................................... 48

Conclusion ..................................................................................... 49

7Keys-4 ................................................................................................... 53

Open Oversight ..................................................................................... 53

Transparent treatment .................................................................. 54

Outsider opinions .......................................................................... 55

Incumbents and instructors .......................................................... 57

Conclusion ..................................................................................... 60

7Keys-5 ................................................................................................... 63

Calm Conflict .................................................................................... 63

Desire for greatness ....................................................................... 65

Resolve conflict correctly .............................................................. 66

The ‘Judas’ principle ..................................................................... 68

Conclusion ..................................................................................... 70

7Keys-6 ................................................................................................... 73

Avoid Authoritarianism ....................................................................... 73

Authority aware ............................................................................ 74

Succession rules ............................................................................. 78

Succession outcomes ..................................................................... 81

Successor scenarios........................................................................ 83

Conclusion ..................................................................................... 85

7KEYS

4 | P a g e

7Keys-7 ................................................................................................... 88

Sacrifice Successionally ....................................................................... 88

Ministry of service ......................................................................... 90

Mediatory sacrifice ........................................................................ 92

Mastery of advocacy ..................................................................... 95

Sacrificial succession ..................................................................... 97

Conclusion ................................................................................... 102

Appendix ......................................................................................... 104

Endnotes .......................................................................................... 106

7Keys.

7KEYS

5 | P a g e

Preface

Seven keys to successful succession are often

overlooked in leadership transitions. The unfortunate

result is succession failure and crisis. Surprisingly,

perhaps, the master key to successful transitions is

sacrificial succession. Sacrificial Succession is the

altruistic, mid-tenure handover of leadership mediated

by incumbent for successor success. Sacrificial

Succession includes pre- and post-succession preparation

of altruistic successors. This book shows leaders how to

be successful successors by sacrificing successionally.

Unsuccessful leadership transitions start with

incumbents failing to prepare altruistic successors then

avoiding a sacrificial handover of leadership. This

oversight causes leadership voids and succession crisis.

Applying the Seven Keys (7Keys) of this book helps bring

greater succession success because it puts the onus of a

greater sacrifice on incumbent rather than successor.

Most leadership transitions and successions are

defined by the handover of managerial authority from

predecessor to successor. While succession is usually

associated with leadership transition, its importance to a

successful leadership legacy is often overlooked. This

disconnect between leadership and succession is

evidenced by good leaders having poor successions.

Today, this oversight allows more selfishly than

sacrificially motivated successors to dominate. Due to

these factors coupled with ageing leaderships, especially

in the west, and younger generations of leaders less

willing to take on corporate leadership, transition crisis is

a serious leadership problem1.

Despite the predominance of professional

succession planning and management, leadership

development and placement programs, there is limited

outcome evidence to prove that these “best practices” are

actually working2. The 7Keys to successful succession of

this book explain why these approaches are ultimately

unsuccessful. They also show how these unsuccessional

7KEYS

6 | P a g e

leadership transition trends can be reversed and

reorientated towards more successful successions.

The first of the 7Keys involves overturning orders

by giving those normally coming last opportunities to be

first. Key two is about intentionally readying

replacements as successors rather than leaders. Key 3 is

about exposing egos amongst potential successors to find

those that are more sacrificially orientated. Key four

involves being open to the oversight of other leaders

when choosing successors. Keys five and six are about

calming the inevitable successor conflicts that arise and

avoiding the corporate and dynastic authoritarianism

found in so many successions.

Finally, key number seven, the Master Key,

explains sacrificial succession: the altruistic hand over of

leadership to successors mediated by incumbent, as a

promising solution to transition crisis. Sacrificial

succession requires incumbents to directly prepare

altruistic replacements pre-succession, sacrificially

handover leadership to these successors mid-tenure then

stay on to act as successor advocates post-succession.

Failing to use these 7Keys, and particularly the last

key, in leadership transitions is what causes many good

leaders to have poor successions. Using these seven keys

is critical for successor and succession success. Examples

of successful and unsuccessful successions are shared

later. Despite the numerous—and excellent—succession

planning techniques and technologies, professional

managers and leadership development programs

available, succession crises and leadership voids will

continue to effect transitions until these seven keys are

put into practice.

In short, transition crises will continue to occur

until more leaders start practicing sacrificial succession.

Applying these 7Keys to successful succession will help

end much transitional uncertainty. Succession crisis can

be avoided by using the following 7Keys:

1) Overturn Orders

2) Ready Replacements

3) Expose Egos

7KEYS

7 | P a g e

4) Open Oversight

5) Calm Conflict

6) Avoid Authoritarianism

7) Sacrifice Successional

These seven keys to successful succession are

based on common-sense insights combined with age-old

truths that are as relevant today as ever. They are

supported by some of the latest research into altruism

and leadership showing that sacrificial leaders can indeed

make the most successful successors.

Successful successors willingly serve and prepare

their followers altruistically, sacrificially hand over their

leadership early then stay on post succession to advocate

for the next generation of successors. Each of these

seminal truths is revealed through the following Seven

Keys to Successful Succession.

7Keys.

7KEYS

8 | P a g e

Introduction

In preparing his successors to replace him a

certain leader shared his private and public life with

them. It gave his disciples the opportunity to see not

only how he acted at work but also how he interacted

with his family and friends, rivals and enemies in public

and privately. He told them stories that challenged

established norms and structures.

Together, these potential successors were given

projects that developed their ability to lead as successors.

They learned by doing directly from their leader. He did

strange things that challenged

established orders of the day. This

leader gave those who normally

come last opportunities to be first.

He put the interests of others before

his own. In so doing he challenged

and overturned existing orders.

Importantly, this leader

modelled these keys to successful

succession, personally and professionally. He directly

prepared his successors for transition by predicting how,

when and where he would sacrificially give up his

leadership. These ready replacements were well

prepared as successors because this outgoing leader

already had an exit strategy in mind with a clear timeline

for transition well before the time he was succeeded.

Also, this leader readied his replacements as

successors rather than subordinates. “I no longer call you

staff because staff do not know what their masters are

doing. Instead I call you my friends, because everything I

have learned from my predecessors I have made known

to you,” their leader said.

These successional candidates, learned

discipline—the base meaning of the word “disciple” by

doing what their leader did.

Because their leader was still in the prime of life,

these potential successors felt he was planning to hand

over leadership too early in his tenure. Nevertheless, this

They were regularly taken aside by their leader over a

more than three-year period and reminded of the manner,

timing and place of the impending handover.

7KEYS

9 | P a g e

leader knew that an altruistic—and early—mid-tenure

handover of his leadership for the success of successors

was one of the keys to successful successions.

Having these doubts did not, however, stop these

disciples from competing for the incumbent’s position.

Wisely, their leader understood the need to expose egos

so that the selfish to sacrificial motivations of potential

successors could be revealed beforehand. When some of

these potential successors humbly approached their

leader to seek favours in the upcoming transition this key

was applied masterfully.

With his ability to expose egos this leader

understood the selfish to sacrificial motivations of each

successor. In this particular culture the pull of kinship

was strong. Other cultures favour connections over clan,

but these self-serving motivations are common and

insidious to most transitions.

In response to their approach the leader asked,

“What is it that you want?” Their reply [often unspoken],

as with most seeking favour in transitions, was to become

the greatest by becoming successors. The leader went on

to ask them, “But are you able to make the sacrifices that I

am about to make for this succession to occur.

Their self-confident reply, “We can!” The leader

confirmed their self-serving willingness to sacrifice by

saying, “You will indeed make similar sacrifices to me

but the decision about my successors is open to oversight.

This astute leader made sure that he was accountable to

other stakeholders for the crucial decision about the

choice of successor. He knew that being open to

oversight counters bias and provides the balance that is

so often absent in successions.

When the other leadership contenders heard about

this attempt to gain special favour they were

understandably indignant. Gathering the aggrieved

group together the leader dealt with the problem quickly

and transparently. He understood the need to calm

conflicts by dealing with issues of betrayal openly and

honestly—and quickly!

7KEYS

10 | P a g e

Often such conflicts remain hidden and

unresolved in transitions. Incumbents are reluctant to

deal with these matters publically by involving the

interested parties because they fear further conflict.

Instead, this leader skilfully used the conflict situation to

calm things down.

In fact, this situation was used to teach an object

lesson about avoiding authoritarianism. The leader knew

it was the leadership contenders’ desire for greatness that

was at the heart of the conflict. Therefore he went on to

describe the authoritarian leadership norms of the day so

evident in the behaviour of these

succession candidates.

Evidence of authoritarianism is

found in most corporate and dynastic

transitions. Top leaders authorise a

succession and their intermediaries

exercise this authority over their

subordinates. Sometimes these self-

serving leaders act like barons and at

other times as benefactors, yet remain authoritarian

nonetheless. Their preference is for strict rules and

established authority.

Rejecting this naturalistic approach to transitions,

this sacrificial leader went on to explain a radical

alternative. The truth of sacrificing successionally is at

the heart of successful succession. Instead of being self-

serving and seeking power, the leader said that they

should be sacrificial. “Altruistically serving others rather

than yourself is the true measure of greatness,” their

leader said.

Reminding his disciples about the first coming

last, the leader went on to say that they too must be

willing to come last and be the least. Then the leader got

personal: “Just as I have served others rather than myself

and give up my leadership sacrificially as a ransom for

you, so too must you do the same as my successors.”

Finally, this outgoing leader said, “Even though I

am sacrificing my leadership early for your successional

success, I am not leaving you. After handing over my

“Just as I have served others rather than myself and give up my leadership sacrificially as a

ransom for you, so too must you do the same as my

successors.”

7KEYS

11 | P a g e

leadership, I will stay on after the handover to advocate

for you and help prepare the next generation of sacrificial

successors”.

Eventually these potential successors came to

realise that even leaders who serve others faithfully are

less successful without enacting a sacrificial succession.

The latter (sacrifice) is the genuine outworking of the

former (service) and without a sacrificial succession most

transitions remain ineffective because sacrifice

complements service to make both sides of the

successional coin complete. Because these candidate

successors had personally seen their

leader sacrifice successionally, they

were well prepared as sacrificial

successors.

Due to observing these seven

truths first-hand through their

leader’s sacrificial transition, they

were impossible for these successors

to forget. Overturn orders, ready

replacements, expose egos, open

oversight, calm conflict, avoid authoritarianism and

sacrifice successionally would echo in the hearts and

minds of these successors throughout their lives. This

successional imprint would live on in the leaderships of

their successors as long as they practiced these seven

keys to successful succession.

Successional Leadership The sacrificial succession defined in the

previous section involves the altruistic handover of

leadership by incumbent. This transfer of leadership is

specifically for the benefit of successor. It involves

incumbents directly preparing ready replacements

during the pre-succession, sacrificing their leadership

ambitions mid-tenure then staying on post-succession to

advocate for the next generation of successors.

Due to its obvious association with leadership and

succession in particular, an uncritical reading of the seven

steps to sacrificial succession may conclude that the

Overturn orders, ready replacements, expose egos, open

oversight, calm conflict, avoid authoritarianism and sacrifice successional would echo in the

hearts and minds of these successors throughout their lives.

7KEYS

12 | P a g e

7Keys are as much about leadership and management as

they are about succession. To some extent this is true

since good leadership and management should

ultimately be about having an effective succession.

For example, “Begin with the end in mind,” to

quote Stephen Covey’s second of ‘The Seven Habits of

Highly Successful People’ means starting with a clear

understanding of the planned destination3. Since the

aims of succession planning and management, leadership

succession and development are to have the right people

in the right jobs at the right time, broadly speaking these

goals fit with the 7Keys.

There are, however, a number of important

differences between sacrificial succession as defined in

this book and leadership transition and management

succession norms that need pointing out. First,

succession must come before leadership in order of

importance. This first truth of the 7Keys, which is that

the ‘last must be first’ is not mere semantics. It is

critically important as a starting point for sacrificial

succession to initially occur.

By overturning the order of leadership succession

to succession leadership the intent is to make clear that

for successful successions to eventuate this order must

first be overturned. Second is that to be genuinely

successional, the focus on managers being developed to

fill leadership pipelines must be replaced by a much

greater emphasis on a far wider pool of candidates. For

example, potential successors should come from a variety

of non-managerial fields.

As Stephen Drotter of the Leadership

Development Pipeline rightly says, the operating

definition of leadership should be to make performance

happen so that others become more effective4. Yet the

focus on developing successors to be effective self-

managers who eventually learn to manage others is

limiting. Instead of developing leaders who can take

over if and when needed, the seven keys are

unequivocally about preparing successors as ready

replacements in transitions where the timing and terms of

7KEYS

13 | P a g e

the succession are clearly spelled out by incumbent and

the sacrifice of leadership by incumbent is intentionally

for the benefit of successors.

Selfish to sacrificial successions To summarise the key differences between

sacrificial succession the master key of this book, and

other more self-interested forms of leadership succession,

is to reiterate its focus. First is the emphasis on readying

replacements as successors rather than developing

leaders or managers to fill future leadership positions.

Second is that that to be genuinely successional

incumbents must sacrifice their leadership for the benefit

of successors mid-tenure. As a direct outworking of

these first two successional differences, the third main

difference involves incumbent staying on as replaced

leader to advocate for the next generation of successors.

Successional leadership is about leaving a

sacrificial succession legacy of ready replacements

prepared as successors, leadership sacrificially handed

over for the benefit of successors and advocacy for the

next generation of successors by incumbent as its most

important elements. Though strange and unnatural,

sacrificial succession is logical and possible.

While these three key phases of sacrificial

succession are not commonly practiced in transitions,

glimpses of successional leadership, a precursor to

sacrificial succession, are occasionally observed. Two

transitions worth mentioning, as examples, are those of

Fannie Mae’s David Maxwell to Jim Johnson and F. W. de

Klerk to Nelson Mandela.

In the case of David O. Maxwell, he voluntarily

relinquished his rights to a final retirement payment of

$5.5 million in 1991 stipulated under his contract with

Fannie Mae, a mortgage security provider5. He took this

action to stop continued controversy over his retirement

compensation. Also, he believing that it could harm his

successor Jim Johnson and the millions of Americans

Fannie Mae served. How different Maxwell’s sacrificial

act turned out to be to the selfishness of his successors

7KEYS

14 | P a g e

James (Jim) A. Johnson and Franklin (Frank) D. Raines6.

Both were ousted due to financial impropriety yet

requested and received huge retirement packages.

In stark contrast, the amount that Maxwell

surrendered contributed to housing for low-income

families. Johnson and Raines on the other hand arguably

contributed to Fannie Mae’s eventual collapse and global

economic crisis. How different can these sacrificial and

selfish succession legacies possibly be?

Another example of a sacrificial succession is the

relatively smooth political succession from Frederik

Willem de Klerk to Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela in South

Africa. Without both incumbent and successor willingly

and intentionally making mutual sacrifices, conflict

rather than consensus would have been almost

guaranteed. Then the history of South Africa would have

been like much of the rest of Africa—plagued by

transition crisis and conflict.

Having a close succession relationship, despite

their strong political and personal differences, was a

crucial factor in the successful succession from de Klerk

to Mandela. Both were obviously motivated by mutual

self-interest. Nevertheless, the greater good of the nation

and the people were ultimately put first by both men.

Their successional leaderships were defined by a

willingness to mutually sacrifice7.

For de Klerk it was sacrificing his future political

leadership ambitions and with Mandela it was serving

peaceful instead of radical political change. Both men left

a virtually unparalleled successful succession legacy in

Africa and jointly won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993. De

Klerk continues his role in brokering peaceful successions

through the Global Leadership Foundation, which he

founded. Nelson Mandela is honoured as an elder

statesmen and peacemaker.

A fitting quote from F. W. de Klerk about this

tumultuous time in South Africa’s history and the key

role his and Mandela’s successional leadership played in

it is a fitting conclusion to this chapter and introduction

to the ensuing seven keys.

7KEYS

15 | P a g e

“Finally, leaders must accept that there is no end to change -

and must plan for their own departure. As soon as one has

achieved one’s transformation objectives one must start the

process all over again. In a world in which change is

accelerating, fundamental and unpredictable there is no

respite or time to rest on one’s laurels. One of the most

difficult decisions for any leader is to accept that he, too, will

one day be swept away by the unrelenting river of time. The

wise leader will know when to leave and when to pass the

baton to a new generation8.”

A successful succession is essential to effective

leadership yet is so often overlooked as being an integral

part of it. Succession is integral to leadership. So much

so that in this study the order is overturned from

leadership succession to read “succession leadership”.

Many examples of this reorientation will be shared

throughout the book.

Probably the most important reorientation in

thinking necessary to become more successful and

successional is the first of the 7Keys. Overturning orders

requires a willingness to change the way things are

normally done so that other ways can be tried and

applied. Overturning orders is the first Key that starts

the sacrificial process.

7Keys.

7KEYS

16 | P a g e

7Keys-1

Overturn Orders

“If I want to give those who started last the same

as you, don’t I have the right to do what I want

with my own money? Or are you jealous

because I am generous? So the last will be first

and the first last” – The Business Owner

A story is told about a certain business owner

embarking on an unusual successor recruitment drive.

At the beginning of the year the business owner agreed

with a group of workers to pay them fair wages and a

specified bonus following the completion of their 12-

month contract.

After three months, more workers were needed, so

the business owner went out and hired more workers

promising to pay fair wages and a generous unspecified

bonus. The workers gladly accepted. Following that, the

business owner went out and hired more workers on the

same fair payment basis three months later and again in

the ninth month of that year.

Then, in the 11th month, the business owner went

out and recruited even more workers, again promising

fair wages and bonuses. At the end of the year the

business owner asked his manager to gather all the

workers together to give them their bonuses beginning

with those who started last.

Surprisingly, especially for those who started first

and last, everyone received the same generous bonus.

Those who started first and had worked the longest and

hardest complained to the business owner, “These

workers who were hired last only worked one month, yet

you made their bonuses equal to ours—and we worked

for 12 months!” But the business owner answered them,

“Friends, I am not being unfair to you. Didn’t you agree

7KEYS

17 | P a g e

to these terms? Take your bonuses and go. If I want to

give the workers who started last the same bonuses as

you, don’t I have the right to do what I want with my

own money? Or are you jealous because I am generous?

So the last will be first and the first last.”

This story highlights a number of important truths

about human nature, especially in transitions and

successions. For the purposes of this study, a transition is

the context in which a succession, the handover of

leadership from predecessor to successor, occurs. A

transition includes a pre-

succession period, prior to the

handover of leadership, a

succession event, when

leadership is handed over and a

post-succession period, which

involves successor and

sometimes predecessors.

In successions there is

always an expectation that those

who have worked longest and hardest should have the

best positions and benefits based on their performance

and tenure. By overturning orders and reversing norms

that naturally apply the business owner was better able to

identify the selfish rather than sacrificial motives of those

who had started first due to their stronger sense of

entitlement.

First last, last first Understanding this first key of overturning orders

by using it correctly opens the door to the other 7Keys.

To genuinely overturn orders means giving successional

opportunities to those that come last and who are lower

in status because those who normally come first and are

higher in status do not need to be given these same

opportunities.

Therefore, a willingness on a leader’s part to

overturn orders is an obvious prerequisite. Applying this

key means deliberately turning the tables in favour of

those who normally come last. It is not about the practice

Apart from promoting a mutual interest in and care for one

another, it sends a message to those who normally come first that the leadership is serious

about giving those coming last equal opportunities.

7KEYS

18 | P a g e

of honouring those perceived to be inferior that can often

be observed by senior leaders almost overdoing their

praise of such ministers and ministry activities.

Instead, overturning orders is about encouraging

social and structural change through these activities.

Apart from promoting a mutual interest in and care for

one another, it sends a message to those who normally

come first that the leadership is serious about giving

those coming last equal opportunities. Practically

speaking, overturning orders means choosing contenders

from outside of the normal management streams to

include those who are genuine outsiders rather than

corporate insiders.

Nurturing successors that are “inside-outsiders”,

to borrow a phrase from Joseph L. Bowers of the Harvard

Business School, means developing internal candidates

who have an outside perspective9. Grooming internal

successor candidates with an outsider orientation

promises stronger leadership transitions.

