You are raising an interesting question, what might go wrong when a person who created, molded and guided a successful institution is no longer in charge, due to one reason or another. Succession is a very common and natural event in all kinds of organizations, political, economic, cultural, religious, family clans and so on.
You have highlighted a couple of likely scenarios leading to a change not envisioned by the original “pilot”, and most likely not something they would have approved: when the new leader has the power of the predecessor, but not their skill, and when the opposite situation occurs, both, in your evaluation, likely leading to “chaos”. These are interesting, but it is not clear why one would privilege those two over other potentially disruptive events. Additionally, your claim could use some real-world examples of hand-offs, and some analysis of each situation, all without cherry-picking a specific situation that necessarily supports your hypothesis. Only after that is done it will be worth discussing whether an apparently “unsuccessful succession” is a net negative for the environment the organization is in, and what, if anything, needs to change and how.
I noticed skill succession without power succession wasn’t discussed—though the first thing that came to my mind was someone being trained etc. to takeover, and leaving instead.
Technical point: Cherry picking is choosing examples to suit one’s story. Example-less evaluation is conjecture/theorizing because there are no cherries present, only characterizations.
You are raising an interesting question, what might go wrong when a person who created, molded and guided a successful institution is no longer in charge, due to one reason or another. Succession is a very common and natural event in all kinds of organizations, political, economic, cultural, religious, family clans and so on.
You have highlighted a couple of likely scenarios leading to a change not envisioned by the original “pilot”, and most likely not something they would have approved: when the new leader has the power of the predecessor, but not their skill, and when the opposite situation occurs, both, in your evaluation, likely leading to “chaos”. These are interesting, but it is not clear why one would privilege those two over other potentially disruptive events. Additionally, your claim could use some real-world examples of hand-offs, and some analysis of each situation, all without cherry-picking a specific situation that necessarily supports your hypothesis. Only after that is done it will be worth discussing whether an apparently “unsuccessful succession” is a net negative for the environment the organization is in, and what, if anything, needs to change and how.
I noticed skill succession without power succession wasn’t discussed—though the first thing that came to my mind was someone being trained etc. to takeover, and leaving instead.
Technical point: Cherry picking is choosing examples to suit one’s story. Example-less evaluation is conjecture/theorizing because there are no cherries present, only characterizations.