Part VI - Beyond the Conclave: Reimagining Succession for the Modern Organization
Throughout this series, we've used the papal conclave as a lens for examining succession planning – exploring its conclave's structure, its political dynamics, gender limitations, knowledge transfer processes, and common failure patterns. We've discovered that this ancient system, despite its limitations, offers surprising wisdom for contemporary organizations navigating leadership transitions.
But the conclave model isn't the end point or the “end all be all” of succession planning evolution. It's a starting point for reimagining how we might approach leadership transitions in ways that better serve modern organizational needs, contemporary values, and emerging leadership paradigms.
In this final article, let's explore how we might move beyond traditional succession models – including the conclave – toward approaches that address their limitations while preserving their strengths.
From Great Man Theory to Collective Leadership
Perhaps the most fundamental limitation of the conclave model is its assumption that leadership resides in a single individual who must be replaced by another single individual. This "great man" theory of leadership – the belief that history advances through the actions of exceptional individuals rather than collective movements – shapes not just papal succession but most contemporary approaches.
We select a new CEO to replace the departing one. We choose a new Executive Director when the current one leaves. We find another singular leader to fill the shoes of the person departing.
What if leadership succession moved beyond this individualistic paradigm?
Distributed Leadership Models
Some organizations have begun experimenting with shared leadership structures that distribute authority across multiple individuals rather than concentrating it in a single position:
The Buurtzorg Model: This Dutch healthcare organization operates with 14,000 employees but minimal management hierarchy. When founder Jos de Blok eventually steps down, succession won't involve finding a single replacement but strengthening the distributed leadership systems already functioning throughout the organization.
Valve Corporation's Flat Structure: This gaming company has operated without traditional managers for years, organizing around self-selecting project teams rather than hierarchical leadership. Succession happens continuously as project leadership shifts based on need and capacity rather than through discrete transition events.
Partnership Models: Professional service firms like law practices and consulting groups often use partnership structures where leadership responsibilities are distributed across multiple senior partners rather than concentrating in a single executive. Succession involves bringing new partners into the collective rather than replacing individual leaders.
These models suggest succession planning might focus less on selecting the next single leader and more on evolving collective leadership capacity throughout the organization. The conclave's elaborate process for selecting the next individual pope offers little guidance for this approach – but its emphasis on institutional continuity beyond any single leader remains relevant.
From One Moment to Continuous Evolution
Another limitation of the conclave model is its conception of succession as a discrete event – a specific moment when leadership transfers from one individual to another, marked by white smoke and public announcement. Most contemporary succession approaches share this event-based conceptualization.
Let’s explore a reimagined succession model as continuous evolution rather than episodic transition?
Ongoing Succession Development
Some organizations have begun approaching succession as a continuous process rather than an occasional event:
Built-in Redundancy: Companies like Toyota intentionally develop leadership redundancy – ensuring multiple people could step into any critical role at any time. Succession happens organically as people move between positions based on organizational needs and individual development rather than through dramatic transitions.
Intentional Leadership Rotation: Organizations like Procter & Gamble and the U.S. military regularly rotate leaders through different positions with explicit leadership development intent. Succession becomes normalized rather than exceptional, with transitions occurring frequently enough to develop institutional comfort with leadership change.
Succession as Organizational Practice: Credit union BECU has incorporated succession planning into regular organizational processes rather than treating it as a separate activity triggered by anticipated departures. Every leadership position includes ongoing identification and development of potential successors as standard practice.
These approaches suggest succession planning might focus less on managing specific transition moments and more on building continuous leadership development processes that enable smoother, more frequent transitions. The conclave's elaborate protocols for a specific moment of transformation offer limited guidance here – but its emphasis on predetermined systems that activate when needed remains valuable.
From Selection to Development
The conclave model focuses primarily on selection – choosing the right individual from among existing candidates rather than developing leadership capacity over time. Most contemporary succession approaches share this selection emphasis, focusing on finding the right person rather than creating the right people.