Despite its positive implications, the main

limitation of this thinking is that managers continue to be

considered the most appropriate leaders. It should be

self-evident that this does not overturn established

orders. In fact, such thinking may actually reinforce

them. To quote the business owner, “So the last will be

first and the first last”, is an outcome statement rather

than an objective to be achieved.

Therefore, overturning orders is a deliberate

exercise in changing norms by making potential

successors from unlikely fields and roles eligible for

leadership. For example, it means making successors of

people from service and technical streams as eligible as

those from management fields.

Peace not Disorder Overturning orders is not, however, about

engineering disorder or chaos. Instead it is about

changing the normal ways things are done and the

established structures that support them. That is why the

word “orders” is used to describe this key. Orders are

7KEYS

19 | P a g e

the established ways things are done and their

supporting structures.

Most people are familiar with religious and social

orders that have defined hierarchies and structures that

are not easily overturned. For example, think of who is

authorised to speak on behalf of a church or business.

Usually it is pastors in churches and managers in

business. Although its aim is to overturn established

orders, the intent of this key is not to create chaos or

disorder in the process. As such, successful successors

are not to be authors or agents of instability, disturbance

or confusion.

Instead, peace between individuals and

organisational harmony is expected from this process.

This is why the act of putting those coming last first must

be put into practice so that members of an organisation

all alike learn to have an altruistic, mutual interest in and

care for one another. This is a good working definition of

altruism, an important word in this book.

Unfortunately, most proposals for overturning

orders are designed around engineering chaos or

confusion, such as civil revolutions, social engineering or

reverse discrimination, to achieve peace. This is a

contradiction in terms because, in and of themselves,

chaos and confusion cannot beget peace and harmony.

Now those who are familiar with so-called “chaos

or complexity theory”, which refers to inter-relationships

between elements in a system, may take exception to this

definition10. However the main point about complexity

in systems such as leadership and succession is that what

may initially appear to be chaotic can actually have an

underlying order. Finding this underlying order in

complexity can help provide unique solutions to

apparently intractable problems such as succession crisis.

Note that chaos theory does not imply everything

chaotic necessarily has an underlying order. Thus the

exception to the rule about chaotic events usually being

detrimental is when apparently chaotic events occur that

do not appear to make logical sense yet are strangely

successful. One of these strange exceptions is the

7KEYS

20 | P a g e

sacrifice of leadership by incumbent for successor. To

enact this strange exception the sacrifice of incumbent for

successor success must outweigh the self-sacrifice of

successor in their efforts to gain leadership.

While conventional wisdom and natural logic

argues against leader sacrifice for subordinates in favour

of subordinates sacrificing for leaders, this overturning of

orders is actually proven to be the more successful. This

strange truth is expanded upon through each key and

becomes particularly obvious in key number seven,

sacrificing successionally.

Changing course To apply the sort of strange logic that the business

owner used to weed out those serving selfishly in favour

of those more sacrificially inclined required a complete

change of course. By promoting those who normally

come last, first, in a peaceful manner, the business owner

was enacting a “paradigm shift”, a complete reorientation

in thinking and acting.

For this total change to occur requires a complete

shift in thinking and doing which, in turn, allows for a

new course of action. Philosopher and historian Thomas

S. Kuhn (1922 -1996), says this decision to reject one

paradigm is always simultaneously the decision to accept

another11. It is a complete reorientation from one course

to another that rejects the former in favour of the latter.

In other words, to overturn orders in successions

means being willing to reject transitional norms that

favour the first: powerful, extroverted, and privileged, to

support the last: powerless, introverted and less

privileged. With this paradigm shift in mind, it should

be more obvious that without overturning orders it is

impossible to change these unsuccessional norms.

Therefore, a pertinent example of an established

‘order’ that needs overturning is the preference for

extroverts in leadership. Extroverts are known to thrive

on group activity and dominance. They tend to be

leaders in organisations12. By overturning this order,

introverts who are more stimulated by personal reflection

7KEYS

21 | P a g e

and conscientiousness are given opportunities to come

first. For instance, see Susan Cain’s “The power of

introverts” video on http://www.ted.com/ for this

alternative view.

What this sort of paradigm shift suggests is that

the orders needing overturning are both people and

process orientated. A people orientated change requires

overturning preferences for certain personalities, such as

extroverts in favour of more introverts. Procedurally this

would mean favouring candidates with a track record of

serving and ministering to others over professionals who

have ministered, mediated and mastered using more self-

serving managerial or technical abilities.

Therefore, process orientated changes need to

support the different ways people are chosen and their

performances assessed. For example, this could mean

changing evaluations to be less extravert-centric to be

more introvert- friendly. Also, evaluations would need

to identify the progress or regression of a candidate in

terms of being more sacrificial or selfish. Giving

successional candidates projects and assignments

specifically designed to develop sacrificial orientations

and expose selfish inclinations is another practical

example used so well by the leader in the introduction.

Other orders that need overturning are those that

assume successful successions involve the dynastic

handover of leadership to family members or the

corporate reshuffle of top leaders. For example, many of

the non-western leaders I know personally have prepared

for succession by handing over or are planning to hand

over leadership to their children.

One incumbent has already handed over the

leadership of two non-profit organisations to a son and

daughter respectively. Two thriving training

organisations have chosen dynastic succession from

father to son. Worldwide, dynastic or familial

successions are the most common forms of leadership

transition practiced today.

A natural, especially western, response to these

obvious problems with dynastic successions is to

7KEYS

22 | P a g e

maintain corporate orders. Top leadership responsibility

for managing a transition, leadership development

programs and systematic succession planning and

management systems are all examples of these ‘best

practice’ solutions.

Despite the prevalence of these succession

techniques and technologies, research shows that

maintaining these corporate orders are not necessarily

solving succession crisis13. Some of the main causes of

these corporate failures are that few successors are

prepared as ready replacements and incumbents who

leave too early or too late in a transition are the rule

rather than exception.

However, even with strong evidence that many of

these unsuccessional practices cause transition crisis,

overturning these entrenched succession orders is

challenging. Whenever I share my succession concerns

with colleagues and friends, most honestly admit to their

succession fears and failures. For example, the director of

a large, multinational charity admitted that leadership

succession is ‘something we do badly’.

At the time, he went on to tell me candidly that he

had made no concrete plans for a leadership successor

and neither have most of his counterparts in the

organisation. To date, he has turned this situation

around by handing leadership over to a successor and

staying on as chairman to guide his new successor.

Now he is asking how long he should stay on post

succession and whether it is actually necessary to do so.

Conventional corporate wisdom says he should move on

sooner rather than later. By overturning this order, this

outgoing leader could stay on for a time post-succession

as a guide, advocate and counsellor to his successor.

Obviously this sort of post-succession oversight is

uncommon in corporate settings. Then again, few

corporate or dynastic successions fail at all levels of a

firm at one time. For example, some organisations can

have relatively successful successions at ‘ministerial’ or

supervisor levels in field offices yet are at risk at ‘head

office’ mastery level. This is because specific orders and

7KEYS

23 | P a g e

hierarchies at that level of management are not acting

successionally.

For instance, the head of a large and rapidly

growing small business development firm shared that

while his workers in the field are preparing and

appointing successors quite well, their top leaders,

including him, are aging. No successors have been

prepared to take over these top jobs. He admitted that

this failure to prepare executive replacements was one

the gravest threats to their organisation’s longevity.

Overturning orders at all levels of an organisation are

critical for successful succession to occur properly.

Reasons why these psychological and physical

orders are the way they are is discussed more fully in Key

3, “Exposing Egos”. It suffices to say that much helpful

succession planning and management advice and activity

is focusing on improving transition processes through

better techniques and technologies. Collectively these

activities, often called “practices”, are designed to

maintain status quos not change them.

Though succession improvement practices such as

transition planning and leadership development are

helpful at a process level, they are not usually designed

to impact successions at a cultural or deeper values

level14. One of the reasons for this pragmatic approach is

the widely and rightly held view that cultural values are

much more difficult to change than technical practices.

However it is unlikely that succession orders can

be overturned at a practice level if not supported by a

fundamental change of values in practitioners. This is

especially the case with actions relating to altruism and

self-sacrifice for others. Findings presented in 7Keys 3

notes the importance of the strong link between values

and practices for such sacrificial actions to occur.

Breaking down barriers The truth of this reality with overturning orders is

borne out by research that shows top leaders, such as

new Chief Executive Officers (CEOs), have a tendency to

pursue their own self-interests at the expense of other

7KEYS

24 | P a g e

stakeholders such as employees and shareholders15.

Unsurprisingly, such selfishness has tragic implications.

For example, ongoing global financial crisis

painfully reveals that prescribed ‘best practices’

performed by selfish practitioners usually fail because

practitioners as leaders dictate practices, not the other

way around. Therefore, to overturn orders, deliberate

action must be taken to break down existing barriers and

boundaries that inhibit the last coming first.

These actions must be intentionally designed to

overturn and expose existing orders, as the business

owner at the beginning of this chapter did. One

important way of doing this is to understand the

hierarchies that normally operate in organisations.

Studying the strong boundaries that occur between

different levels of authority in organisations is as good a

place as any to start observing these orders in operation.

For example, most organisations tend to have

three main levels of authority: ministers, mediators and

masters. Ministers usually serve others as workers or

supervisors with lower levels of authority. Masters are

those who excel in certain fields of professional expertise

or in leading others. Mediators often act as go-betweens

and are most often recognised as managers and team

leaders. It is concerning to note today how so many

government and religious ministers have deviated from

the original intent of the word “minister” which literally

means servant, in order to ‘serve’ others selfishly rather

than sacrificially.

Introducing these terms: ministers, mediators and

masters and ministry, mediation and mastery, as defined

above, are helpful in identifying leadership structures

and leader styles. They also help explain the barriers that

exist between these groups and the strength of these

boundaries in organisations. Each of these functional and

behavioural descriptions of selfish to sacrificial

successions and successors will become more obvious in

the ensuing chapters.

As positions and vocations, these barriers are

recognisable in religious institutions through the orders

7KEYS

25 | P a g e

of prophets, priests and laity. Similarly, in educational

organisations, there are well-defined producers,

reproducers and acquirers of knowledge. Functionally,

in corporations, there is a hierarchy of workers or staff

overseen by managers and supervisors managed by

executives or directors.

See for example the following diagram that shows

how this three-tier people hierarchy tends to operate in

most organisations.

Figure 1: Three-Tier Hierarchy

As a rule, in each of these types of organisation,

relatively strong boundaries exist between each class of

leader. Despite these boundaries or orders being diluted

somewhat by increasingly distributed online forms of

knowledge, power and functions, due to the Internet in

particular, even a casual observer can recognise that these

boundaries of varying strengths and strata remain in

most organisations.

Another way of looking at hierarchies is from a

process perspective. In other words, those authorised to

make decisions and pass them on to others.

Figure 2: Three-Tier Practice Hierarchy

As sociologist Basil Bernstein (1924-2000) astutely

observed, people in one category are unlikely to be

accepted in another class until they become a part of that

class. Another rule is that, usually, one can only occupy

one category at a time16. Applied to succession, the

stronger the boundary between each class of successor

(minister, mediator and master) and practice (ministry,

People Corporate Dynastic Churches

MASTERS Executives/Directors Owners Pastors

MEDIATORS Managers/Supervisors Managers/Supervisors Elders/Deacons

MINISTERS Staff/Workers Staff/Workers Members

Three-TierPeopleHierarchy

Process Managerial Educational Familial

MASTERY Authorise Produce Own

MEDIATORY Exercise Reproduce Manage

MINISTRY Receive Acquire Serve

Three-TierProcessHierarchy

7KEYS

26 | P a g e

mediation and mastery) is in an organisational structure,

the more difficult these orders are to overturn. Similar

rules apply to selfish versus sacrificial styles of successors

and succession.

Conclusion Notwithstanding these enormous structural and

behavioural challenges, overturning these orders is a

must, because this first key opens the other doors to

successful succession. As with the business owner’s

successor candidates, their tendency to be more selfish

than sacrificial became immediately obvious when their

expectations about coming first were challenged.

Planning and implementing similar challenges to the

status quo as the business owner did will do two things.

First, it will reveal the sacrificial to selfish

motivations of many potential successors. Secondly, it

will give those who normally come last a real

opportunity to be first. This intentional turning of the

tables can be a valuable exercise in the process of

identifying more sacrificial successor candidates and

eliminate those who are more selfishly motivated.

Within this intent to overturn orders peace rather

than disorder or chaos should prevail, even though

apparently strange even illogical outcomes may emerge,

such as the first coming last and last coming first. More

sacrificial rather than selfish successors can then become

contenders. Regardless of these positive intentions, it

must be acknowledged that even a relatively peaceful

overturning of orders by a sacrificial leader such as the

one described in the introduction will not be comfortable.

Any change to a status quo such as that of

overturning orders is by its very strangeness a painful

exercise. However, once this key of overturning orders

has opened the door to these radical changes, the next

key of readying replacements can be enacted safe in the

knowledge that the right door has been opened.

In so much as it depends on you don’t be overly

concerned about the implications of trying to enact these

strange opportunities to overturn orders, as the business

7KEYS

27 | P a g e

owner did. There are numerous ways that this can be

done, and here are some practical examples:

1. Give people who have served faithfully in the field

the same opportunities as potential successors to

those from head office.

2. Offer potential successors from non-managerial

backgrounds, such as technical and social experts,

opportunities to come first.

3. Promote people who have a history of sacrificing for

others, rather than for themselves, first and be

prepared to offer them leadership.

4. Provide potential successors coming or starting last

similar opportunities to those who started first and

normally come first.

5. Permit other personalities, such as introverts, not

normally considered for leadership to be prepared

as potential successors.

6. Reward practitioners who have a sacrificial and

altruistic track record of serving others more than

self-serving professionals.

7. Recognise the selfish orders that need to be

overturned in your organisation and be prepared to

enact altruistic changes.

7Keys.

7KEYS

28 | P a g e

7Keys-2

Ready Replacements

“I no longer call you staff because staff do not

know what their leaders are doing. Instead I call

you my friends, because everything I have

learned from my predecessor I have made

known to you”—The Leader

Having ready replacements is not just about

producing enough leaders and managers capable of

taking over leadership from incumbents. Instead it is

about incumbents intentionally preparing successors to

replace them. Remember the leader in the introduction

who clearly spelled out the timing of the transition and

regularly reminded his disciples about his upcoming

sacrificial succession? He intentionally trained them for

transition over a three-and-a-half year period.

Similar to overturning orders, despite have some

rather ‘strange’ logic that selfless successors are

ultimately more successful than self-

interested ones, readying replacements

is not an ad hoc activity. Deliberate

action is required to track the

development of a candidate being

prepared as a successor to ensure they

are the right person for the job.

Recall the three orders

mentioned in the previous key of

ministry, mediation and mastery that define leadership

levels and practices in most organisations? These same

successional terms can be applied as phases to the

journey successors take as leaders. At least once in a

successor’s lifetime—and for most many times—this

transitional journey from ministry to mastery will be

mediated by selfishness or sacrifice.

At least once in a successor’s lifetime—and for most many

times—this transitional journey from ministry to

mastery will be mediated by selfishness or sacrifice.

7KEYS

29 | P a g e

In this sense, as mentioned briefly earlier,

transition is the context in which a succession occurs.

Leadership transitions must involve a predecessor and

successor and include three distinct phases: 1) Pre-

succession preparation or planning, 2) Succession event

or trigger where leadership is handed over and 3) a Post-

succession phase where successor becomes master17. For

an organisation to continue functioning as an entity, at

some point, this succession process starts again then

continues in cycles.

Pre-succession preparation can be well planned or

ad hoc. Successors normally replace predecessors during

the succession event. More often than not at this point

predecessors leave. Occasionally predecessors stay on

post-succession. Essentially a person’s “ministry” phase

is when they are predominantly in voluntary service or

subordination to others, usually with the aim of using

this period of service to further their career. See the

diagram below which describes these selfish to sacrificial

leadership transitions.

Figure 3: Selfish to Sacrificial Transitions

Everyone goes through a ministry phase at least

once in life when they learn something from someone

else. For example, to get a qualification or when first

starting a job. For most leaders, a self-serving ‘ministry’

becomes a stepping-stone to mastery mediated by some

sort of skill or ability. A key question here for preparing

ready replacements is how they serve others—

sacrificially or selfishly—during their ministry phase?

Assessing whether (or not) a person has served

more selfishly with expectation or selflessly without

expectation is an important measure of the man or

woman being considered or groomed as successor. The

Stages Pre-Succession Succession Post-Succession

Phases Ministry Mediatory Mastery

SacrificialThree-

Stage

Others-serving

altruismand

sacrifice

Sacrificesmid-

tenurefor

successorsuccess

Altruisticadvocacy

withleadershipfor

successors

SelfishOneorTwo-

Stage

Staysontoolongtill

endofmasteryphaseLeavestooearlyduringministryor

mediatoryphase

SuccessionStages

7KEYS

30 | P a g e

mediatory phases of successors’ leadership journeys help

define how they mediate mastery.

Here a similar question can be asked to that of the

ministry phase evaluation. In mediating mastery have

potential successors tended to be sacrificially or selfishly

orientated? Their actions during the mediatory phase

strongly determine their mastery orientations.

In assessing the sacrificial to selfish orientations of

potential successors, a key aspect of the mediatory phase

is its role in bridging the gap between the ministry and

mastery phases. As a bridge between ministry and

mastery, here is where selfish to sacrificial succession

orientations are most obvious for assessment purposes.

Selfish to sacrificial orientations Therefore, a candidate successor who is shown to

be selfish in the first two phases, ministry and mediation,

is unlikely to be a sacrificial master. Conversely, a

candidate successor who has demonstrated a sacrificial

orientation in these first two phases has a much greater

potential to be an altruistic master. Each is more likely to

mediate mastery in their respective successions based on

their selfish to sacrificial ministry orientations.

Because of the need to observe potential

successors—in action if possible—long enough during

their ministry, mediatory and mastery phases to ascertain

their sacrificial to selfish motivations or orientations, the

process of readying sacrificial replacements takes time.

The minimum recommended time is three years and it is

more effective to directly observe successional candidates

as they progress through these phases.

Given that predecessors should be personally

responsible for preparing successors, to do that most

effectively requires candidates be prepared in-house.

How to identify the selfish to sacrificial orientations in

successors are elaborated on more fully in each of the

ensuing keys. Keep in mind the following diagram as an

example of the succession styles that tend to operate in

the three main transitional stages of a succession.

7KEYS

31 | P a g e

Whether well planned or ad hoc, in a transition

there is a pre-succession phase, which occurs prior to the

succession event, which comes next. Following that is the

post-succession stage, which either does or does not

involve replaced leader.

Figure 4: Transitional Succession Phases

It suffices to say that in the process of preparing

ready replacements keeping these three succession

phases or stages top of mind is critical. Particularly

important is the first part of the ministry phase where, if

possible, the candidates should be

unaware that they are being

considered as potential

successors. This enables

incumbent to evaluate their

motives for serving others before

the candidate is conscious that

such activities may contribute

positively to their chances of being chosen as successor.

For a sacrificial succession this ministry of service

phase involves two distinct stages. The first is the one

just mentioned whereby opportunities to serve others are

given to potential successors before they are aware that

they are candidates. Enacting this stage at the beginning

of the preparation phase is to help ascertain a candidate’s

motivations to serve others before he or she has a

position or promotion in mind.

In some cases, particularly in corporate

successions, this assessment may be practically

impossible due to a candidate already being in a

SUCCESSION

STYLES Pre-Succession SuccessionEvent PostSuccession

End-of-term

succession:

Planningadhocor

systematic

Transitionof

authorityoccursend-

of-tenure

Leavesusuallywith

nofurther

involvement

Mid-term

succession:

Planningadhocor

systematic

Transitionof

authorityoccursmid-

tenure

Staysontoplayan

influentialrole

Sacrificial

Succession:

Ministryofpreparing

sacrificialsuccessors

Mediatorysacrifice

mid-tenurefor

successors

Masteryby

advocatingfor

successorsuccess

TransitionalSuccessionStages

Particularly important is the first part of the ministry phase

where, if possible, the candidate should be unaware that they are being considered as successors.

