Leadership's renewal problem

The renewal of leaders has been a particular interest of mine in recent years. I would like to say it is because I matured, but it is probably more motivated by having observed and participated in organizations where incumbent leaders fail to successfully replace themselves.

Before taking a stance on the issue, I first want to recognize that succession is a very complex concept. In order to succeed, there must be

1. Candidates who have demonstrated sufficient capability, loyalty, and future potential.
2. A significant level of trust and respect between the incumbent leader, and these candidates.
3. A real willingness - even desire - for the incumbent leader to relinquish their position.

Certainly, pride may keep a leader from stepping down - and we see so much of that today - but it is only one part of the problem. Perhaps it is the least of the three problems. So let’s focus on the other kinds.

Where does it fail?

The problem statement in my mind reads as 2 parts:

1. Can an incumbent leader identify suitable candidates and groom them till they are ready to take over?

It is not a simple matter, even with the best of intentions, to identify, engage, and groom candidates to succeed yourself. And you may find that you have only made them capable enough to leave rather than succeed you.

2. Can the candidate wait patiently and humbly for the incumbent leader to pass the baton?

In the case that the candidate does desire your position, it is not a simple matter to make them ready while keeping them humble. The same pride that keeps an incumbent leader in power drives another to take power. This creates a paradox; let’s call this the Successor’s Paradox.

The Successor’s Paradox

We often treat succession as a search for a “suitable” candidate, as if we are looking for a missing puzzle piece. But the reality of high-performance leadership introduces a fundamental paradox: the very traits that make someone a great successor also make them the most likely to leave.

A truly driven successor is defined by two traits: Passion for the organization’s mission and Ownership of the organization’s actions. These create two different problems that drive potential successors to leave.

1. A driven, passionate leader cannot coexist for long within a dispassionate organization.

The incumbent leader needs to firstly have nurtured an organization full of people who are passionate about the mission. This is it’s own challenge. Often this is a ‘quality gate’ problem; if you let people in who are dispassionate, these become deadweight from the start. a

But assuming your organization is full of passionate people, these people may also then jockey for position, causing attrition in the process - even attrition among potential successors.

2. Strong opinions drive a leader toward desiring Ownership, and the easiest way is often to start their own organization.

If they are not passionate about the mission, then it may not matter how opinionated they are; they are not potential successors. Eventually, they leave to pursue what they are passionate about.

And if they do subscribe to the mission, they will have strong opinions about the “How” and the “Why”. They will want to exercise authority and autonomy to ‘make things happen’. This can be difficult for the incumbent leader to give them.

Stewardship over Legacy

Most leadership renewals therefore end either in the death of the organization as good people leave, or a rather painful transition as leaders vie for the top.

I think the only way to achieve succesion is to focus on Stewardship rather than Legacy.

Legacy is a leader trying to preserve themselves through the organization. This leads them to seek a successor who is a clone, someone who will protect what they built exactly as they built it. This creates the “loyalty paradox,” where they accidentally select for compliance over capability.

Stewardship, however, recognizes that the organization does not belong to the leader. A steward’s job is to prepare - as best as possible - conditions for the successor to succeed. This also means accepting the risk that the next leader will do things differently, and that the organization may change as a result.

So then, stewardship as a mindset - by both the incumbent leader and the successor - sets up renewal.

The passionate steward understands that the organization isn’t there to serve them, but they serve the organization. They activate themselves and those around them in service of the mission.

The opinionated steward understands that their opinion has to be in service of the organization’s goals, and is willing to bend their personal preference for the sake of the organizational good.

The model of Jesus

I don’t think this is a particularly new concept; this is actually what Jesus posits for us as the values of the Kingdom of God, and he teaches these with words like ‘those who want to be first must be last’ and ‘the greatest among you will be your servant’.

In fact this is probably the only model that can scale, logically speaking.

A model where only one person can be at the top is a model that - by definition - requires fighting for the top spot. Stepping on others is - in this scheme - a prerequisite. Removing competition is a basic play.

But a model where the one at the top is the greatest servant, actually creates space for many leaders to rise up in service of the mission. Raising others up is beneficial for the whole. Fostering healthy competition is a tactic to find the best solution.

If everyone is a steward, then the best leader will naturally emerge as the one who is able to serve the organization the best in pursuit of the mission. This, I think, is the only way to achieve leadership renewal.