What if succession planning centered leadership development rather than leader selection?
Development-Centered Succession
Some organizations have shifted their succession focus from selection to development:
Teaching Hospitals Model: Medical institutions develop new clinical leaders through structured progression from student to resident to attending physician, with gradually increasing responsibility and authority. Succession planning focuses on maintaining this developmental pipeline rather than selecting specific individuals for specific positions.
GE's Historic Leadership Factory: Before its recent challenges, General Electric was famous for developing leaders systematically throughout the organization regardless of whether specific succession needs had been identified. The system produced more qualified leaders than GE itself could utilize, with many becoming CEOs elsewhere.
Mondragon Cooperative's Leadership Education: This worker-owned cooperative in Spain operates its own university with explicit focus on developing cooperative leaders aligned with organizational values. Succession planning centers on building a broad pool of qualified leaders rather than identifying specific successors for specific positions.
These approaches suggest succession planning might focus less on selecting from existing candidates and more on systematically developing leadership capacity throughout the organization. The conclave's focus on choosing from among existing cardinals offers limited guidance here – but its emphasis on values alignment and institutional understanding remains relevant.
From Homogeneity to Diversity
As we discussed earlier in this series, the conclave model maintains rigid homogeneity by design – exclusively male, predominantly European or European-trained, uniformly ordained within a specific theological tradition. Most contemporary succession approaches, while rarely so explicitly exclusive, nevertheless produce leadership patterns with striking demographic similarities.
What if succession planning deliberately centered diversity rather than defaulting to homogeneity?
Diversity-Centered Succession
Some organizations have fundamentally reoriented their succession approaches around diversity principles:
Parallel Paths Development: Companies like Intel and Johnson & Johnson have created parallel leadership development paths specifically for underrepresented groups, ensuring diverse candidates reach senior leadership positions from which succession candidates emerge.
Rooney Rule Expansions: Beyond the NFL's original requirement to interview minority candidates, some organizations have expanded this approach to require diverse candidate slates for all leadership positions, creating succession pipelines that consistently include varied perspectives.
Intentional Network Expansion: Recognizing that succession often flows through relationship networks, organizations like the Executive Leadership Council deliberately build connections between diverse executives and boards seeking candidates, expanding the networks through which succession typically occurs.
These approaches suggest succession planning might focus less on identifying candidates through traditional pathways and more on deliberately creating diverse leadership pipelines that challenge historical patterns. The conclave's homogeneous composition offers a cautionary tale rather than guidance here.
From Privacy to Transparency
The conclave model operates with exceptional secrecy – cardinals deliberate behind locked doors, under oath of confidentiality, with minimal external communication until a decision emerges. Many contemporary succession approaches share this preference for privacy, conducting succession planning among small groups with limited transparency about processes or criteria, so that succession planning can truly embrace transparency rather than secrecy?
Transparent Succession Processes
Some organizations have moved toward more transparent succession approaches:
Open Leadership Criteria: Companies like Adobe publicly communicate the leadership competencies they develop and select for, creating transparency about what makes someone succession-ready in their organizational context.
Community-Involved Selection: Some community organizations and socially-focused businesses involve broader stakeholder groups in defining leadership criteria and even participating in selection processes, making succession more transparent and participatory.
Public Succession Planning: A few organizations have experimented with making their succession planning completely transparent – publicly identifying potential successors, development areas, and timeline considerations rather than treating this information as sensitive.
These approaches suggest succession planning might focus less on confidential deliberation among small groups and more on transparent processes that engage broader stakeholder communities. The conclave's secretive deliberations offer limited guidance here, though its clear external signals (white smoke) regarding process completion provide a useful model for communicating outcomes.
From Emergency Response to Strategic Opportunity
The conclave model treats succession primarily as a necessary response to vacancy – a problem to be solved when a pope dies or resigns rather than a strategic opportunity to advance institutional evolution. Many contemporary succession approaches share this reactive orientation, treating succession as a necessary inconvenience rather than a valuable inflection point.