7KEYS

32 | P a g e

leadership position, such as management. Similarly,

many candidates are appointed directly to leadership

positions from an educational ‘ministry’ at university.

With these sorts of managerial appointments, sacrificial

qualities are more difficult to ascertain. As such, these

sorts of educational and managerial appointments are not

recommended by the 7Keys.

Nevertheless, these successional principles can

usually be applied prior to considering candidate

eligibility for a consecutive promotion to another level.

Next in a ministry stage is to evaluate how a candidate

serves others through a leadership position. By

comparing differences between how candidates minister

to others without expecting a promotion then through a

leadership position helps to identify more selfish to

sacrificial orientations. These initial successor

orientations are normally indicative of future ones.

Ministry mediates mastery The reason that the ministry phase and its two

stages of service prior to and through leadership are so

important is that they tend to set the scene for the future

mediatory and mastery orientations of a successor.

Simply put, ministry mediates mastery. In other words,

the way a candidate chooses to minister is the strongest

indicator of how they will mediate their successions and

master in transitions.

Keeping the key of overturning orders as the

rationale for further action, ready replacements are those

that have been intentionally given ministry opportunities

that require serving and sacrificing for others. As

mentioned earlier, it is unfortunate that many successors

follow technical, educational and managerial ‘ministry’

pathways that do not expose them to or require these

ministry-of-service experiences.

Consequently, many successors mediate

professional mastery in their fields without ever having

learned to serve sacrificially in a ministry phase beyond

self-serving study and hard work to achieve personal

success. Selfishly orientated ministers such as these are

7KEYS

33 | P a g e

more likely to mediate and master through transitions in

a self-interested way. Predictably, such self-interest

ultimately results in authoritarian successions.

Two main succession outcomes can be predicted

depending on successor orientations using the equation:

ministry x mediates x mastery = authoritarian or altruistic

succession. A selfish successor’s ministry orientation will

be predominantly self-serving mediated by familial or

managerial advancement. An authoritarian mastery of

dynastic or corporate power is the predictable succession

outcome of this self-interested transition.

Alternatively, an altruistic succession outcome

involves significantly different successor orientations that

are sacrificial and others-serving. An altruistic ministry

of service should be mediated by a mid-tenure sacrifice of

leadership specifically for successor success. Staying on

post-succession as successor advocate is another

characteristic of a sacrificial successor. An altruistic

rather than authoritarian succession outcome is

predicated by this mediatory sacrifice. See the following

diagram that maps these selfish to sacrificial pathways.

Figure 5: Succession Equations

Until the nexus of self-interest is overturned in

favour of a sacrificial orientation then selfishly orientated

successors and successions of varying degrees should be

the expected outcome. Keys to changing this status quo

of self-interest are shared towards the end of this book.

An obvious counterargument to seeking more

sacrificially orientated successors is that there may not be

enough of them or that they may not be assertive or

aggressive enough to be effective masters.

SUCCESSION

ORIENTATIONSMinistry(M1)x Mediates(M2)x Mastery(M3)=

SUCCESSION

OUTCOMES

Selfish:Self-serving

technicalor

vocationalservice

Sacrificeothersfor

managerialor

familialadvancement

Selfishauthorityof

powerand

professionalism

Authoritarian(S1)

Sacrificial:Others-serving

altruismand

sacrifice

Self-sacrificemid-

tenureforsuccessor

success

Altruisticadvocacy

withleadershipfor

successors

Altuistic(S2)

SuccessionEquations

7KEYS

34 | P a g e

Indeed, this is a valid concern if current orders are

not overturned. The truth is that if opportunities are

given for the last to come first and the correct steps for

assessing sacrificial service to others prior to potential

successors becoming leaders, then though leadership

positions are followed, the right successors can be

identified. Recent research into leader self-sacrifice

confirms this truth. Sacrificial leaders are shown to be

particularly effective when their sacrifice is mediated by a

concern for their followers rather than themselves18.

Similarly related findings note that sacrificial

leaders are able to boost follower performance even if

they are atypical of great leaders19. Having a strong

professional will and personal humility are found to be

two of the most important characteristics of altruistic

leaders20. Therefore, one of the keys with finding the right

replacements is mapping how potential successors

develop as leaders.

While it continues to be debated whether leaders

are primarily born and bred or nurtured and naturalised

into leadership, there is a consensus that effective leaders

must develop and mature on the

job. Three interrelated phases of

dependent, independent and

interdependent growth are

theorised as leaders mature.

Based on these definitions

leaders must first learn to depend

on others before they can become independent leaders.

Following this first phase more mature leaders recognise

the need to progress beyond independence. As they

mature further, leaders go on to learn interdependence or

to be “inter-independent” 21. Applied to the three

succession phases of ministry, mediation and mastery,

the key question is how potential successors interpret

service to and sacrifice for others through each of these

progressive phases.

While mastery can be equated with maturity, a

sacrificial master is completely different to a selfish one.

Even the timing of their successions is distinct. With a

Leaders cannot start making sense of service until they are at the dependent or interpersonal

stage of maturity.

7KEYS

35 | P a g e

selfish master, their succession tends to end too late or

too early, whereas sacrificial masters make their

mediatory sacrifice at the midpoint of a transition.

Each of these significant differences between

sacrificial and selfish successors are detailed in the final

chapter. For the purpose of explaining this key of

readying replacements in successions, the main factor to

keep in mind is that successors develop differently

depending on their sacrificial to selfish motivations.

Tracking a potential successor’s journey through

these three phases helps reveal their selfish to sacrificial

orientations. Following this as a developmental

framework, findings by Kelly Phipps conclude that

leaders cannot start making sense of service until they are

at the dependent or interpersonal stage of maturity22.

This is primarily because, until then, they are usually not

mature enough to have learned to subordinate personal

goals and agendas in the best interests of others.

Direct succession relationships On this basis then, potential successors can learn to

develop altruistically through ministry, mediatory and

mastery exercises designed to promote and encourage

sacrificial rather than selfish service. However, due to

these motivations being unnatural—even strange—

preparing ready replacements that are more service

orientated than power hungry takes time.

Remember the rule: ministry mediates mastery.

These three distinct, yet related, phases require

incumbent to be directly involved in preparing altruistic,

ready replacements. These phases cannot be fast-tracked

or circumvented and must be followed through.

Observing how a potential successor facilitates their

succession through these ministry, mediatory and

mastery phases gives a clearer picture of their succession

orientations.

A particularly important insight into a potential

successor’s sacrificial or selfish orientation is gained if a

number of these succession phases can be observed

successively then compared to find indicators of whether

7KEYS

36 | P a g e

the subject is progressing towards one end of the

sacrificial to selfish spectrum more than another.

Karl Popper explains that this form of scientific

analysis is based on the probability of “neighbourhood

selection”23. In other words, by studying the links

between related elements, certain relationships can be

identified. For example, by ordering primary elements in

a numbered sequence. In this case, the order of ministry,

mediatory and mastery orientations related to secondary

sacrificial and selfish orientations. In so doing, certain

neighbourhood relations are created that are observable

and predictable.

Therefore, in transitions the primary sequence is

these three succession phases and the secondary

relationships are the sacrificial to selfish links to these

succession phases. By comparing the selfish to sacrificial

track record of potential successors within and between

multiple transitions, gives a good indicator of each

candidate’s succession orientations. See the diagram

below that compares between four transitions.

Figure 6: Comparing Multiple Transitions

Based on this logic, the more transitional

sequences or successions observed the better the quality

of assessment that can be made about potential successor

orientations. Comparing each of these relationships over

time is effective triangulation. This exercise in successor

assessment and preparation is best done directly by

incumbents for their direct successors rather than a

leadership collective of professional mentors and coaches.

While professionals are helpful, especially in

providing specialist advice, facts and information, they

play a different role to incumbent as discipler. Because of

this fundamentally different role and relationship, the

Ministry Mediation Mastery Ministry Mediation Mastery

Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No

How? How? How? How? How? How?

Ministry Mediation Mastery Ministry Mediation Mastery

Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No

How? How? How? How? How? How?

ComparingMultipleTransitions

Potential

Successor

Sacrifices

Altruistically

or

Selfishly…?

Transition1 Transition2

Transition3 Transition4

7KEYS

37 | P a g e

earlier use of the word “disciple” was deliberate. It was

chosen to describe successional candidates rather than

more commonly used words such as trainees, learners or

students, etc., because the authenticity of a disciple is

defined by their proximity to their predecessor.

John N. Williams describes this relational

closeness between predecessor and successor as being

“true succession” 24. Integral to this idea about true

succession is that in some sense predecessor directly

influences successor. Along similar, though more poetic

lines, goes the Hebrew saying, “May you always be

covered by the dust of your rabbi25.”

Being a disciple necessitates two things that are

especially important for readying replacements. First it

requires discipline that: corrects, moulds

and perfects the mental faculties and

moral character of the disciple. Second,

this sort of discipleship works best when

modelled by predecessor.

With such “direct succession

relationships” between predecessor and

successor, the primary legitimacy a successor has is due

to their direct succession relationship with predecessor.

Instead of professional managerial and technical skills or

familial and collegial ties being the primary determiners

or mediators of successor success, it is their proximity to

predecessors that counts.

It is worth noting here that enacting direct

succession relationships by incumbents readying

replacements is regarded by some contemporary

leadership studies as being a less effective form of

leadership development26. This is because of an

assumption that building the bench strength of an overall

leadership team is more effective than slating or

shortlisting specific candidates as replacements.

However, direct succession relationships as

defined here are about the direct discipling relationship

between incumbent and successor. The aim is two-fold.

Build the strength of an overall team of successors and

prepare specific successors to take over particular roles.

The authenticity of a disciple is defined by

their proximity to their predecessor.

7KEYS

38 | P a g e

Therefore, direct succession relationships are

primarily about incumbent attitudes towards successors

and vice versa. Remember what the leader said: “I no

longer call you my staff because staff do not know what

their leaders are doing. Instead I call you my friends,

because everything I have learned from my predecessors

I have made known to you.” Treating potential

successors as friends and colleagues rather than

subordinates or staff is a genuine outworking of this

successional truth.

Conclusion Obviously the potential for abuse in direct

succession relationships is often found in the close ties

necessary between predecessors and successors for these

relational bonds to occur. This risk factor must be

acknowledged. Due to such biases being a problem, in

most successions the rule is that outgoing leaders are

usually not involved in the final choice of successors or

tend to leave prior to their appointment27.

Consequently, few outgoing leaders are directly

involved post-succession in advocating for successors.

Indeed this is a realistic and pragmatic approach,

especially when dealing with leaders proven to be

selfishly orientated. However this approach falls short in

successions for two important reasons.

First, outgoing leaders held responsible for their

own successional outcomes have a higher stake in them

being successful. Second, as will be discussed more in in

the final seventh 7Key, outgoing leaders can have a

positive impact post-succession as advocates for

successors—both for newly incumbent leaders and the

next generation of successors.

On this basis, preparing ready replacements as

successors requires incumbent to sacrifice their time to

personally prepare successors both pre- and post-

succession. This is an integral part of an outgoing

leader’s pre-succession ministry phase and post-

succession mastery phase of a sacrificial succession.

7KEYS

39 | P a g e

Obviously, a reorientation towards personally preparing

ready replacements may be ‘strange’ for many leaders.

Despite these views, research shows that potential

successors value such direct succession relationships

more highly than virtually any other forms of leadership

development28. Incumbents who practice such direct

succession relationships with potential successors will

find this activity personally challenging and rewarding.

Strong bonds between incumbent and potential

successors are formed.

Similarly, organisations that support predecessors

in this activity of directly preparing ready replacements

will find their leadership pipelines start flowing again. In

closing this chapter, it must be acknowledged that

preparing ready replacements through direct succession

relationships between predecessor and successor is

potentially open to abuse.

Due to these legitimate concerns, the next two

keys—exposing egos and open oversight deal with this

potential problem of succession biases and favouritism

openly and honestly, with practical suggestions. Despite

these risks of bias in direct succession relationships, if

ready replacements that are sacrificial rather than selfish

begin to dominate, then selfish orders can and will be

overturned.

To recap, the process of readying replacements

starts with the ability to see that healthy leadership

transitions have three distinct phases: pre-succession, a

succession event and post-succession. For a sacrificial

succession to occur, these three phases involve 1) a

ministry of altruistic service prior to and through

leadership, 2) the primary mediator of these direct

succession relationships is incumbent leader sacrificing

their leadership mid-tenure and 3) a mastery of advocacy

post-succession by outgoing leader is a continuation of

this relationship by advocating for newly incumbent

leader and readying the next generation of successors.

It is important to understand that incumbents and

successors mediate each of these transitional phases

sacrificially or selfishly. Remember the equation:

7KEYS

40 | P a g e

ministry mediates mastery? As a rule, if a sacrificial

succession is not deliberately enacted then, by default, a

more authoritarian succession that is either familially or

managerially orientated is the most likely outcome.

Because each potential successor goes through a

number of transitional ministry, mediatory and mastery

phases in their lifetimes, tracking and comparing

sequences of these transitions is important to ascertain

selfish to sacrificial successor orientations. By comparing

within and between these transitions, the altruistic to self-

interested progression of a potential successor can be

ascertained and tracked.

The next key of exposing egos is particularly

helpful for providing insights into the sacrificial to selfish

behaviour, progression and regression of potential

successors. It exposes the selfish sacrifices that aspiring

successors are willing to make and explains how to deal

with such potential conflicts in a positive way.

To practically apply the main points of this chapter

in preparing altruistic ready replacements in a

succession, keep these main factors in mind:

1. Make sure the pre-succession is long enough to

observe first-hand how potential successors serve

others prior to and through leadership.

2. Note the importance of comparing these two

distinct aspects of a ministry of service over a

number of transitions if possible.

3. Ensure that the primary mediator of direct

succession relationships is incumbent leader who

intentionally prepares sacrificial successors.

4. Ready replacements are prepared for a transition

because of being informed in advance of the

succession timeline by incumbent.

5. Use the succession equation: ministry mediates

mastery to check the sacrificial to selfish progress of

potential successors over a number of transitions.

7Keys.

7KEYS

41 | P a g e

7Keys-3

Expose Egos

“I have paid the price of your succession. You

are now ready to succeed me. Now I will go

back to see which of the others are ready” –

Leader

There was a leader with three followers. One day

they came to him asking, “What must we do to succeed

you?” The Leader answered, “Are you ready?” The first

follower replied, “I think so.” The second, answered, “I

believe so.” The last replied, “Not yet.” “Follow this

road,” the Leader said, pointing into the distance.

Eventually you will come to three gates.

The first and largest gate has written on it one

word: ‘MASTER’. By entering it you will master

whatever you try. On the next and second largest gate

you will find inscribed ‘MEDIATOR’. Upon entering it

you will be able to mediate whatever you want. The last

and smallest gate is imprinted with the word ‘MINISTER’

and upon entering it you will be able to minster to

whomever you choose.

Remember to select carefully, their Leader said,

your successions depend on it.” Following the road, the

first of the three followers arrived at the three gates and

thought, “If I master everything, I can do just about

anything…” Entering the largest gate the follower

became ‘Master’. Next to arrive was the second follower,

who thought, “If I can mediate between anybody I can do

just about everything.”

Entering the second gate he became ‘Mediator’.

Last to arrive was the third follower. Looking at the three

gates he thought, “I am not ready to master or mediate,

but maybe I can serve my leader.” He entered the third

7KEYS

42 | P a g e

and smallest gate and became ‘Minister’. Each went on

their respective journeys using their chosen strengths.

Eventually each arrived at a great river too wide to

cross. Looking around each saw the other and their

leader standing looking across to the other side. “We

must cross the river”, the Leader said. While they were

standing looking at the vast expanse of water, a small

boat with a rough looking boatman appeared. “I only

take two passengers at a time and one stays with me as

payment for the other’s passage to the other side,” the

Boatman growled. Each looked at the other.

Master spoke first, “Boatman, as Master I can offer

you either Mediator or Minister as my payment”.

Mediator followed by saying, “As Mediator, I can offer

you Master or Minister for my passage.” “But which of

you are willing to sacrifice yourself for the other? Only

one of you will set foot on the other side; the other must

remain as my payment,” reminded the Boatman.

Remaining silent, both Master and Mediator shook

their heads. Finally, Minister spoke to his leader, “As

your servant, I will sacrifice myself for your passage as

my ministry to you.” The Leader and Boatman nodded

in agreement. Off they set, leaving Master and Mediator

arguing about who should pay for the other’s passage.

Soon they were nearing the opposite bank.

“Remember our deal”, Boatman threatened, “one of you

must sacrifice your passage for the other.” As the boat

bumped the bank, Minister bowed his head, accepting his

fate. Suddenly he felt himself being lifted onto dry land.

“No!” Minister cried, “I did this for you.” The

Leader replied, “Everything I have learned from my

Leader I have made known to you. I have paid the price

of your succession. You are now ready to succeed me.

Now I will go back to see which of the others is ready.”

Successor characteristics Three Gates is an analogy about succession as the

handover of leadership. It shows the characteristics of

leadership successors. Any would-be successor should

be able to recognise more of themselves in one of these

7KEYS

43 | P a g e

characters than the others. Peel away the platitudes and

these characteristics are also evident in their fellow

leadership competitors.

Anyone who has ever been involved in or with a

leadership succession knows how competitive such a

contest can be. There are spoken and unspoken

arguments about who is the greatest. Getting someone

close to the leader to put in a good word for you, like a

family member, friend or colleague is a common ploy,

especially in dynastic successions.

Another effective tactic, if used with tact, is taking

the direct approach and personally seeking special

favours. Being willing to serve and even sacrifice in

anticipation of meriting special favour is also a key

strategy of selfish leadership successors.

When we hear about these selfish behaviours most

of us become indignant, right? Yet if we are honest we

have all played these games or thought about playing

them. Most leadership successors are defined by the

succession orientations exemplified by Master and

Mediator in Three Gates.

Even Ministers, in most

cases, serve with self-interest in

mind. In other words, they serve

with expectation. This selfish,

ultimately authoritarian,

behaviour is the antithesis of the

sacrificial leadership succession

enacted by the Leader.

Instead, in Three Gates, minister showed by his

willingness to altruistically serve and sacrifice for his

leader glimpses of genuine servant leadership. However,

in Three Gates, the real game changer was the sacrifice by

the Leader of his leadership for his successor’s success.

This definition of sacrificial succession is the main

topic of the last key. For the purposes of exposing egos,

Three Gates emphasises that successors act sacrificially or

selfishly or somewhere in between. Adam Smith (1723-

1790) in “The Wealth of Nations” argues that self-interest

is the mediating characteristic separating the two29.

Being willing to serve and even sacrifice in anticipation of meriting special favour is also a key strategy of selfish

leadership successors.

7KEYS

44 | P a g e

Smith says few people act sacrificially without self-

interest, yet are of better character than those who are

motivated by purely selfish ends.

Similarly, ministry, mediatory and mastery

characteristics can be interpreted by successors selfishly

or sacrificially as Three Gates shows. While selfish

interpretations are the rule, the strange exception is a

sacrificial interpretation of each characteristic. This

involves a ministry of service to others by both

predecessors and successors, the mediatory sacrifice of

leadership by incumbents for

successors and their ongoing

mastery of advocacy post-

succession for successors.

A key requirement is that all

potential successors must undergo

a sacrificial ministry phase before

they can go on to mediate and

master in leadership. Because these

days, many potential successor ‘ministries’ consist of

technical, educational and managerial expertise, they

have seldom learned to minister sacrificially. Naturally

they tend to mediate selfishly.

Heart before head Therefore, before a sacrificial succession can be

enacted, it is crucial to expose selfish and sacrificial egos.

To do this the focus of successor assessments must first

and foremost be on a potential successor’s character

rather than their mental faculties or physical attributes.

The following true story explains this different use of

priorities in choosing successors well.

A senior manager was charged by his boss with

the job of choosing a successor to replace an

underperforming leader. An experienced manager of

men, he chose a group of candidates who physically

looked the part for the job and passed all the

psychological tests.

