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: [email protected].
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.