Opportunity-Centered Succession
Some organizations have reimagined succession as strategic opportunity:
Planned Evolution Points: Companies like 3M have occasionally used CEO succession as deliberately timed evolution points – selecting leaders with different strengths at different stages of organizational development rather than seeking consistent leadership profiles.
Organizational Reinvention Cycles: Some organizations explicitly use leadership transitions as moments to reconsider fundamental strategic questions, treating succession not merely as leadership continuity but as potential inflection points for organizational renewal.
Generational Transformation: Organizations like Patagonia have approached leadership succession as opportunities for generational perspective shifts, deliberately selecting successors who bring different generational viewpoints rather than seeking continuity of perspective.
These approaches suggest succession planning might focus less on maintaining stability through transitions and more on leveraging transitions as valuable opportunities for necessary evolution. The conclave's emphasis on institutional continuity offers a balancing perspective rather than a contradictory one – reminding us that evolution must remain connected to enduring institutional identity.
From Authority Handover to Wisdom Transfer
The conclave model centers formal authority transfer – ensuring clear lineage of official leadership from one pope to the next. Most contemporary succession approaches share this focus on formal authority, emphasizing title changes, reporting relationship adjustments, and governance transitions. Let’s explore how succession planning can focus more explicitly on wisdom transfer rather than authority handover?
Wisdom-Centered Succession
Some organizations have begun reimagining succession around knowledge and wisdom rather than formal authority:
Wisdom Capture Processes: Companies like Toyota and Shell have developed systematic approaches to capturing the experiential knowledge of departing leaders – not just through exit interviews but through extended story capture, decision review, and relationship mapping processes that preserve wisdom rather than just transferring titles.
Elder Roles: Indigenous organizations and some contemporary institutions have created "elder" positions that allow departing leaders to retain organizational resources without retaining operational authority – enabling wisdom transfer while clearly transferring decision-making power.
Learning History Approaches: Organizations influenced by Peter Senge's learning organization model sometimes create detailed "learning histories" during leadership transitions – documenting not just what happened under previous leadership but why decisions were made and what was learned from both successes and failures.
These approaches suggest succession planning might focus less on the mechanics of authority transfer and more on the preservation and evolution of organizational wisdom across leadership transitions. "The Two Popes" film imagines precisely this kind of wisdom transfer that the actual conclave system rarely facilitates.
From Risk Management to Evolutionary Capacity
The conclave model approaches succession primarily as risk management – creating elaborate safeguards to ensure continuous governance and prevent catastrophic disruption. Many contemporary succession approaches share this risk orientation, focusing on preventing worst-case scenarios rather than enabling best-case possibilities.
Evolution-Centered Succession
Some organizations have reimagined succession around evolutionary potential:
Adaptive Leadership Development: Companies influenced by Ronald Heifetz's adaptive leadership framework sometimes approach succession as an opportunity to develop capacity for addressing adaptive challenges – selecting and preparing leaders not just to maintain operations but to help organizations evolve in response to changing environments.
Innovation-Focused Transitions: Organizations like Adobe and 3M occasionally use succession to inject innovative thinking – intentionally selecting leaders with track records of strategic reinvention rather than operational continuity when environmental conditions suggest the need for evolution.
Deliberately Developmental Transitions: A few organizations influenced by Robert Kegan's adult development theory approach succession as an opportunity to elevate leadership consciousness – selecting successors with more complex meaning-making capacities rather than simply similar competency profiles to predecessors.
These approaches suggest succession planning might focus less on preventing disruption and more on enabling necessary evolution through leadership transitions. The conclave's emphasis on institutional stability offers a complementary perspective rather than a contradictory one – reminding us that evolution requires a stable foundation to build upon.
From Questions to Experiments
As we reimagine succession planning beyond traditional models like the conclave, we move from definitive answers to exploratory questions. No single approach works for every organization in every context. The effectiveness of any succession model depends on organizational purpose, structure, culture, and circumstance.