His checklist included assessments of their 1)

physical appearance, presentation and style, 2) positional

The reason for his failure, according to his boss, was that he had focused on physical qualities and mental faculties rather than the moral character and ethical

conduct of the candidates.

7KEYS

45 | P a g e

power, standing and status, 3) physical dimensions such

as height and stature, and 4) their personal mental and

spiritual faculties. All passed with flying colours,

particularly the first candidate who the manager was sure

would be accepted by his leader. He was the “one”!

You can imagine, then, the manager’s surprise

when his boss rejected his first choice as candidate and

his shock when his leader informed him that none of his

short-listed candidates qualified as successors. The

reason for his failure, according to his boss, was that he

had focused on physical qualities and mental faculties

rather than the moral character and ethical conduct of the

candidates. This manager is not alone in making this

mistake when choosing successors.

In most cases, the first four physical and mental

qualities receive the most attention. For example, in

many Eastern cultures, points one and two usually

dominate. Status and standing often take precedence

over physical and psychological attributes. Westerners

consider point one and prefer point four in particular.

The predominance of personality tests and assessing gifts

and strengths is indicative of this focus. The point made

by this story is that when considering leadership

successors heart before head must apply.

Bred or built? If not, then the wrong successors are likely to be

chosen because of an overemphasis on favoured

personalities and physiques and an under-emphasis on

character and conduct. Obviously the steps that the

manager took were helpful in characterising his

candidates. These methods are commonly employed

today because of the recognition that there is an integral

link between the physical and psychological. People are

both bred and built.

Therefore, the manager was right to look at the

physical style and standing of the candidates and in

assuming that some traits, such as personality, are

inborn. Equally, attributes built on through life

experiences were also tested. Research supports both

7KEYS

46 | P a g e

approaches, with the main argument being around the

degree to which a person is born as or built into a

leader30. Historically the trend has been gradually

changing from an emphasis on inborn personality traits

to that of desirable attributes that anyone can develop

irrespective of their original personalities.

Indeed, there is no doubt that certain personalities

may be more naturally suited for leadership31. Research

shows, for example, that extroverts often tend towards

mastery of others and those who are mediatory

orientated may be more open and conscientious, whereas

ministry orientated individuals can be naturally more

agreeable and altruistic.

This normal distribution of natural ministers,

mediators and masters may well produce more

mediatory orientated people in the middle and masters

and ministers at either end of the spectrum as a “Bell

Curve” predicts. However, the main point of the stories

about leaders who overturned orders by promoting the

last first, sacrificing leadership for successors and

focusing on character rather than capabilities is that

exposing egos must ultimately go beyond the physical

and psychological to be genuinely effective.

Figure 7: Natural Distributions of Leaders

The reason for this truth should be obvious from

the stories and analogies shared so far. All of the

‘strange’ actions described in these cases were unnatural

and challenged established norms. Importantly, they

ultimately did not rely on physical or psychological traits

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Ministers Mediators Masters

7KEYS

47 | P a g e

to be altruistic. Instead, sacrificial actions are more

integrally tied to a successor’s character—having the

heart and will to do what is right and necessary to fully

carry out a succession program.

Cultural character Therefore, personal character qualities and actions

such as altruism are more closely related to “culture”

because values and ethics ultimately outwork themselves

through an individual, organisational and national ethos.

Samuel P. Huntington in his Foreword to the book

“Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress”

notes that, ultimately, the outworking of values through

cultures is what defines human progress32.

In other words, while values are important in and

of themselves, their true worth is found in their

outworking through culture as the way that people

actually behave. Herein is a simple yet important truth.

Many people know what they should do yet fail to act the

way they know they should. Assessing whether a

potential successor’s culture is more about being a

knower or doer is another simple way of exposing selfish

and sacrificial egos in successions.

Important here are findings from a Global

Leadership and Organizational Behaviour Effectiveness

(GLOBE) study of culture and leadership. The integral

link between head—knowing what is right and heart—

doing what is right is well founded33. Where the nexus

between the two breaks down, then a value such as the

Humane Orientation of fairness, altruism and kindness

may be esteemed, as an intellectual ideal by practitioners,

yet not be culturally practiced in reality.

With a humane orientation’s similarities to the

sacrificial orientations of service, sacrifice and advocacy

in this study, this research confirms the critical need to

expose egos at the character and cultural level. This truth

becomes especially obvious with the integral link

between successional service and sacrifice. There are

many ways that sacrificial rather than selfish motivations

can be identified through exposing egos.

7KEYS

48 | P a g e

For example, by comparing the consistency of

what potential successors say and do. The story is told of

two potential successors. Their predecessor went to the

first and said, “I need you to visit one of our field offices

today.” He answered, “Today I cannot, I am too busy,”

but afterward he changed his mind and went. The

predecessor went to the other potential successors and

said the same. He answered, “I will go, right away, sir.”

But did not go.

Which of the two is the better potential successor?

Those who initially refuse to do something yet eventually

do it are arguably more selfless than those who seem

agreeable yet do not follow through. Simple exercises

like these help reveal selfish to sacrificial motivations and

exposes the egos underpinning them.

Observing the progress of candidates given special

projects in the field rather than head office and their

service to others, especially subordinates is another

important way of assessing successional and

unsuccessional orientations. Providing opportunities for

potential successors to minister to people of other

cultures and positions and mediate in situations that

require self-sacrifice are all helpful tests of altruistic to

selfish motivations as works-in-progress.

Assessing altruism The importance of real time observations of

potential successors is important for assessing altruism.

Studying the story mentioned briefly in the introduction

about the leader being approached by successional

aspirants is helpful. These two brothers wanted to get

the best chance of being chosen as successors. They

approached the leader, with the help of a family member,

after being told about his upcoming succession plans.

An obvious risk with incumbent being open about

predicting an upcoming succession is that successional

candidates are more likely to seek favours once this

information is known. The reality is these are some of the

risks that incumbents must take in being sacrificial. After

7KEYS

49 | P a g e

hearing of the upcoming succession, first the mother then

the sons came to seek favour in the upcoming succession.

Humbly they approached the leader with an

interesting proposal: “Give us your word that we will be

awarded the highest places of honour in your succession

as your successors.” The leader responded, “You have no

idea what you're asking.” Then he said to them, “Are you

capable of making the sacrifice that I am about to make?”

Their self-confident reply, “We are!”

Confirming their willingness to sacrifice, their

leader replied, “Indeed you will make similar sacrifices to

me. But as to selecting you as my successors, that's not

my business. My leaders are taking care of that, because I

am open to oversight.” Note that in this case, the leader

did not deny their willingness to sacrifice.

Based on their proposal and the leader’s response,

the willingness of these successional candidates to

sacrifice to attain leadership seemed genuine enough.

Wisely, the leader did two important things. Firstly he

assessed the degree to which their motivations for

sacrifice were selfish or sacrificial. Secondly he ensured

that they understood that he was open to the oversight of

others in selecting successors.

Once both these steps were taken by incumbent

the enthusiasm for favour seeking diminished amongst

these candidates. Incumbents who are willing to take

these difficult steps in assessing altruism will be

rewarded by more accurate information about potential

successors and their succession orientations.

Conclusion As mentioned earlier, this sort real time ‘track-

record’ testing takes time, especially compared to one-off

psyche and strengths tests that assume certain

individuals are predisposed to certain responses. For

example, with the Strengths Finder assessment, which

focuses on identifying personal talent, the emphasis is

about building on positive behaviour34. Whilst helpful, to

effectively track someone’s sacrificial or self-interested

7KEYS

50 | P a g e

transitions requires a focus on both positive and negative

succession outcomes over time.

Firstly, the positives of sacrifice and negatives of

self-interest may not be immediately obvious unless

tracked over time. Secondly, naturally altruistic leaders

may not be ultimately as effective as selfish leaders who

learn to be altruistic. The reason for this conclusion is

that naturally service-orientated people do not require a

change of heart to be altruistic, whereas a naturally

selfish individual can only become sacrificial because of

an intentional change of heart.

Therefore, most of these positive psychology

assessments are inadequate for the purposes of assessing

sacrificial orientations. Instead, sacrificial succession

pays attention to the way potential successors respond to

situations selfishly and sacrificially. Also, sacrificial

succession puts a lot of emphasis on what others,

particularly subordinates, say about potential successors.

Another important factor for successional

assessments is that evaluations occur over a sufficient

enough period of time to track changes: positive and

negative, selfish and sacrificial. During this process,

particular attention is paid to trends in the way a

candidate ministers, mediates and masters selfishly or

sacrificially.

Not that this successor assessment should be done

within each succession phase and over a number of

successions then compared. A similar process can be

used to compare between potential successors. Here are

some helpful questions to answer in the process of

exposing egos:

Are candidates successively progressing towards

being more sacrificial or selfish in each successive

phase (ministry, mediatory and mastery) of their

transitions?

7KEYS

51 | P a g e

How do nominees minister to others, especially

subordinates, prior to being in leadership and

following their appointments to leadership

positions and roles?

Particularly in mediating successions are candidates

demonstrating a willingness to sacrifice their

leadership to benefit successors or are they more

likely to act with personal self-interest?

Upon achieving mastery do aspirants have a history

of staying on to advocate for new leaders or moving

on to realise their own personal ambitions and/or

leave behind problematic situations?

While this is not an exhaustive list, exposing egos is much

easier when orders are overturned and ready

replacements are drawn from the last not just the first in

line. What should be obvious is that when unnatural,

counter-cultural, crisis situations arise, such as with the

Three Gates analogy, and story about the equal bonuses

for the first as well as the last, egos and their underlying

succession orientations are more easily exposed.

Indeed, potential successors are willing to

sacrifice, as the disciples of the leader mentioned in the

story about seeking succession favours demonstrate. The

question for that leader and every incumbent choosing

and preparing successors is why are they willingly

serving? Is it with the expectation that their sacrifice will

improve their succession, or is sacrifice for others more

an end in itself, without expectation?

Because of his direct succession relationship with

potential successors, this leader was well aware of the

need to be open to the oversight of other leaders during

the transition. This is the main topic of the next key. He

knew that the art of exposing egos went well beyond

understanding the physical and psychological potential

of candidate successors.

7KEYS

52 | P a g e

Instead, because of knowing that the outworking

of their characters and cultures through sacrificial and

selfish succession orientations was a most critical success

factor in successions, this was where he focused his

assessments of successors. Knowing the difficulty of

remaining objective in such an emotionally charged

situation as a succession, this leader’s openness to

oversight put him in good stead as a sacrificial successor.

7Keys.

7KEYS

53 | P a g e

7Keys-4

Open Oversight

“You will indeed make similar sacrifices to me

but the decision about my successors is open to

oversight. I am accountable to others when it

comes to choosing my successors”—The Leader.

Recall this exchange between the leader and his

potential successors earlier? In the previous 7Keys a

story was told about the leader being approached by

people seeking special favours in the upcoming

succession. This key played out with the leader

questioning their motives for sacrifice and explaining that

he was open to oversight in his choice of successors.

In response to their requests, the leader asked an

interesting question. Are you willing to make the same

sort of sacrifices I am about to make for the success of this

succession? Their self-confident confirmation is typical

and expected of rising stars. They are willing to make

sacrifices because they understand, as aspiring leaders,

that sacrifices are necessary.

John C. Maxwell in his book “The 21 Irrefutable

Laws of Leadership” confirms this norm35. He says in the

18th ‘Law of Sacrifice’ that a “Leader Must Give Up to Go

Up”. While true of most successions this is not what the

leader meant in the exchange mentioned above because

the sacrificial succession he was planning is unnatural.

His potential successors answered the leader’s question

honestly enough because they were genuinely willing to

sacrifice to become leaders.

In fact, they had proved their willingness to

sacrifice by being on the short list of potential disciplic

successors this leader had gathered and prepared as

ready replacements. The question is what and why were

7KEYS

54 | P a g e

they willing to sacrifice? By their answer, pretty much

everything, even risking their lives!

Interestingly, the leader confirmed their

willingness to sacrifice. He reminded them that indeed,

as his successors, they would be called upon to make

sacrifices. It must have come as a shock to these selfish

candidates to realise that the decision about successors

was subject to the oversight of others rather than

incumbent alone.

Transparent treatment Being open to oversight in the crucial decision of

choosing a successor counters bias and provides balance.

Most corporate governance guidelines recognise this

truth by making decisions about successors the

responsibility of leadership collectives such as boards

and councils. This is wise and one of the strengths of

corporate governance compared to family dynasties that

keep decisions about successors in the family.

However, one of the problems with corporate

oversight of successions is that successors tend to be

chosen from within the ranks of this corporate team or

from amongst similar sorts of outsiders36. What this

means in practical terms is that the status quo in

successions tends to be maintained because even

unsuccessful successors often stay on as part of the

management team.

The strength of such oversight is its stability. A

weakness is the conclave mentality that maintains this

status quo. Conclaves make other forms of oversight

unlikely to be heard or considered because it is in the

interests of these leadership collectives to keep it that

way. Here is where the oversight for overturning orders

must be different to these corporate norms.

First and foremost must be the creation of an open

and transparent relationship between potential

successors and incumbent. The leader in the introduction

made it clear in the process of preparing ready

replacements that he did not consider his disciples

7KEYS

55 | P a g e

subordinates or servants anymore because subordinates

do not know what their leaders are doing.

Instead, the leader treated his disciples and

successors as friends and colleagues by sharing

everything he had learned from his predecessors with

them. This open transparency in regards to the transition

plan and succession event is unusual in corporate

successions because most successors are not privy to

these decisions until they are already made by the

leadership collective and passed on from above.

There are a number of reasons why incumbents

are not open or transparent when it comes to timely

information about successions. Firstly, being open about

a transition with successors makes incumbent vulnerable

to manipulation such as the favour seeking shared

earlier. Making the timing of a succession known to

interested parties, especially successors, well in advance

of it occurring, is discouraged by leadership conclaves.

Secondly, most incumbents want to keep their

knowledge and experience as proprietary information.

Such information and knowledge is valuable for

mediating leadership in their next job. This reluctance by

incumbents to freely and openly share successional

information with potential successors is a difficult

problem to overcome in corporate transitions in

particular, because of the above-mentioned issues.

Outsider opinions One way of overcoming some of these problems

with transitional transparency is fostering open oversight

in successor appointments by utilising the involvement

and opinions of outsiders. Outsiders are those who are

potential stakeholders, such as community leaders, who

do not have a vested interest in the succession process.

They are especially beneficial, because they are less

biased and more independent.

Increasingly corporations are recognising the

benefits of outside oversight and involvement, for

example by local communities and other special interest

groups not normally considered relevant to successions37.

7KEYS

56 | P a g e

The reason for this approach is the recognition that those

normally considered irrelevant may in fact give the most

unique perspectives and even solutions.

In their book “Surfing the Edge of Chaos: The

Laws of Nature and the New Laws of Business”, Richard

T. Pascale, Mark Millemann and Linda Gioja note the

benefits of this ‘positive deviance’ from established

norms38. These unusual even apparently unnatural

solutions are found to emerge from insiders—people

within organisations—and outsiders not normally

considered relevant to solving the immediate problem.

Promoting outside oversight is difficult unless all

positions or levels in an organisation: ministers,

mediators and masters, are all involved in oversight.

This activity includes genuine

outsiders not directly involved in

the organisation, such as non-

professionals, who have experience

in diverse fields such as culture,

language and communities not

directly relevant to the business.

Open oversight is deliberate

just like overturning orders. Those considered the least

relevant or necessary to oversight are those that should

be invested in the most. Honouring the most unlikely

and apparently unsuitable with an opportunity for

oversight sends a strong message that favouritism for

certain classes or types of successor will no longer apply

in the organisation.

Positive deviation from norms in terms of opening

up oversight to outsiders has the potential to provide

succession solutions invisible to those insiders normally

tasked with making these decisions. Outsiders can

provide novel solutions to problems because they are not

thinking like insiders, nor do they have the same

pressures to think like the status quo.

Having grown up in West Kalimantan (Borneo)

and worked in Indonesia for much of my adult life,

having the knowledge and insights of locals has been

critical, especially during times of crisis and upheaval.

Open oversight is deliberate just like overturning orders. Those considered the least relevant or necessary to oversight are those

that should be invested in the most.

7KEYS

57 | P a g e

My personal respect for the knowledge of local people in

assessing conflict situations has served me well in my

business and personal life.

An outcome of such open oversight is its provision

of valuable insights into alternative ways of assessing and

selecting successors. For example, by giving potential

successors opportunities to work with outsiders of

different cultures and creeds. Then, getting feedback on

successor performance from these outsiders affected by

this ministry. These outsider responses give valuable

insight into whether a potential successor is genuinely

teachable and sacrificial, for example.

Strangely enough, it is out on the periphery, away

from the corporate centre of gravity that a successor’s

true self often emerges, especially when they are working

with or ministering to people not considered integral to

their succession aspirations. By making sure that

aspiring successors are given projects that involve them

helping other leaders and business areas not directly

contributing to their own successions, selfish and

sacrificial orientations come to the fore.

Evaluating how well aspiring successors work to

help other aspirants achieve their business goals and

willingly leave their current succession ‘inheritance’ to

help others achieve similar succession outcomes are all

valuable aspects of open oversight. It enables others to

assess an aspirant in action and provide independent

feedback, oversight and insights into their succession

orientations. All of these activities contribute to a clearer

picture of potential successors’ succession orientations.

Incumbents and instructors To do this, potential successors need to be chosen

and appointed to go ahead of incumbents as their

representatives into every area and place—virtually and

physically—where incumbents are currently responsible.

Sending out these successional candidates in teams of

two helps foster camaraderie between these potential

successors. By allowing them to reinforce and build

networks on behalf of incumbents enables local people to

7KEYS

58 | P a g e

independently assess these candidates and their

succession orientations.

Then, when incumbents visit, they can find out

directly from these locals how these candidates did.

Questions to ask are whether aspirants listened to

counsel, received instruction, and accepted correction.

How did they associate with the locals? Are they

companions and friends who get beside the locals or

champions who lord it over them? Guiding locals with

integrity and simplicity and acting with understanding

and insight of the local situation are all good indicators of

the candidate’s successional character.

If local overseers can say that so and so tended to

them with an upright heart and guided them with

discernment and skilfulness, this is a good testament to

the sacrificial potential of a successor. To do this

effectively takes two distinct types of oversight: that of

incumbents and instructors. Here, it is the combined

oversight and unique perspectives of both parties that

facilitates openness and transparency.

Because the preparatory role of incumbent as

predecessor has been explained previously, the first

group discussed here are successor guides or instructors.

Normally, they are the coaches and mentors brought in to

provide assistance and oversight of potential successors

in certain personal and professional areas of expertise

that need developing.

Often this sort of successor mentoring is provided

under the banner of professional and leadership

development. These people provide instruction in key

developmental areas and are valuable instructors to

aspiring successors. These successor guides are able to

give open oversight and feedback about a candidate’s

abilities in the areas and fields of expertise they are

responsible for directing and developing.

For example, a key part of my business for a

number of years was providing executive language and

cultural orientation to executives of multinational firms

operating in Indonesia. An important aspect of these

projects was to give feedback to senior executives about

7KEYS

59 | P a g e

the potential of a leadership candidate, and their family,

to live and work in a country like Indonesia for extended

periods of time.

In many corporations this sort of oversight is quite

commonly organised by human resource departments

based on their assessments of leadership development

needs. Competent successor coaches are psychologically

knowledgeable, have business and cultural acumen and

organisational knowledge and have the educational skills

needed to coach in these areas effectively39. Coaching

and mentoring by outsiders is important for a successor

intent on gaining knowledge and understanding, insight

and interpretation about different cultures and creeds,

techniques and technologies.

However, a limitation of outsider coaching and

mentoring is summed up by a pithy saying, “You may

have ten thousand instructors, yet you do not have many

fathers.” In other words, ultimately, the most important

oversight comes from those closest to you. In the case of

successful successions and successors it is predecessors

who are historically proven to be the most valuable

overseers and instructors of potential successors.