Rather than prescribing specific solutions, we might approach succession planning as a series of experiments guided by provocative questions:
What if leadership resided in multiple people rather than a single individual?
What if succession happened continuously rather than episodically?
What if we developed leaders systematically rather than selecting them reactively?
What if diversity was a central principle rather than an afterthought?
What if transparency replaced confidentiality in succession processes?
What if transitions were strategic opportunities rather than organizational problems?
What if wisdom transfer mattered more than authority handover?
What if evolutionary capacity outweighed risk management?
These questions don't have universal answers, but I hope they will prompt you to explore organizational experimentation that might lead to succession approaches better suited to specific contexts than either the conclave model or standard corporate practices.
The White Smoke Moment: Creating Your Own Succession Model
As we conclude this exploration of succession planning through the lens of the papal conclave, we return to that iconic white smoke rising from the Sistine Chapel chimney – the clear signal that succession has completed and new leadership has emerged.
Whatever succession model your organization adopts, this symbolic element remains crucial. People need to know when transition has occurred. They need clarity about where authority resides. They need psychological closure on one chapter and opening of another.
The specific form this clarity takes will vary dramatically based on organizational context:
A formal email announcement from the board chair
A public introduction ceremony with symbolic torch-passing
A community celebration honoring both departing and incoming leadership
A multi-day retreat where strategy and direction are reaffirmed under new leadership
A series of stakeholder meetings introducing the new leader and their vision
The mechanism matters less than the psychological function – creating clear delineation between "before" and "after" that helps the entire organization process the reality of transition.
The conclave, for all its medieval peculiarities and problematic limitations, fundamentally understands this human need for clarity and closure. The white smoke provides unambiguous communication that succession has completed – a powerful metaphor for the psychological clarity all effective transitions require.
As you develop succession approaches suited to your unique organizational context, remember the white smoke. Create your own version of that clear signal that helps everyone understand when transition has occurred and where they should now look for leadership.
Leaving Well: The Ultimate Leadership Responsibility
Throughout this series, we've explored succession planning as an organizational responsibility – something institutions must design and implement to ensure continuity through inevitable leadership transitions. But succession equally represents an individual leadership responsibility – perhaps the ultimate test of a leader's commitment to organizational mission rather than personal aggrandizement.
Effective leaders build succession planning into their tenure from the beginning. They:
Develop multiple potential successors rather than a single anointed heir
Share knowledge generously rather than hoarding it as power
Build systems that don't depend on their personal presence
Create documentation that preserves context for future decisions
Establish healthy boundaries between their identity and organizational identity
Prepare psychologically for the transition long before it occurs
Leave when the time is right for the organization, not just for themselves
The conclave system assumes papal leadership ends with death (though Benedict XVI's resignation demonstrated otherwise). Most leaders enjoy more agency in determining when and how they depart. This agency creates both responsibility and opportunity – the chance to shape succession actively rather than simply becoming its subject.
““Leaving Well” means approaching departure with the same care and intention as arrival. It means recognizing that how you leave profoundly shapes your leadership legacy. It means understanding that your final act of leadership may be your most consequential – the graceful transfer of authority to those who will carry the mission forward without you.”
The papal blessing "Urbi et Orbi" (to the city and the world) offers a fitting metaphor for the dual responsibility that succession represents. Leaders owe thoughtful succession both to their specific organizations ("the city") and to the broader purposes those organizations serve ("the world"). When we approach succession planning with this expansive sense of responsibility, we transcend individual ego to serve something larger and more enduring than ourselves.
Perhaps that's the ultimate lesson from the conclave – that leadership transitions, while intensely human in their dynamics, ultimately serve transpersonal purposes that transcend any individual's tenure. The white smoke rises not primarily to announce a new leader but to signal the continuation of a mission larger than any single person.
May your organization's succession planning serve purposes equally transcendent. If you are ready to discuss the importance of succession planning at your organization, let’s talk. You can get in touch with our team at support@8thandHome.com or submitting a contact form here.