Yet research by Kim Lamoureux, Michael

Campbell and Roland Smith finds that this is not

typically the case in most transitions. Normally,

corporate executives are not as

engaged in this area of succession

management as its human

resource (HR) leaders40. This is

because, especially in

corporations, the responsibility of

developing leaders is usually the

job of HR, whereas the job of

selecting successors is that of

executives. This separation or dichotomy is quite

commonly observed, especially in large, multinational

corporations.

Combining incumbent and instructor oversight as

seamlessly as possible is the only successful way to

bridge this gap between leadership development and

A limitation of outsider coaching and mentoring is

summed up by the pithy saying, “You may have ten

thousand instructors, yet you do not have many fathers.”

7KEYS

60 | P a g e

successor selection so obvious in many corporations. As

the succession maps introduced later in this book predict,

to be effective this sort of integrated oversight needs to be

conducted throughout the three succession phases of

ministry, mediation and mastery.

Ultimately, however, it is the responsibility of

incumbent as predecessor to ensure that the open

oversight of protégés contributes to their potential as

successors. It is the predecessor who should be the

primary originator and transmitter of successional

knowledge and understanding. Incumbents are the ones

that infuse their own spirit into successors through the

disciplines and discipleship mentioned earlier.

They are the ones responsible for overseeing the

progression of potential successor through ministry,

mediatory and mastery phases to the point of them being

chosen and appointed as successors. A sacrificial

predecessor must be open to the oversight of insiders and

outsiders. Those who are normally first and last must be

involved for open oversight to operate effectively.

Conclusion Open oversight is the outworking of the former

7Keys. If predecessors overturn orders to ready

replacements using open oversight, they are much more

likely to get successors rather than leaders. Open

oversight is a key part of the pre-succession process of

preparing ready replacements and in appointing

successors. Open oversight ensures that candidates have

been prepared well in advance as successors.

This is similar to the idea mentioned earlier about

sending out potential successors to go before their

predecessors in spreading the mission and vision of the

organisation locally. Open oversight gives feedback from

local recipients about a potential successor’s effectiveness

in spreading the message, relating positively to locals and

preparing them for an incumbent’s visit.

Being transparent with candidates about the

succession process and clearly noting that others will be

involved in making the final decision about the next

7KEYS

61 | P a g e

appointment helps keep expectations in check. Being

open about oversight and who is going to be doing it is

also critical.

When potential successors realise that oversight

involves outsiders as well as insiders and that those

overseers may not be immediately obvious, it becomes

much more difficult to seek favours. Having instructors

as mentors and guides and predecessors as ‘fathers’ and

‘mothers’ giving open oversight makes for a much more

balanced development and assessment of a leader’s

potential as a successor.

Finally, open oversight can help calm the conflicts

that inevitably arise when candidates seeking favour

jostle with each other for succession opportunities. This

is the topic of the next key. By acknowledging that the

sacrificial motives of potential successors are difficult to

ascertain, the leader wisely made accountability to others

an integral part of his transition.

Successional leaders—both predecessors and

successors—need to be subject to the open oversight of

insiders and outsiders. As outgoing and future leaders

respectively, overturning orders, readying replacements

and exposing egos according to these rules of open

oversight, puts all involved in good stead for more

successful successions over the next few generations. It

also helps these key stakeholders calm the successional

conflicts that inevitably arise.

To recap the main points of open oversight and

apply them practically, consider doing the following:

1. Intentionally give succession opportunities to

candidates from non-managerial fields and include

them with managerial people in teams of two.

2. Utilise the advice of outsiders from within and

without the organisation to assess and give

feedback on candidate successors.

7KEYS

62 | P a g e

3. Involve both outside instructors and predecessors in

preparing ready replacements to ensure a balanced

assessment of candidate successors is gained.

7Keys.

7KEYS

63 | P a g e

7Keys-5

Calm Conflict

“The inevitable outcome of favour seeking is

indignation from those who feel unfavourably

treated in the process”—The Author

The above statement is self-evident in

successions. Despite the danger, seeking favours in

transitions is so tempting that most potential successors

cannot resist trying it in some form or another. Amongst

leaders—aspiring or experienced—the natural desire to

be the greater, larger, elder, stronger is innate and

overpowering. Almost without exception, this desire for

greatness is at the heart of most succession conflicts.

Understandably, there is a natural indignation

towards favour seekers caught in the act of seeking

favours despite most successors being willing to take

these chances. For incumbents caught in these

unpleasant situations there is a natural tendency not to

deal with these issues at all or to overreact and blow

them out of proportion.

In this case the leader in the introductory story

went to neither extreme. Instead, he used the situation to

model and share important truths about successors and

successions. By gathering the aggrieved group together

to deal with the problem quickly and transparently, the

leader understood the need to calm conflicts by dealing

with issues of betrayal openly and honestly.

Unfortunately many succession conflicts remain

hidden and unresolved in transitions. Mark Nadler,

Carlos Rivero, Steve Krupp and Richard Hossack

describe these tensions well, calling them succession

“politics that lurk in the shadows.41” They explain these

three main issues in transitions as being political,

emotional, and rational.

7KEYS

64 | P a g e

Politics relates to the way internal and external

stakeholders deal with a succession, the emotional side is

about how stakeholders feel about it. The rational side

attempts to use objective methods and measures to offset

these political and emotional factors.

Nadler et al conclude that the most important way

of dealing with these transition

conflicts is to get the issues out in the

open with a disciplined succession

process. However by mainly making

top leaders accountable, the

involvement of the others, such as

the outsiders mentioned earlier, in

the process is diminished. This

overreliance on top leaders to make

successional changes is a common problem in most

transitions and one of the main reasons for corporate

succession failures.

All the 7Keys presented so far in this study

contribute to a disciplined succession processes, with one

main distinction. The sort of open oversight in a

sacrificial succession involves the first coming last and

the last coming first. When these orders are overturned,

replacements readied and oversight is open, then the

ability to calm conflict improves significantly.

Because the leader in the introduction had

consistently practiced these keys to successful succession

during the critical pre-succession ministry phase of

preparation, his potential successors were familiar with

his open and transparent approach. Incumbents that

have not consistently practised transparency with

candidates face big challenges when attempting to calm

the inevitable succession conflicts using open oversight.

Usually incumbents are reluctant to deal with

successor disagreements publically by involving the

interested parties because they fear further conflict.

Instead, this leader skilfully used this conflict situation to

calm things down and teach an object lesson. He

understood that, by default, doing nothing is a distinct

Incumbents need to summon the courage to proclaim the

truth unfalteringly with earnest contention, despite strong

conflict and great opposition.

7KEYS

65 | P a g e

disadvantage. Learn to proactively use successor

conflicts to your advantage, as this leader did.

Desire for greatness First, the leader recognised the cause of the conflict

and did not hesitate to explain it for what it was. At the

heart of all succession conflicts and most other conflicts is

the innate, selfish desire for greatness. That is why

extroverts, who are usually more adept at promoting

themselves and their own agendas, tend to naturally

succeed in self-interested successions. The best cure for

desires for greatness or delusions of grandeur is a good

dose of humility.

Hence the salience of the point made earlier about

training and assessing successors as ministers prior to

and through a leadership position. Next, the leader dealt

with the conflict openly and boldly. Incumbents need to

summon the courage to proclaim the truth unfalteringly

with earnest contention, despite strong conflict and great

opposition. Note that successions are the most likely

places for contention and strong conflict to occur because

the personal stakes are so high.

To calm the conflict the leader spoke freely and

openly with confidence and assurance. He knew that

what he was doing was right. The leader got the

aggrieved group together,

acknowledged their indignation then

used the opportunity to teach an object

lesson. These techniques and tactics

are an effective strategy for calming

conflict in successions.

Because at the heart of the

conflict was the desire for greatness

their leader went on to define

greatness by describing the normal authoritarian orders

of the day then overturned them. Instead of leaders

desiring greatness by mediating a mastery that

dominates others, a ministry of service to others

mediated by the early sacrifice of leadership and a

mastery of advocacy for successors was the alternative.

Altruistic mediation means willingly sacrificing personal

leadership aspirations for the benefit of successors

rather than self.

7KEYS

66 | P a g e

This strange alternative is defined by humility and

service to others. Sacrificial ministry means

subordinating self-interest in favour of others’ interests.

Altruistic mediation means willingly sacrificing personal

leadership aspirations for the benefit of successors rather

than self-promotion. Selfless mastery is staying on to act

as successor advocate instead of seeking personal power.

In the ensuing 7Keys servant leadership and sacrificial

succession will explain each idea more fully.

Research confirms this paradoxical blend of

personal humility and professional will ascribes true

greatness42. While high-profile leaders with big

personalities may make headlines and become celebrities,

good-to-great leaders prove to be self-effacing, quiet,

reserved, even shy leaders. These findings confirm this

leader’s right focus on ministry being service-orientated

rather than selfishly motivated.

Resolve conflict correctly By dealing with the conflict openly and

transparently, the leader followed the correct path for

resolving the conflict. He was straight forward yet

gracious in his response, knowing that a hurtful or

offensive response would only add to the problem. He

made clear that sacrificial greatness is about being

trusting, lowly, loving and forgiving—everything these

aspirants were currently not.

The leader personally modelled the correct

approach to resolving the conflict by first dealing

directly, personally and privately with the two aspirants

who approached him directly for succession favour.

Because both the favour seekers and the other aspirants

also knew about this incident the leader wisely brought

all of them together to discuss the conflict.

That way, every word could be confirmed and

upheld by the testimony of those involved in the conflict.

Unfortunately in many succession conflicts precisely the

opposite approach is taken. To calm conflicts interactions

and decision normally remain hidden hence unresolved.

When decisions are made they are often made out of

7KEYS

67 | P a g e

context so that stakeholders remain confused about why

a decision was made and who made it.

Where leadership collectives such as ‘senior

management’ are involved these decisions can be

particularly perplexing, because of the separation of

powers. For example, the common separation between

human resource departments and executive management

mentioned earlier. Succession and successors decisions

are often poorly made and badly communicated. This

frequently causes unnecessary conflict between

successional contenders.

Due to aggrieved parties often being kept separate

from the process of calming the conflict, opportunities for

object lessons and mutual care are limited. Therefore,

whilst conflict may be averted and minimised, potential

successors usually learn little from these clashes in terms

of dealing fairly with their fellow competitors in future.

Hence, as successors become predecessors they pass on

this legacy of unresolved conflicts to the next generation

of successors and so forth.

Instead of doing that, this leader made this conflict

situation into an opportunity to teach these potential

successors about sacrificial succession. He helped them

to focus on the problem of conflict and its solution by

training them to always be on their guard and look out

for one another. They learned not to be reluctant to deal

with these matters publically by involving the interested

parties because of fearing further conflict.

Consequently, each understood better the need to

reprove and forgive the other. Furthermore, they were

much more aware than before of the real reason why they

were competing with each other and the true meaning of

greatness. By calming conflict correctly these successors

learned that regardless of the difficulties, they were to be

the makers and maintainers of peace in successions not

the cause of conflict and crisis. They learned to be gentle

and forbearing with one another. Where differences,

grievances or complaints against another arose, they

learned to readily pardon each other.

7KEYS

68 | P a g e

These qualities for calming conflicts put them in

good stead as sacrificial successors whilst enabling the

incumbent to monitor these potential successors more

effectively over a period of time. He could see how they

progressed through their ministry, mediatory and

mastery phases using these qualities and whether or not

their progressions were towards a more sacrificial version

of greatness or not.

The ‘Judas’ principle In the process of calming conflicts the reality is

there will always be some potential successors who do

not progress towards a more sacrificial version of

greatness. Instead they regress into a more selfish and

self-interested practitioner who is willing to betray

anyone that gets in their way. This rule in successions

can be described as the ‘Judas Principle’.

Coming from the saying “being a Judas” or

betrayer, its origins are said to be from one of the 12

disciple of Jesus, Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him for 30

pieces of silver. As the treasurer of the group, Judas was

in a position of power and sometimes abused it by

misusing money. He also came to resent Jesus when he

realised that the sacrificial kingdom Jesus was building

did not support Judas’ vision of earthly power.

Be assured that in your life as incumbent you will

encounter a ‘Judas’ or two—or three or more—who

attempts to betray you and your succession plans. As

one of the 12 disciples, Judas was a potential successor of

Jesus. He had been prepared as a ready replacement

along with the other 11 over a three-and-a-half-year

period. Based on these odds, there is a good chance that

at least one in 12 of your key leaders or potential

successors could also be a Judas. Certainly personal

experience confirms this anecdotal evidence.

Despite this sacrificial preparation, over time,

Judas became more selfish. Therefore, working out how

to deal with a Judas in leadership and particularly in a

succession is critical. There is a natural tendency in

today’s world of quick solutions to try to identify such

7KEYS

69 | P a g e

people then fix them up or move them on. Sending them

along to counselling and retraining to remove these

negative behaviours and replace them with more positive

ones is a common ploy.

Actually this is not the best approach, especially

for a successful succession, because such mental activity

usually does not change the person. Instead of trying to

fix the person, it may be best to leave them in the position

they are in and give them time to change for the better or

worse through personal involvement with sacrificial

succession projects.

During this time their progress—sacrificial or

selfish—through the ministry, mediatory and mastery

phases can be carefully observed and monitored. The

wisdom of this approach is confirmed through the saying

variously attributed to Sun Tzu and Machiavelli amongst

others: “Keep your friends close and your enemies even

closer.” In other words, using another saying: ‘better the

devil you know than the devil you don’t’.

Interestingly, with Judas,

Jesus allowed him to continue in

his role as treasurer and leader,

despite his selfish orientations.

Nevertheless, Jesus was open

about Judas’ selfish inclinations

and potential as a betrayer. There

are two main reasons why this

approach is wiser than removing,

retraining or hiding potential betrayers.

First it keeps a potential ‘Judas’ under the watchful

eye of leadership scrutiny, where they are less likely to

undermine without some forewarning. Even if they do,

interested parties are close by them to deal with them

immediately.

Second, and equally important, by having them

close, their progression or regression towards becoming

increasingly sacrificial or selfish can be more effectively

tracked. The positive hope is that by a Judas being in

close proximity to other successors with sacrificial

Second, and equally important, by having them close, their progression or regression

towards being increasingly sacrificial or selfish can be more

effectively tracked.

7KEYS

70 | P a g e

potential they may imbibe some of the good around them

and change.

Then again, if a Judas isn’t changing they are close

enough to be dealt with as quickly as possible as an

example to other would-be successors planning similar

Judas-like activities. A final truth is that each person has

the capacity to be a Judas. That is, each of us—yes, you

and me—has the potential and natural tendency to

behave treacherously and betray one another.

Be aware of a Judas so he or she can be dealt with

as described by having sufficient oversight over them

and being personally subject to independent oversight.

Here is where having open oversight is so critical. Much

wisdom is needed when dealing with a Judas or a group

of them and having wise heads involved is critical. These

same wise heads can also point out any of your personal

Judas-like tendencies that need attention.

Conclusion In transitions, competitions leading to conflicts

between successors are inevitable. Neither ‘divide-and-

conquer’, family favouritism or routine corporate

reshuffles genuinely calm conflicts. The former process

eliminates opposition and the latter ones incorporate it

into leadership. Calming conflicts sacrificially involves

rewarding those who are service-orientated and

discouraging those with selfish agendas.

Having the understanding that wrong desires for

greatness are at the heart of all successor competition

enables incumbents to reorientate their candidates

towards true greatness that is sacrificially inspired. This

paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional

will that defines true greatness must first be modelled by

incumbent for it to be taken on by successor.

Being open about conflict and dealing with the

causes of conflict separately, then bringing together the

aggrieved group and those who caused the grievance,

helps heal the hurt. By using the opportunity as an object

lesson to explain the causes and effects of selfish ministry,

mediation and mastery in transitions, helps divert

7KEYS

71 | P a g e

attention away from the individuals involved in the

conflict to its wider causes and effects on all successors

and successions.

Recognising that some aspiring successors will

inevitably try to betray the cause of a successful

succession and act to undermine it gives a good dose of

reality. Dealing with a potential Judas by keeping him or

her close and monitoring their progress gives a clear

indicator as to their potential to change for the better or

worse during the life cycle of a transition.

Favour seeking in successions is inevitable.

Indignant responses from aggrieved parties are

unavoidable. The only unpredictable element is the way

the conflict is calmed or exacerbated. Calming conflict

openly and transparently by incumbent involving the

conflicting group works. Most importantly it allows

incumbent to model open oversight in the transitional

process of readying replacements willing to overturn

orders and calm conflict.

Calming conflict is the key to opening the next

door of avoiding authoritarian motivations in favour of

more sacrificial orientations. Without calming this

conflict openly, this leader would not have had the

opportunity to share this valuable object lesson with

those who had just been made personally and painfully

aware of the dangers of authoritarianism.

Incumbents often miss out on modelling these

successional keys because they are not open about

succession problems with potential successors. This

leads to a particularly sensitive yet vital-to-discuss topic:

the need to avoid authoritarianism in successions, the

topic of our next 7Keys.

Before doing that, it is helpful to recap the main

points of this chapter about calming conflicts in

successions so they can be applied more practically:

1. Recognise that the root of most succession conflicts

is the inherent desire amongst successional

contenders for greatness and that the solution is

selfless service and sacrifice.

7KEYS

72 | P a g e

2. Understand that to calm successional conflicts

correctly requires courage on the part of incumbent

to bring together the conflicting candidates and deal

with the conflict openly and honestly.

3. Know that a ‘Judas’ or two with the potential to

betray you is probably in your midst and that

keeping them close and dealing with them openly

with oversight is the best solution.

7Keys.

7KEYS

73 | P a g e

7Keys-6

Avoid Authoritarianism

“Sometimes these self-serving leaders act like

barons and other times like benefactors, yet

remain authoritarian nonetheless. Instead of

being self-serving and seeking power, be

sacrificial” – The Leader

In most corporate and dynastic transitions top

leaders authorise a succession and their intermediaries

exercise this authority over their subordinates. The many

and varied best practices and procedures of Management,

the multiple rules and regulations of Bureaucracy, the

many layers and lists of Administration contribute to

maintaining these structures.

This bureaucratic preference for strict rules and

established authority, whilst stable, inevitably leads to

more authoritarian structures because the most likely

successors in such systems tend to be more self-interested

than sacrificial. Strong separations of power between

ministers, mediators and masters maintain the strength of

these orders and sustain their stability.

Given their apparent order and sustainability, it

initially came as a surprise to these potential successors

when their leader explained that these authoritarian

structures actually impede the preparation of ready

replacements and open oversight. Because of this

overreliance on top leadership responsibility to solve

problems, a collective capacity to develop innovations

throughout an organisation is hampered43. Stable yet

change adverse institutions are the outcome.

Despite the best efforts of practitioners, these

transitions are normally defined by familial or

managerial orientations that outwork themselves through

dynastic and corporate-bureaucratic successions. Given

7KEYS

74 | P a g e

the need to calm conflict that had arisen due successor

competition, the leader in the introduction was able to

teach these candidates a salient object lesson about

avoiding authoritarianism.

The authoritarian leadership norms so evident in

the behaviour of these succession candidates are no

different today. Names and titles may change, yet these

natural, selfish motivations for personal greatness lives

on in all us. Sometimes these self-serving successors act

like barons lording it over their subjects. At other times

these selfish successors claim to be benefactors, leading

and succeeding for the benefit of their followers.

Both types of successor and succession remain

authoritarian, nonetheless, because of their self-interest.

Rejecting this normal approach to successions, this leader

went on to explain a radical alternative of sacrificing

successionally at the ministry, mediatory and mastery

phases of a transition. By overturning these normal

authoritarian orders in successions this leader was

modelling an alternative to these potential successors

who were being readied for a new form of authority.

Authority aware Over time, these successors learned that to avoid

authoritarianism requires incumbents and successors to

be aware of its outworking in leadership transitions.

Given that succession is the handover of authority from

predecessor to successor, it is worth further exploring

some of the forms of authority that emerge in leadership

transitions to identify tendencies toward authoritarian

and sacrificial successions.

In leadership successions it is the handover of

managerial authority that is most familiar, with the new

manager being appointed as mediator between current

masters and ministers. Those in authority enact these

sorts of transitions in almost all organisations. The

masters, authorise a succession, and their intermediaries,

the mediators, exercise this authority over their

subordinates the ministers.

7KEYS

75 | P a g e

Irrespective of where a succession occurs in a

leadership hierarchy: at the top, in the middle or at the

bottom, differing succession relationships exist at

different levels of an organisation or across the entire

firm. The ways that leaders exercise authority is legion,

yet there are a number of indicators that show whether

they are tending toward authoritarianism or altruism. If

their exercise of authority is to act like a baron or

benefactor, then ultimately both styles are self-interested.

Barons are most obviously those who lord it over

their subjects exercising a negative command-and-control

headship. They see leadership as a transaction between

the leader and the led that gives conditionally to get in

return. Benefactors are also transactional, though more

subtly so. Their approach is to trade benefits with

followers by exercising a more positive influence44. They

see leadership as being transformational provided they

ultimately get the greater benefit.

A third group of successors tends to act as a

mediating influence between these two groups by

transcending both these styles with a much more

collective and consensual approach to leadership. Each

of these approaches: transactional, transformational and

transcendent is common in transitions.

Succession mechanisms As rule, however, these different styles of

leadership do not fundamentally change the status quo in

successions. The reason for this lack of change is that the

succession mechanisms governing the transfer of power

and authority remain largely the same. Essentially these

mechanisms are what mediate a transition and the

primary mediatory elements are sacrificial, familial and

managerial successions.

As explained previously, most succession

mechanisms are familial or managerial and occasionally

sacrificial in orientation. Their outworking, called

“succession outcomes”, depend on the degree to which

the succession was sacrificial or selfish. Corporate and

7KEYS

76 | P a g e

dynastic transitions are usually strongly authoritarian

because they are more self-interested than altruistic.

It is vital to understand the importance of

succession mechanisms in transitions to fully understand

successful successions. Succession mechanisms are

primarily dependent upon when and how a succession is

mediated during transitional phases. As mentioned

earlier, successions that are mediated too early or too late

in a transition cycle are unlikely to be successful because

of overriding self-interest.

Equally, successions that are mediated by

selfishness rather sacrifice are unlikely to be sacrificial

even if mediated mid-term, because successors will tend

to mirror predecessors. Each phase in a

transition: ministry, mediation and

mastery have a distinct task that the

system needs to address.

It is worth reemphasising here

that throughout this study the emphasis

of successful succession is not chaos and

disorder. While revolutionary rather than evolutionary

change is being sought, its purpose is not to start a

revolution. Instead, successful, sacrificial successions are

intended to be peaceful not powerful.

As Barbara Murray insightfully explains in her

review of succession transition processes, evolutionary

journeys in successions do not fundamentally change the

form of a transition from one generation to the next,

whereas revolutionary transitions do45. That being said,

all leaders are given the authority and commissioned to

look after their own interests and the interests of others in

successions. It is how they do it—selfishly or

sacrificially—that ultimately counts towards a successful

or less successful succession.

Hierarchies exist in families and firms because

they are the most appropriate forms of authority. For

succession to work effectively, each person must submit

to these authorities by recognising and respecting them.

Having this hierarchal basis for authority does not,

While revolutionary rather than evolutionary change

is being sought, its purpose is not to start a revolution.

7KEYS

77 | P a g e

however, preclude leaders or the led from being aware of

these authorities and willing to question their legitimacy.

Remember, this was the first point made by the

leader in the introduction. It made his disciples aware of

the problem of authoritarianism by exposing their desire

for succession greatness. As sociologist Max Weber

(1864-1920) astutely observed, there are three main types

of legitimate authority: traditional, legal-rational and

charismatic46. Traditional authority is mainly found in

familial dynasties. Legal-rational influences are

primarily enacted through managerial authority in

corporate bureaucracies. Charismatic authority usually

emanates from the power of an individual’s personality

and purpose.

Indeed, charismatic authority normally acts as a

catalyst to start movements. However, by the next

generation, clan leaders or corporate managers usually

succeed charismatic leaders. As these successors assume

ownership of progenitor ideas, the outworking of an

original founders vision can become quite different.

This natural progression towards corporatisation

or autocracy is predictable, as J. Gordon Melton describes

well in the introduction to “When Prophets Die: The

Succession Crisis in New Religions47.” The only viable

alternative to clan, corporate or charismatic authority is

service and sacrifice orientated, as the leader in the

introduction pointed out.

Therefore, the key to understanding succession

mechanisms and their implications for successful

transitions is to note when and how a succession is

mediated. To reiterate, successions that occur too early or

late in a transition are usually unsuccessful because

incumbents who leave too early or too late in a transition

have usually failed potential successors at either end of

the successional cycle.

For example, predecessors who leave too late in a

transition will obviously not have enough time to

advocate properly for their immediate or next generation

of successors. Conversely, incumbents who leave too

7KEYS

78 | P a g e

early understandably will not have been able to prepare

enough ready replacements.

Thus, the only succession that has real potential

for success must occur mid-term or tenure, giving

incumbent enough time to: 1) prepare successors pre-

succession, 2) hand-over leadership sacrificially mid-

transition, then 3) stay on post-succession as successor

advocate. However, even if the timing of a mid-term

transition is right, it is unlikely to be successful unless it

is also sacrificial.

Only by incumbent altruistically preparing

sacrificial successors pre-succession, then sacrificially

handing over leadership mid-term can a self-interested

managerial or familial transition be avoided. See the

successional timeline below for tips on when and how to

sacrifice successionally in a transition.

Figure 8: Successional Timeline

Succession rules As a rule, the general consensus is that corporate

managerial authority is more stable and sustainable than

familial dynastic authority. However, research shows

strengths and weaknesses with both systems in

successions48. For example, professional managers do

tend to handle complex transitions better than their

dynastic counterparts. This is primarily due to

professionals having better technical abilities.

On the other hand, dynastic managers often take a

more long-term view of transitions, which their shorter

sighted professional counterparts do not do so well. As

previously noted, personal, charismatic authority is

usually not sustainable beyond one or two generations of

Years1-2 Year3 Year4A Year4B Year5 Year6-7

PredecessorPrepares

altruistic

successors

Predicts

timingof

succession

Appoints

successorpre-

succession

Handsover

leadership

sacrificially

Advocatesfor

incumbentwith

Leadership

Readiesnext

generationof

successors

SuccessorServesothers

priorto

leadership

Serves

through

leadership

Succeeds

without

expectation

Accepts

altruistic

sacrifice

Prepares

altruistic

successors

Predictsterms

andtimingof

succession

Pre-Succession SuccessionEvent Post-Succession

Seven-YearSacrificialSuccessionTimeline

Phases

7KEYS

79 | P a g e

successor. Therefore, professional managerial authority

does appear better suited to economies of scale where

size and sophistication are the main factors needed.

Alternatively, familial authority seems better

suited where agility and adaptability are the primary

ingredients required. The fact that family-owned firms

are dominant in small-to-medium enterprises and

corporations excel in larger scale operations is testament

to these succession norms.

In reality, though, few successions are exclusively

familial or managerial at all organisational levels.

Instead, familial ownership may be supported by the

managerial oversight of professionals49. Similarly, in

corporations, a patriarchal conclave often dominates.

Therefore, in practice, a transition of mixed authorities

usually occurs in successions.

For instance, organisationally, a dynastic

succession may occur at mastery level mediated by a

corporate succession at managerial level with authority at

a ministry level governed by technical skills, for example.

See the Succession Frameworks below for a graphical

representation of these Succession Orientations and their

outworking through successors.

Figure 9: Succession Frameworks

Ministry Mastery

Horizontal

Horizontal

Hierarchal

Hierarchal

Mastery

Ministry

Mediates

ALTRUISTIC

SuccessionMap

AUTHORITARIAN

7KEYS

80 | P a g e

What these Succession Frameworks reveal is that

in most transitions there are two extremes: Altruistic and

Authoritarian successions. They are mediated by more

sacrificial to selfish successions. These transitions are

usually mediated by managerial, familial,

transformational and sacrificial successions.

Ministry is usually a mixture of practical and

educational elements, occasionally combined with a

ministry of service and successor preparation.

Depending on these combinations mastery is

professionally, dynastically or corporately orientated.

These succession outcomes are degrees of more or less

authoritarian transitions.

Occasionally, a transition is altruistic if a

succession event occurs mediated sacrificially mid-term

by incumbent. In either event a number of important

succession rules apply to this succession map:

1. Hierarchal – Mastery in a leadership succession

almost always involves a vertical climb up the

career ladder, unlike technical and professional

expertise that is a more horizontal progression50. In

other words, even technical or professional

expertise is usually mediated by managerial ability

that may require some regression by a technical or

professional expert before becoming a corporate

master in an organisation.

2. Progressive – With the occasional exception of

charismatic technical masters becoming corporate

masters, such as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, most

transitions are progressive (bottom to top, right to

left) starting with ministry, mediation then mastery,

though there are multiple entry points, some further

down the hierarchal ladder, such as practical and

service-orientated ministries compared to

educational and relational ministries that mediate

entry into a transition further up the career ladder.

3. Temporal – When and how a succession is mediated

during ministry, mediation and mastery is critical to

succession outcomes. Other than in family

transitions, if leadership is handed over late in the

7KEYS

81 | P a g e

cycle, say towards the end of mastery, then its

succession outcome is likely to be authoritarian,

even if corporately-orientated. In other words the

timing of a succession in a transitions is nearly as

important as whether it is sacrificial or selfish.

4. Personal – Ultimately successions are dependent on

the people: the masters, mediators and ministers,

both in terms of position and personal qualities

rather than the effectiveness of succession practices.

How successors minister, mediate and master—be it

selfishly or sacrificially—most strongly determine

succession outcomes.

Applying these rules to the Succession Map helps

practitioners track their transitions, successions and

successors. These succession pathways note how

successors minister, mediate and master in transitions.

The succession outcomes are the consequences of

ministering, mediating and mastering in successions

more selfishly or sacrificially.

This Succession Map is built on throughout the

rest of this book. The above succession rules and map

can be used to compare the transitions of an individual

successor or the relationships between successors and

successions within organisations or between them. To do

this effectively, requires practitioners to be aware of the

powers that be and their likely succession outcomes.

Succession outcomes Having an awareness of authorities is important as

a context for transitions. Understand that different types

of professional, managerial, familial, sacrificial and—

occasionally technical authority—exist at different levels

in an organisation. This understanding is vital for

assessing transitions, as the Succession Map explains.

Even more critical is an understanding of the

probable succession outcomes that authoritarian

tendencies bring to successions. This was the main

purpose of the leader in the introduction exposing the

selfish to sacrificial orientations of his potential

7KEYS

82 | P a g e

successors. The lesson for incumbents and successors is

to be aware of how self-interested authority works so

they can enact sacrificial change.

Using the Succession Map, a simple test of these

sacrificial to selfish authority structures can be done by

posing the five prior successful succession keys as

questions. Does this succession authority overturn

existing orders or sustain them? Are (sacrificial) ready

replacements being prepared as successors? Is this

transition open to outside oversight? Are conflicts calmed

transparently in successions?

If the answer is “no” to most of these questions,

then this organisation is privately more authoritarian

than sacrificial, no matter how it presents itself publically.

Ultimately it is not what is said that counts but what is

done that is self-fulfilling. As the namesake of the movie

Forrest Gump famously says, “Stupid is as stupid does.”

On that simple note, authoritarian to sacrificial

succession orientations normally outwork themselves

over a number of successive generations of successors. In

other words success or failure in successions is usually

gradual rather than immediate. When organisations lose

focus or fail in transitions, they are primarily influenced

by succession outcomes that have altered the style and

substance of successors over succeeding generations.

For example, in family firms, this factor is

evidenced by the gradual increase in succession failures

over ensuing generations51. Often this is due to a failure

by predecessors to release control or incumbents being

resistant to change. Of course, organisations can remain

relatively strong and sustainable yet lose their original

vision, which is often the case when corporatisation

occurs following the replacement of a charismatic

founder or predecessor.

Therefore, in terms of a successful succession, an

organisation may appear to be healthy on the surface, yet

be sick inside because they no longer fulfil their intended

mission or have conflicting views of it. While this topic is

out of scope for this book, it is a relevant input to

successful succession.

7KEYS

83 | P a g e

Successor scenarios Now, some transitions of world-renowned leaders

and their succession outcomes are reviewed to

demonstrate the pertinence of these successional truths

and their consequences. What these findings show,

unsurprisingly, is that succession outcomes are most

affected by predecessors and successors and their

transitions. Some of the pertinent questions to be asked

here are: Were these transitions intentional or

improvised? Were succession plans communicated

publically or privately? Were successors prepared as

replacements or reshuffled leaders? Did succession

outcomes fail or fulfil incumbent expectations?

Applying these questions to the successions of

three exceptional and respected leaders, Buddha, Jesus

and Muhammad, are especially helpful to the study of

succession outcomes. Because each was undoubtedly an

outstanding leader, determining the success of their

successions is especially pertinent here.

Each brief case study is dealt with in the

chronological order of the times these great leaders lived

in history. Buddha is believed to have lived nearly 500

years before Jesus and Muhammad nearly 600 years after

Jesus. In the case of Buddha, he apparently planned to

hand over his leadership to a “Sangha” collective of

senior followers.

However given Buddha’s untimely death due to

food poisoning attributed to a bad piece of pork52, he

apparently did not communicate this decision until on his

deathbed53. When Buddha did pass on his last wishes he

did so only to his most senior assistant Ananda.

Thus, while Buddha had apparently prepared

capable leaders, they were not publically aware that they

were to be his successors until informed by Ananda after

Buddha’s death. Interestingly, as a generational

succession outcome most Buddhist successions today

tend to be dynastic, despite Buddha’s apparent intention

for a more corporate Sangha as his leadership legacy54.

7KEYS

84 | P a g e

With Jesus, it appears that he intentionally

prepared his disciples as successors over a three-and-a-

half year period. During this time he predicted his

upcoming succession on at least three occasions55.

Despite his death by crucifixion being untimely from the

perspective of his followers, they were well prepared as

successors. Jesus’ followers also appeared to readily

accept Peter’s appointment as the main successor of Jesus

with the open oversight of the other apostles who were

also disciples of Jesus.

In terms of succession outcomes, it is noteworthy

that once the sacrificial legacy of Jesus waned in the

leaderships of his successors, Christian successions

became increasingly corporatized. Importantly, studies

into the rise of corporations as the dominant form of

organisation in the western world largely attribute this

corporate model to Christendom56. Increasingly, the

sustainability of these corporate Christendom structures,

both in the church57 and in secular organisations is being

questioned, despite their relative stability.

Muhammad’s death, too, was untimely,

apparently by poisoning. Unlike Buddha, his poisoning

is claimed to be intentional either by his family or friends

or an enemy. Muhammad’s death, like much of his

succession, is surrounded by intrigue58. Did his closest

friends and family competing as successors poison him?

Did he intend for his most trusted friend Abu Bakr or his

next-of-kin Ali, to be his successor? Given these alleged

conspiracies it is difficult to conclusively say whether or

not Muhammad planned his succession.

However, from the historic and ongoing schism

between Shiite dynastic followers of Ali and Sunni

supporters of Abu Bakr, it is apparent that Muhammad

did not make his succession plans publically known to

these contenders59. Whether or not Muhammad intended

for a family member or a close follower and friend to be

his successor, dynastic or divide-and-conquer successions

characterise Muslim transitions to this day.

What these brief histories of leadership and

succession show, is that a great leader is only as good as

7KEYS

85 | P a g e

his or her next successor and succession. Pertinently, it

only takes a generation or two of selfish successors and

successions to undo a predecessor’s great leadership

legacy. Sobering isn’t it?

Intentionally preparing successors rather than

leaders, predicting the timing of transition in a timely

manner and handing over leadership sacrificially are the

keys to successful succession that are the most obvious

conclusions from these brief case studies. Equally

obvious should be the conclusion that failing to

intentionally overturn orders, prepare ready

replacements and predict the timing of a succession well

in advance of it occurring is a recipe for disaster and

succession crisis.

Conclusion As these brief succession histories show, avoiding

authoritarianism is not easy. All players in transitions

have a natural tendency towards self-interest and

selfishness unless deliberate action is taken to the

contrary. A first step in combating authoritarianism is

becoming aware of and open about its existence.

The many and varied forms of authoritarianism

from the benign oversight of benefactors to the badness

of barons are all defined by a preference for strict rules

and established authority and for maintaining that status

quo. The most likely outcome is a loss of focus over

ensuing generations of successors, succession crisis—or

worse yet complete transition failure.

Remember, even if a business remains financially

profitable, a loss of original vision in terms of succession

may mean it is no longer successful and heading for

ultimate failure. Unsurprisingly, the succession

outcomes revealed through the brief case studies of

Buddhist, Christian and Muslim transitions prove the

negative and positive effects of predecessor and successor

involvement. A number of pertinent successional truths

about avoiding authoritarianism are revealed through

these cases.

7KEYS

86 | P a g e

Transitions that are intentional rather than

improvised are much more stable and allow for more

sustainable successions to continue. Replacements that

are prepared in advance to take over and are informed of

these succession plans well in advance are less likely to

come into conflict with each other.

A final question more difficult to answer is

whether these succession outcomes failed or fulfilled

incumbent expectations? Based on the three case studies

reviewed it would seem that in some cases the first few

generations of successors may have done as their

predecessors expected. However, I suspect that a visit

by these predecessors to see the outcomes of their

successions today would make most of them rather

disappointed in many of their successors and their selfish

rather than sacrificial orientations.

Becoming aware of authoritarian tendencies is

more than knowing about and understanding their self-

interested outworking. Instead, intentional action by

incumbent and successors to overturn orders by serving

and sacrificing successionally throughout the ministry,

mediatory and mastery phases of their transitions is the

ultimate key to successful successions.

Learning to sacrifice successionally, the last of the

seven keys, is presented next as an answer to this vexing

question successful successions. Authoritarian

tendencies come naturally, as do their self-interested,

selfish succession outcomes. To overturn these orders

and ready sacrificial replacements takes self-sacrifice by

incumbent for successors to a whole new level. The next

and last key teaches sacrificial succession to incumbents

and successors willing to put this challenging truth into

practice by sacrificing successionally.

To recap and practically apply these successional

truths about authoritarian and altruistic succession

outcomes to your organisation:

1. Become more authority aware of the ministers,

mediators and masters working in organisations by

7KEYS

87 | P a g e

identifying them and their styles of altruistic and

authoritarian leadership and succession.

2. Study the succession outcomes of selfish to

sacrificial ministry, mediation and mastery using

the Succession Rules and Map and applying them to

real life successors and transitions.

3. Track real time transitions by creating successor

scenarios based on actual cases of successors and

their succession legacies in your own personal life

and in the life of the organisations you know.

In the next chapter, these succession rules and map will

be combined to practically track some transitions,

particularly sacrificial ones. More of these specific

transitional phases, steps and practices of sacrificial

succession will be revealed in this next and final chapter.

7Keys.

7KEYS

88 | P a g e

7Keys-7

Sacrifice Successionally

“Just as I have served others rather than

myself and give up my leadership sacrificially for

you, so too must you make the same sacrifices as

my successors” – The Leader

All the previous 7Keys that overturn orders,

ready replacements, expose egos, open oversight, calm

conflict and avoid authoritarianism have opened doors

that lead to this last key of sacrificing successionally. A

sacrificial succession is the genuine outworking of an

altruistic ministry orientation through the sacrificial

mediation of leadership and mastery of advocacy by

incumbent for successor success.

Remember the exchange between incumbent and

successors in the introduction? Following his object

lesson about avoiding authoritarianism in the desire for

succession greatness he went on explain its true meaning.

He reminded them of the truth that

sacrificing successionally is at the

heart of successful succession.

Instead of being self-serving

and seeking power, the leader said

that they should be sacrificial.

“Altruistically serving others rather

than yourselves is the true measure

of greatness,” their leader said.

Altruism is a willingness to put the interests of others

first, without ulterior motives. It is about serving and

sacrificing for others without expectation.

Altruistic service and sacrifice is one of the most

admired of human virtues. People heed the call to

sacrifice for clan and country—and to a lesser extent

company—through serving others and sometimes by

Altruistic service and sacrifice is one of the most admired of human virtues. Nobody can show greater

love than to lay down their own lives for their friends.

7KEYS

89 | P a g e

paying the ultimate sacrifice with their lives. Nobody can

show greater love than to lay down their own lives for

their friends.

Despite the assumption that people may be more

likely to sacrifice for immediate family rather than

friends, research actually reveals that it is emotional

closeness rather than genetic ties that ultimately

determine acts of altruism60. In other words, people are

more likely to sacrifice for each other as friends rather

than as foes, whether they are family or not.

That is why in the armed forces and emergency

services mutual camaraderie and trust amongst team

members is so vital, because without it sacrifice is less

likely. Their shared ordeals of mutual service and

sacrifice strengthen their bonds of friendship and

potential for sacrifice61. Charles Darwin, the so-called

‘father of evolution’, makes some insightful comments

about these sacrificial factors amongst human kind. “A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a

high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience,

courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one

another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good,

would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would

be natural selection62.”

Insightful as Darwin’s observations are, altruistic

sacrifice does not occur naturalistically, especially

amongst leaders. Sacrificial succession is not natural

selection. If leadership selections are allowed to occur

naturally in successions, then the self-interested, selfish

and authoritarian tend to rise to prevail—not the

sacrificial. Top leaders are usually considered too

important to the business to sacrifice their leadership.

Therefore, in natural selections and successions, it

is the aspirants who usually make the greater sacrifice to

become successors rather than their predecessors. It is

only in unnatural selections that leaders intentionally

serve potential successor interests pre-succession,

sacrifice their leadership for successors mid-term and

stay on as their advocates post-succession.

7KEYS

90 | P a g e

These three ministry, mediatory and mastery

phases modelled in the previous chapters represent the

people, positions and processes associated with sacrificial

successions. It should already be obvious from anyone

involved in transitions that predecessors and successors,

more often than not, minister, mediate and master in

successions selfishly rather than sacrificially.

In these next three sections, the alternative of

sacrificing successionally is presented through the

Succession Map of ministry, mediation and mastery

introduced in the previous chapter and explained

through the six 7Keys studied so far. The ways potential

successors lead, as ministers, mediators and masters are

strong indicators of how they are likely to succeed

selfishly or sacrificially in transitions.

Ministry of service As previously explained, a ministry of service

starts when someone is mature enough to realise that

serving others can either be selfishly or sacrificially

motivated. Observing whether someone tends to serve

others with or without selfish expectation is a good

starting point because it exposes

natural and unnatural succession

and successor orientations.

Based on these discussions

on sacrifice so far, there may appear

to be an underlying assumption

that the most service-orientated

leaders serve naturally. Robert K.

Greenleaf (1904–1990) popularly

known as the ‘father of Servant

Leadership’ confirms this view by saying that servant

leadership begins with the ‘natural feeling that one wants

to serve, to serve first’. Then conscious choice brings one

to aspire to lead63.

On this basis, a ministry of service orientation is an

almost unconscious desire to serve followed by the more

deliberate phases of mediation and mastery of servant

leadership that involves more conscious choice. While

Sacrificial succession is not about finding natural ministers or servants.

Instead, it is about building into potential successors the

altruistic character that helps them sacrifice

successionally.

7KEYS

91 | P a g e

there is no doubt that some individuals are more

naturally altruistic ministers than others, it is not

necessarily natural servants that are being sought in

sacrificial successions.

Note this important distinction between natural

servants and unnatural ones, because the latter learn to

serve and sacrifice even if they are not naturally inclined

to do so. To reiterate, sacrificial succession is not about

finding natural ministers or servants. Instead, it is about

building into potential successors the altruistic character

that helps them sacrifice successionally. Sacrificial

successors are trained and learn to be altruistic,

irrespective of their naturally selfish orientations.

In fact, naturally selected altruistic ministers may

not ultimately be the best sacrificial successors, because

they tend to serve more instinctively. Those who have

learned the hard way to subordinate their wills to the

needs of others by serving and sacrificing successionally

are preferred in sacrificial successions. For unnatural

servants to have a sacrificial orientation at any succession

phase is much more about character than personality.

Therefore, at the ministry stage, because of its

strong influence on mediation and mastery, it is

important to judge an aspirant’s succession orientations

based on their ministry of service track record. Some

practical questions to ask are: Prior to being in leadership

did candidates serve with or without expectation? Once

in leadership did aspirants minister sacrificially or

selfishly through these superior positions? Do they (not)

display a willingness to learn from others, particularly

those in subordinate positions?

Demonstrating the qualities of an altruistic

servant, minister and learner during the ministry phase

of a succession proves that a potential successor is

progressing towards being more sacrificial than selfish.

(See the “Seven Qualities of Sacrificial Successors” in the

Appendix, for a more detailed explanation of these

successional characteristics.) It is necessary to reiterate

here that what is being sought through this phase is not

natural ministry traits but learned ministry character.

7KEYS

92 | P a g e

As such, the aim of the assessment is not to find

naturally occurring ministers who serve others. Instead

its aim is to monitor a potential successor’s ministry,

mediatory and mastery journey through a number of

successions that gives them the opportunity to

demonstrate that a naturally selfish service orientation is

maturing into a more altruistic ministry based on

character rather than personality.

Mediatory sacrifice Mediatory sacrifice specifically relates to the

sacrificial handover of leadership by incumbent for

successor success. It is the most important phase of a

transition because it bridges the gap between ministry

and mastery and should occur around the middle of a

transition. An altruistic, mediatory sacrifice should be

weighted by incumbent in favour of successor, especially

in terms of the timing of the leadership handover.

For this to occur mid-term, it is crucial that

incumbent has been preparing and choosing altruistic,

ready replacements during the pre-succession ministry

phase. That way both incumbent and successor are much

better placed to enact a sacrificial succession during this

mediatory phase. As noted earlier, ideally this pre-

succession phase should be no less than three-years.

During this phase, incumbents should have

modelled a sacrificial ministry of service by clearly

predicting the timing and terms of a succession. Another

important action of a sacrificial mediator is to appoint a

successor with a proven track record of ministering

sacrificially—with the open oversight of others, of course!

It is scientifically and anecdotally well established

that leaders who sacrifice for the good of their followers

are more transformational than those who don’t64. When

leader self-sacrifice is mediated by altruism the benefits

are especially valuable for beneficiaries65. Because these

studies are predominantly leadership rather than

succession focused, there are few findings that show the

specific effects of altruistic sacrifice by incumbent for

successor success in transitions.

7KEYS

93 | P a g e

This section goes some way in providing answers

to this question. Mediatory sacrifice is needed mid-tenure

following a ministry of altruistic service because post-

succession sacrificial, outgoing leaders need to stay on as

successor advocates. If they mediate their succession too

late in a transition cycle, then by default they cannot stay

as successor advocates. Strangely, this sort of reciprocal

mediatory sacrifice mutually benefits both incumbents

and successors.

For successors, this substitutionary action by

incumbents saves them from the pride of self-effort in

mediating their own successions. Equally, incumbents

learn humility by mediating their

leadership ambitions altruistically for

successors and having their mastery

defined by post-succession advocacy.

In the process, each mutually

learns to sacrifice for the other more

altruistically than selfishly. This is

because the sacrifice of successors is

subordinate to the greater

substitutionary sacrifice of

incumbents for them. The critical success of this key lies

in this mutually altruistic sacrifice being others-

orientated rather than self-focused.

Therefore, while a sacrificial act may be similar in

form, say by giving up one’s own life or stoically

enduring suffering, selfish sacrifice for one’s own

ultimate benefit is inferior to altruistic sacrifice for

another without expectation of profit. For instance,

religious altruism is obviously expensive because of its

great rewards, such as the promise of an afterlife66. Here,

the hope of salvation or heaven through personal

martyrdom is relevant.

Because sacrificing for personal gain is inferior to

altruistic sacrifice for the benefit of others, for a

succession to be sacrificial, sacrifice must be others-

orientated. Herein is found the ultimate power of

sacrificial succession. It takes away the pride of selfish

sacrifice because selfless sacrifice is always superior.

It is scientifically and anecdotally well

established that leaders who sacrifice for the good

of their followers are more transformational than

those who don’t.

7KEYS

94 | P a g e

Incumbents enacting an altruistic, mediatory sacrifice of

their own leadership ambitions mitigates many of the

negative effects of selfish successor sacrifice.

Two qualities are required here of incumbent: that

of being a friend and a substitute. A friend is willing to

lay down their life for their friends. Similarly, a

substitute is willing to take the place of another.

Remember, to sacrifice successionally the emotional

closeness of friendship is the catalyst for altruism and a

willingness to sacrifice substitutionally its outworking.

Together, both qualities work through incumbents

and successors to strangely yet powerfully facilitate

sacrificial successions. The mutual bond between

predecessors and successors who have sacrificed

altruistically by voluntarily giving up their right to

mediate succession through selfish sacrifice is

particularly strong. In a transition, nobody can show a

greater sacrifice successionally than to lay down his or

her own leadership ambitions for

successor success.

To be successional, a mediatory

phase should take about six months to

a year. An altruistic successor should

be appointed at the beginning of this

period. This phase ends with the

sacrifice of leadership by incumbent.

However, the mediatory phase at the mid-point of a

transition is not normally where leadership is handed

over in authoritarian successions.

Instead, leadership is handed over, often belatedly

during the mastery phase or prematurely in the ministry

phase. These untimely transitions are due to succession

triggers that include: scandals, vendettas, overstays even

deaths67. Incumbents may be proactive or reactive in

dealing with these triggers, yet seldom do they sacrifice

altruistically during a mastery or ministry phase.

Given that research shows many leadership

tenures are lasting less than ten years68, enacting

sacrificial successions over a seven-year period is realistic

and doable. Even if a longer period of time is required,

In a transition, nobody can show a greater sacrifice

successionally than to lay down their own leadership

for successor success.

7KEYS

95 | P a g e

the key to it being successional is that the sacrificial

handover of leadership occurs mid-tenure during the

mediatory phase. In other words, no matter how long a

transitional cycle is, sacrificial succession requires

leadership to sacrifice mid-term in relation to the total

timeline of the succession.

This is the main reason why in a sacrificial

succession this mediatory phase requires the sacrifice of

leadership. The terms are unequivocally sacrificial and

the timing is mid-tenure. A mediatory sacrifice of

leadership is an integral part of sacrificing successionally

because of the mastery of advocacy phase that follows,

which is supported by mediatory sacrifice.

Mastery of advocacy Therefore, to be effective, a mastery of advocacy

for successors by incumbent must occur post-succession.

However, in most authoritarian transitions, outgoing

leaders are replaced at the end of their mastery phase,

which in most cases effectively ends their tenure. To

sacrifice successionally, an outgoing leader is required to

stay on as master advocate for a minimum of three years

after a mediatory sacrifice. This sacrificial mastery is

about staying on post-succession to teach and remind

successors of sacrificial succession and be an advocate for

them with leadership.

Even though the seven qualities of sacrificial

successors mentioned so far of serving, ministering,

learning, teaching, befriending, substituting and

advocating apply across all three successional phases, the

role of advocacy and teaching by incumbent are

especially important during this final mastery of

advocacy phase. Here, it is important to understand

sacrificial succession, as an outworking of genuine

servant leadership, is all of these seven qualities applied

by predecessors and successors throughout the transition.

However, there are certain qualities that are more

important at particular times in a transition for

predecessor and successors to practice than others. Recall

the sacrificial practices required of each practitioner in

7KEYS

96 | P a g e

the successional timeline. Post-succession, teaching and

advocacy by predecessor are most important because

sacrificial, post-succession advocacy by replaced leader is

what sets the tone for the next altruistic transition and

generation of sacrificial successors. It is this altruistic

mastery of advocacy, and the teaching of it, that is most

likely to bring about the next round of genuinely

sacrificial successions.

Given the tendency for incoming and outgoing

leaders to be selfish rather than sacrificial, it is

understandable that most succession plans discourage or

forbid them staying on as part of an exit strategy. Yet

research shows outgoing leaders can play a key role in

guiding and advocating for newly incumbent leaders69.

This is conditional on them being ambassadorial, rather

than general-like or kingly authoritarians, for example.

Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, in his book “The Hero's

Farewell: What Happens When CEOs Retire”, notes that

altruistic outgoing leaders are primarily “ambassador-

like70.” Admittedly, this approach to mastery in

successions is radically different to the status quo. Hence

the need for an altruistic ministry of service followed by

mediatory sacrifice that precedes a mastery of advocacy.

Normally, succession mastery is about outgoing

leaders hanging on to power long enough to ensure that

their remuneration is maximised post-succession.

Similarly, newly incumbent leaders often start by

ministering to mediate a mastery that benefits their

tenure. Predictably, these self-interested leadership

transitions naturally lead to authoritarian successions.

By sacrificing their leadership ambitions early,

sacrificial, outgoing leaders become master advocates

rather than admirals. In helping to instil these same

sacrificial values in newly incumbent leaders and in the

next generation of successors, a master advocate is a

predecessor preparing at least two generations of

successors for a sustainable and successful successional

future. The first generation of successor is their

immediate replacement and newly incumbent leader.

7KEYS

97 | P a g e

Second generation successors are the candidates

now in the ministry phase that will potentially replace

incumbent. Through teaching and advocating for

successors post-succession outgoing leader is achieving

altruistic mastery and modelling a successional legacy

that should endure for at least two subsequent

generations of sacrificial successors and successions.

Other than the mediatory sacrifice of leadership,

this final stage of altruistic mastery through advocacy is

probably the most unnatural even controversial aspect of

sacrificial succession. Without it, though, a mediatory

sacrifice is like a bridge to nowhere. A pre-succession

ministry of altruistic service and post-succession mastery

of advocacy are both needed for a mediatory sacrifice to

work effectively as a bridge between the two.

Sacrificial succession Sacrificing successionally is never easy because it

requires both incumbents and successors to respectively

substitute and subordinate their selfish leadership

ambitions for sacrificial ones. Paradoxically, both benefit

from the process by mutually learning to sacrifice

personal leadership ambitions through sacrificing for the

other. This is the latent and strange power of sacrificial

succession that challenges naturalistic selections.

On this basis alone, remuneration may need to be

radically different than it is now to support sacrificial

succession. Current rewards focus on what incumbents

temporally achieve during the job, whereas with a

sacrificial succession outcomes are measured by the

quality of successors after the fact. This approach is

radically different to the unsuccessful and unsuccessional

succession case studies reviewed. Difficult is not

impossible.

For example, by holding remuneration and

rewards in trust until a judgement can be made about the

quality of successors, post succession, transitions can

become much more sacrificial. Rewarding predecessors

and successors in transitions for a altruistic ministry of

service, mediatory sacrifice and mastery of advocacy will

7KEYS

98 | P a g e

go a long way to encouraging sacrificial rather than

selfish orientations in successions.

Based on our specific study of sacrificial successors

and successions in this chapter, it is helpful to repopulate

the Succession Map with sacrificial succession in mind.

See the Succession Map below that describes multiple

ministry, mediatory and mastery options.

Figure 10: Sacrificial Succession Map

This succession map tracks potential successor

orientations and successor pathways from ministry to

mastery. Unsurprisingly, it shows that there are

successors who are more naturally inclined to minister,

mediate or master selfishly or selflessly. Based on this

map, the outcome of self-interested successions are

always more authoritarian than altruistic.

Remember the principle that ministry mediates

mastery, because this rule defines the three main

orientations—corporate, dynastic or sacrificial—that

successors take in successions. Normally successors

follow an educational ministry pathway towards a

transitional mastery mediated by managerial or familial

succession orientations.

Horizontal

Hierarchal

Hierarchal

AuthoritarianAltruistic

SuccessionMap

Familial Corporate Dynastic

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2 Managerial 6

3 5

4 Educational Professional 4

5 Ministry Mastery 3

6 Transformational Technical 2

7 1

Service

Horizontal

Hierarchal

Hierarchal

Mastery

Ministry

AuthoritarianAltruistic

Mediates

SuccessionMap

Sacrificial

Vocational

Practical

Autocratic

7KEYS

99 | P a g e

Occasionally technical / professional expertise can

contribute to succession mastery71. More often than not,

however, one of the two succession orientations

mentioned above mediates successions to mastery.

Succession outcomes from a managerial pathway usually

result in a corporate transition, whereas a familial path

makes a dynastic transition more likely.

The degree to which a transition is authoritarian

relates to the strength of its self-interest practitioners:

predecessors and successors. These strengths and

weaknesses are signified by the vertical numbers on the

left (altruistic) and right hand (authoritarian) sides of the

map along with the horizontal numbers on the top.

Adding the horizontal and vertical numbers

intersecting a particular field helps determine how

authoritarian a succession may be. Note that some

familial successions may be less

authoritarian than corporate

successions due to a sacrificial

succession yet remain autocratic

nonetheless due to successors being

limited to next-of-kin.

Another key mitigating factor to

note is when a succession is mediated

during a transition. As mentioned

earlier, the rule is that the later a succession is mediated

in a transition during a mastery phase the more likely it is

to be authoritarian. Again, the only exception to this rule

is found in dynastic successions because in families

predecessors sometimes hand over leadership early to

stay on post succession72. For obvious self-interested

reasons, this sort of dynastic succession, though altruistic,

cannot really be considered sacrificial.

Not all authoritarian successions are brutal. In fact

many, if not most, leadership transitions are benign, yet

authoritarian nonetheless. Nevertheless, there is only one

major alternative to selfish transitions. It is sacrificial

succession, the strange yet logical conclusion of altruistic

leadership. What ultimately makes altruistic servant or

transformational leadership seminal, especially for the

No sacrifice by successors matches the

substitutionary sacrifice by incumbents in giving up

their leadership ambitions for successor success.

7KEYS

100 | P a g e

next generation of successors, is a sacrificial succession by

incumbent for successor success. If genuine altruistic

service is the cause, then sacrifice should be the effect.

Strangely, it is the sacrifice by incumbent for

successor that enacts the most powerful transition of all—

sacrificial succession. No sacrifice by successors matches

the substitutionary sacrifice by incumbents in giving up

their leadership ambitions for successor success. Instead

of a succession being mainly about a self-serving

ministry, selfish mediation and powerful mastery, these

same succession phases can be more about an others-

orientated ministry of altruistic service, mediatory

sacrifice and mastery of advocacy.

Sacrificial succession is the strange, yet logical

outworking of altruistic leadership in transitions. In

successional terms, sacrificial succession gives altruistic

leadership its currency. Similar to a coin needing both

sides inscribed to be legitimate, altruistic leadership is

legitimised when succeeded by sacrificial succession.

To practically apply sacrificial succession to a

leadership transition requires the following base formula

mentioned earlier: ministry x mediates x mastery. For a

sacrificial succession to occur the formula needs to be

built upon as follows: (altruistic)

ministry x mediatory (sacrifice) x

mastery (of advocacy) = a sacrificial

succession.

Using this base formula,

succession and successor assessments

should be conducted within and over

the lifetime of at least three

transitions. This assessment can be

made at organisational, interpersonal and personal levels

based on three key succession indicators: 1) Strength of

direct versus indirect Succession Relationships between

incumbents and successors, 2) Degree to which Successor

Orientations are sacrificial or selfish and 3) Trend of

Succession Outcomes being more sacrificial or selfish

over the lifetimes of these transitions.

Similar to a coin needing both sides inscribed to be

legitimate, altruistic leadership is legitimised

when succeeded by sacrificial succession.

7KEYS

101 | P a g e

In conducting such a successional assessment a

transitional timeline similar to the one in Figure 6 could

be used to ask the following questions: Past – How was

the last successions enacted? Present – How is a current

succession being conducted? Predictive – How sacrificial

is the next succession likely to be based on present and

past successions? Comparing this timeline gives a

generational picture of transitions and their likely

outworking as succession outcomes.

Each of these three succession indicators (strength,

degree and trend) should start being applied during the

pre-succession ministry phase of successor preparation.

A particular focus on the mediatory succession event

itself is crucial, because it bridges ministry and mastery.

How mastery was mediated, with special attention on the

occurrence of post-succession mastery and if it was

sacrificial or self-interested is critical.

Especially for sacrificial succession, particular

attention needs to be paid to the sacrificial to selfish

characteristics of successional candidates during each

transitional phase: ministry of service, mediatory sacrifice

and mastery of advocacy. Equally important is the

process of monitoring incumbents serving as ministers,

sacrificing as mediators and advocating as masters for

successors.

Comparing these three sets of data at one time and

over a period time facilitates triangulation and helps in

identifying relationships between these elements.

Observe these sacrificial to selfish succession orientations

that outwork as altruistic to authoritarian trends in

leadership transitions. Some of the tools available for

practitioners willing to enact a sacrificial succession are:

1. Organisational Succession Audit

2. Personal-Interpersonal Assessment

3. Sacrificial Succession and Successor Map

Each of these tools can be accessed and used by

visiting: www.successfulsuccession.org and by

purchasing the Successful Succession Pack©, which

includes these assessment tools and an explanation of

7KEYS

102 | P a g e

how to apply and assess each of these three Sacrificial

Succession steps in more detail.

Conclusion In closing, it is worth remembering the words of

the leader in the introduction: “Just as I have served

others rather than myself and give up my leadership

sacrificially for you, so too must you do the same as my

successors.” This leader lived out a ministry of service,

mediatory sacrifice and a mastery of advocacy that

proved the authenticity of his sacrificial leadership and

succession credentials to and through his successors.

These successors learned that the genuine

outworking of altruistic leadership is sacrificial

succession. His greatest gift to his

successors was a mediatory sacrifice

of leadership and mastery of

advocacy specifically for their

success. Because these successors

had experienced first-hand

successional sacrifice by their

predecessor, they were well prepared

as sacrificial successors to do the same.

Each successor had observed the seven keys to

successful succession lived out through their predecessor.

Overturning orders, readying replacements, exposing

egos, being open to oversight, calming conflict, avoiding

authoritarianism and sacrificing successionally was

second nature to them despite it being against their

human natures to do so. It was their leader’s

successional legacy gifted sacrificially to them.

These 7Keys to Successful Succession, the title of

this book, are available to all incumbents and successors

who are willing to sacrificially play their parts. Sacrificial

Succession is difficult because it counters selfish human

nature, yet is strangely rewarding. Perhaps Jesus the

Messiah best captures altruistic leadership and sacrificial

succession in one of his most famous statements:

“Greater love has no one than this: that someone lay

down his life for his friends73.”

A willingness by incumbent to sacrifice altruistically

for successor success is the master key.

7KEYS

103 | P a g e

This is the essence of sacrificial (leadership)

succession and the final door through which a sacrificial

successor walks who genuinely uses each of these 7Keys.

A willingness by incumbent to sacrifice altruistically for

successor success is the master key. Learning these seven

keys is a work-in-progress. As the author of this book, I

feel a weight of responsibility in not having all the

answers and falling far short of being a sacrificial

successor myself.

In spite of these personal failings, I am compelled

to write what I am learning even if it is an incomplete

work-in-progress on my part. In the process of learning

more about sacrificial succession, I look forward to doing

it together with like-minded people like you.

Because you have taken the time to read this book

and mull over its succession implications, I am certain

that, together, we can progress the cause of sacrificial

successions that result in more successful successions.

Thank you for taking the time to read what I have

written. May your next succession be sacrificial and

successful!

Paul Rattray

7Keys.

7KEYS

104 | P a g e

Appendix

1. Seven keys to successful succession

1. Overturn Orders – Incumbents must put the last

first by sacrificing their self-interest in a

succession specifically for the success of their

successors.

2. Ready Replacements – Directly prepared by

incumbent as successors pre-succession by being

made aware of the timing and terms of the transition

well in advance of it occurring.

3. Expose Egos – Identify selfish ‘sacrifice’ by rewarding

altruistic service and sacrifice by potential successors

through projects that reveal these succession

orientations.

4. Open Oversight – Involves the authority of both

internal and external leaders who have a stake in the

transition so that a balanced decision can be made

about potential successors.

5. Calm Conflict – Transparent and open conflict

resolution involves using the offence as an object

lesson to teach both offending and offended parties

about sacrifice.

6. Avoid Authoritarianism – Change from managerial

and familial transitions into sacrificial successions

that put sacrificial ministers, mediators and masters

first.

7. Sacrifice Successionally - Just as incumbent serves

successors rather than self and gives up leadership

sacrificially for them, so too must successors make

these same sacrifices for their successors

7KEYS

105 | P a g e

2. Seven steps to sacrificial succession

3. The seven qualities of sacrificial successors: SERVANT - Personally serves others first without expectation by willingly coming last. Servants do not anticipate succeeding to any position other than servanthood by serving others and servanthood is an end in itself not a means to leadership. MINISTER - Advance the interests of others before personal gain through a leadership position. Ministers serve wholeheartedly through active submission to others and doing good to benefit others, especially subordinates, through their leadership positions. LEARNER - Teachable and willing to learn from others especially subordinates. Learners have a readiness of mind and zeal to search out, inquire after, examine and judge information actively rather than passively. TEACHER - Models and makes known to students everything they have learned from their predecessors. Teachers actively and directly model sacrificial qualities to successors throughout a leadership transition.

Details: Yes/No

1. Ministry of preparation (3½ years)

2. Mediatory sacrifice (six months)

3. Mastery of advocacy (three years)

á Stay on to teach and remind next generations of successors about sacrificial succession.

á Master by advocating with leadership for incumbent and successor success.

á Appoint a successor with a track record proving a willingness to minister sacrificially.

á Confirm incumbent’s altruism outweighs that of successor by a greater sacrifice.

á Ensure incumbent sacrificially hands over leadership mid-tenure and mid-transition.

The Seven Steps to Sacrificial Succession

á Prepare and choose sacrificial ministers as candidate successors.

á Clearly predict the timing and terms of a succession to potential successors.

7KEYS

106 | P a g e

FRIEND - Act as a companion by involving students in personal life and work. Friends show genuine affection for their comrades, act sacrificing, expect nothing in return and are willing to sacrifice for their friends. SUBSTITUTE - Intentionally hands over leadership sacrificially for the success of successor. Substitutes act sacrificially for the sake of others. Their willingness to figuratively and literally lay down their lives for their friends is the best example of this quality. ADVOCATE - Continue to advocate for successor interests even after being replaced. Advocates assist and sometimes plead the case of successors with leadership and remind successors, particularly newly incumbent leaders, about what they have learned and keep them accountable in continuing a sacrificial succession.

To apply these Seven Keys to Successful Succession in your organisation contact: PaulRattray@CVC.tv.

Endnotes

1 Kevin Martin (2007), “The Looming Leadership Void: Identifying,

Developing, and Retaining Your Top Talent”,

http://www.aberdeen.com/. 2 Andrew N. Garman and Jeremy Glawe (2004), “Succession

Planning”, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,

Volume 56 (2). 3 Stephen R. Covey (1989), “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective

People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change”:

http://endsearchhere.blogspot.com.au/2007/03/seven-habits-of-

highly-effective-people.html, page 46. 4 Stephen Drotter (2003), “The Leadership Pipeline: The Right Leader

in the Right Job”:

http://www.executiveforum.com/PDFs/drotter_synopsis.pdf, page 2. 5 “Maxwell Relinquishes Rights to $5.5 Million Final Retirement

Payment; Fannie Mae Will Give Money to Low-Income Housing”:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com (1992). 6 Advice and Descent”:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/fanniemae.asp (2012). 7 Peter Limb (2008), “Nelson Mandela: A Biography”, Greenwood

Press, page 50.

7KEYS

107 | P a g e

8 F. W. De Klerk (2011), “The Role of Leadership during South

Africa’s Transition”:

http://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/files/F_W_de_Klerk_speech_to_R

hodes_Scholars.pdf, page 7. 9 Joseph L. Bowers (2007), “Solve the Succession Crisis by Growing

Inside-

Outside Leaders”: http://hbr.org/2007/11/solve-the-succession-crisis-

by-growing-inside-outside-leaders/ar/1, page 1. 10 James Hazy, Jeffrey Goldstein and Benyamin Lichtenstein (2007),

“Complex Systems Leadership Theory: New Perspectives from

Complexity Science on Social and Organizational Effectiveness,”

ISCE Publishing, page 4. 11 Thomas S. Kuhn (1970), “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”,

Second Edition Enlarged: The University of Chicago Press, page 77. 12 John W. Boudreau, Wendy R. Boswell and Timothy A. Judge

(2001), “Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success in the

United States and Europe”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour Number

58:53-81. 13 Andrew N. Garman and J. Larry Tyler (2007), “Succession Planning

Practices & Outcomes in U.S. Hospital Systems: Final Report,”:

http://www.ache.org/pubs/research/succession_planning.pdf. 14 Geert Hofstede (2002) “Dimensions do not exist: A reply to

Brendan McSweeney”, Human Relations, Volume 55 (11), pages 5-6. 15 Jeffrey S. Harrison and James O. Fiet (1999), “New CEOs Pursue

Their Own Self-Interests by Sacrificing Stakeholder Value”, Journal

Of Business Ethics, Volume 19, Number 3, pages 301-308. 16 Basil B. Bernstein (1996), “Class, Codes and Control: Pedagogy,

symbolic control and identity,” Taylor & Francis, page 37. 17 Fredrik Bynander and Paul ’t Hart (2006), “When Power Changes

Hands: The Political Psychology of Leadership Succession in

Democracies Political Psychology”, Vol. 27, No. 5, pages 709-730. 18 David De Cremer and Daan van Knippenberg (2004), “Leader self-

sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader

self-confidence”, http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=44120. 19 Barbara van Knippenberg and Daan van Knippenberg (2005),

“Leader Self-Sacrifice and Leadership Effectiveness: The Moderating

Role of Leader Prototypicality”, Journal of Applied Psychology,

Volume 90 (1) January, pages 25-37. 20 Jim Collins (2001), “Good to Great: Why some companies make the

leap…and others don’t”, London: Random House Business Books. 21 Cynthia D. McCauley, Wilfred H. Drath, Charles J. Palus, Patricia

M.G. O'Connor and Becca A. Baker (2006), “The use of constructive-

developmental theory to advance the understanding of leadership”,

http://www.ccl.org/leadership/pdf/landing/ConstructiveDevTheory.

pdf, Page 638.

7KEYS

108 | P a g e

22 Kelly A. Phipps (2010), “Servant Leadership and Constructive

Development Theory: How Servant Leaders Make Meaning of

Service”,

http://www.leadershipeducators.org/Resources/Documents/jole/2010

_summer/Phipps.pdf, page 163. 23 Karl Popper (1992) “The Logic of Scientific Discovery”,

http://www.cosmopolitanuniversity.ac/library/LogicofScientificDisco

veryPopper1959.pdf, page 147. 24 John N. Williams (1988), “Confucius, Mencius, and the Notion of

True Succession”, Philosophy East and West, Vol. 38, No. 2, (April):

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1398698, pages 157-171 [158]. 25 Marcus D. Bieschke (2006), “Five Succession Planning Values to

Keep Your Organization Alive”:

http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/lao/issue_6/pdf/Bies

chke_%20five_succession.pdf (accessed 07.08.2012), page 3. 26 James Krantz, Marc Maltz and Cheryl Peppers (2008), “Succession

Planning and Management: A Comparative Study”, page 3. 27 Ram Charan (2005), “Ending the CEO succession crisis”, Harvard

Business Review, February, Number 83(2), pages 72-81. 28 Sim Bock San, Sheila Rioux and Paul Bernthal (2000), “The

Malaysian Leadership Forecast: A Benchmarking Study”,

http://www.ddiworld.com, page 2. 29 Adam Smith (2005), “The Wealth of Nations”:

http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/adam-smith/Wealth-

Nations.pdf, pages 18-19. 30 Edwin P. Hollander and Lynn R. Offermann (1990:183), “Power

and Leadership in Organizations: Relationships in Transition”,

American Psychologist, Volume 45(2), February: 179-189. 31 Timothy A. Judge, Joyce E. Bono, Remus Ilies & Megan W.

Gerhardt (2002), “ Personality and leadership: A qualitative and

quantitative review”,

Journal of Applied Psychology, Volume 87(4), August, pages 765-

780. 32 Lawrence E. Harrison and Samuel P. Huntington (2000), “Culture

Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress”, Basic Books, pages

xiv-xv. 33 Bruce E. Winston and Barry Ryan (2008), “Servant Leadership as a

Humane Orientation: Using the GLOBE Study Construct of Humane

Orientation to Show that Servant Leadership is More Global than

Western”,

http://leadershiplearningforlife.com/acad/global/publications/ijls/ne

w/vol3iss2/IJLS_V3Is2_Winston_Ryan.pdf, page 215. 34 Jim Asplund, Shane J. Lopez, Tim Hodges and Jim Harter (2007),

“The Clifton StrengthsFinder® 2.0 Technical Report: Development

and Validation”:

7KEYS

109 | P a g e

http://strengths.gallup.com/private/Resources/CSFTechnicalReport03

1005.pdf (accessed 13.08.2012). 35 John C. Maxwell (2008), “The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership”,

http://www.swimmingcoach.org/downloads/The%2021%20Irrefutabl

e%20Laws%20of%20Leadership.pdf, pages 15-16. 36 Kai A. Konrad and Stergios Skaperdas (2007), “Succession Rules

and Leadership Rents”: http://www.cesifo-

group.de/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/1188560.PDF, page 623. 37 Barry Ip and Gabriel Jacobs (2006), “Business succession planning:

a review of the evidence”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise

Development Vol. 13 No. 3: 326-350 (see page 328). 38 Richard T. Pascale, Mark Millemann and Linda Gioja (2000),

“Surfing the Edge of Chaos: The Laws of Nature and the New Laws

of Business”, Crown Business, page 179. 39 Susan Ennis et al (2005), “Core Competencies of the Executive

Coach”,

http://www.instituteofcoaching.org/images/articles/model905.pdf,

pages 2-3. 40 Kim Lamoureux, Michael Campbell and Roland Smith (2009),

“High-Impact Succession Management”, www.ccl.org, page 12. 41 Mark Nadler, Carlos Rivero, Steve Krupp and Richard Hossack

(2008), “Overcoming the Obstacles to CEO Succession Planning”,

page 41: http://www.oliverwyman.com/pdf_files/OWJ26-

5_CEO_Succession.pdf. 42 Jim Collins (2001), “Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make

the Leap and others don’t”, Random House Business Books”, pages

12-13. 43 Peter Senge (2000), “The Leadership of Profound Change”,

http://www.as2commerce.com/pdf/other/Senge.pdf, pages 1-2. 44 John Jacob Gardiner (2006), “Transactional, Transformational, and

Transcendent Leadership: Metaphors Mapping the Evolution of the

Theory and Practice of Governance”,

http://www.leadershipreview.org/2006spring/Article3.pdf, pages 71-

72. 45 Barbara Murray (2003), “The Succession Transition Process: A

Longitudinal Perspective,” Family Business Review, Number 16 (17),

page 18. 46 Kenneth Allan (2005), “Explorations in Classical Sociological

Theory: Seeing the Social World (Third Edition)”, Pine Forge Press,

page 170. 47 J. Gordon Melton (2003) “When Prophets Die: The Succession

Crisis in New Religions”, http://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/52290.pdf,

pages 7-8.

7KEYS

110 | P a g e

48 Laurent Bach (2008), “Family CEO Successions and Corporate

bankruptcies: evidence from France”,

http://www.tinbergen.nl/cost/crest/bach.pdf, pages 2-3. 49 Tim Barrett & Karen Townsend (2009), “Family Business

Succession Planning”,

www.blueprintsforbiz.com/papers/business_succession.pdf: accessed

2/02/2011. 50 National Association of State Personnel Executives [NASPE] (2007),

“A Guide To Developing your Agency’s Succession Plan”,

http://www.delawarepersonnel.com/orgdev/documents/succession_

planning_paper_2007.pdf: accessed 27/12/2010. 51 John James Cater III, Brent D. Beal and Robert T. Justis (2008), “The

Development of Shared Leadership in Multi-Generational Family

Firms”,

http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/usasbe/2008/pdf/PaperID24.pdf,

pages 1082-1083. 52 Deepak Chopra (2007), “Buddha: A Story of Enlightenment”,

http://www.eso-

garden.com/specials/buddha_a_story_of_enlightenment.pdf page

265. 53 Pyasilo (1995), “Charisma in Buddhism”,

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/charisma6.pdf, pages 114-115. 54 Vishvapani (2007), “NKT Succession & Questions of Authority”:

http://dharmasights.blogspot.com/search/label/Western%20Buddhis

m (accessed 3.11.2011), for example. 55 “The Holy Bible”, (Matthew 16:21, 17:22 and 20:17):

http://www.biblegateway.com. 56 John P. Davis (2001), “Corporations: A Study of the Origin and

Development of Great Business Combinations and of their Relation

to the Authority of the State”, Kitchener, Ontario: Batoche Books. 57 Stuart Murray (2010), “Translocal Ministry after Christendom”,

www.anabaptistnetwork.com/book/export/html/505: accessed

21.03.2011. 58 Abdul Hakeem Akanni (2010), “Leadership succession in Islam”,

http://www.tribune.com.ng/index.php/eyes-of-islam/11855-

leadership-succession-in-islam-4: accessed 59 Robert A. Campbella (2008), “Leadership succession in early Islam:

Exploring the nature and role of historical precedents”, The

Leadership Quarterly Volume 19, Issue 4, August 2008, pages 426-

438. 60 Paola Bressan, Stephen M. Colarelli and Mary Beth Cavalieri

(2009), “Biologically Costly Altruism Depends on Emotional

Closeness among Step but Not Half or Full Sibling”,

http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP07118132.pdf, page

128.

7KEYS

111 | P a g e

61 Victor Turner (1969), “The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-

Structure”, New York: Aldine De Gruyter, page 103. 62 Charles Darwin (2000), “The Descent of Man and Selection in

Relation to Sex”: www.munseys.com/diskone/darwindescent.pdf,

page 289. 63 Robert K. Greenleaf (1977), “Servant Leadership: A Journey into

Legitimate Power and Greatness”: Paulist Press, page 6. 64 David De Cremer and Daan van Knippenberg (2005), “Cooperation

as a function of leader self-sacrifice, trust, and identification”,

http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=44114, pages 365-369. 65 Niti Singh and Venkat R. Krishnan (2008), “Self-sacrifice and

transformational leadership: mediating role of altruism”, Leadership

& Organization Development Journal, Volume 29 (3), pages 261-274. 66 Joseph Bulbulia (2004), “Religious Costs as Adaptations that Signal

Altruistic Intention”, Evolution and Cognition, Vol. 10, No. 1, page

21. 67 Fredrik Bynander and Paul 't Hart (2006), “When Power Changes

Hands: The Political Psychology of Leadership Succession in

Democracies”, Political Psychology Volume 27 (5) October, pages

707–730. 68 Ken Favaro, Per-Ola Karlsson and Gary L. Neilson (2011), “CEO

Succession 2010: The Four Types of CEO”, http://www.strategy-

business.com/media/file/sb63_11207.pdf, page 47 and Page Hull-

Teegarden (2004), “Nonprofit Executive Leadership and Transitions

Survey 2004”, The Annie E. Casey Foundation, http://www.aecf.org/:

accessed 06.05.2011. 69 Jeffrey Sonnenfeld (2004), “Good governance and the misleading

myths of bad metrics”: http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/dir-

nominations/sonnenfeld012004.pdf, page 110. 70 Jeffrey Sonnenfeld (1991), “The Hero's Farewell: What Happens

When CEOs Retire”, Oxford University Press, page 7. 71 The National Association of State Personnel Executives (2007),

“Workforce Planning Toolkit: A Guide to Developing Your Agency’s

Succession Plan”:

http://www.delawarepersonnel.com/orgdev/documents/succession_

planning_paper_2007.pdf, page 2. 72

John Perry and Xin Yao (2007), “Founders’ Plan For Post-

Succession Involvement: How Founders Influence the Future

Direction of Their Companies through their Succession Plans”,

http://sbaer.uca.edu/research/usasbe/2007/data/papers/cases/082.pdf:

accessed 11/05/2011. 73 John 15:13 (English Standard Version):

http://www.biblegateway.com.