Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 103

Sacrificial Succession




Sacrificial Succession: A Biblical Solution to Transition Crisis Published 14 April 2014 By Paul Rattray Published by Sacrificial Succession 26 Spring Myrtle Avenue Nambour Queensland Australia www.sacrificialsuccession.com This material is provided free-of-charge by the author for the purpose of researching and promoting the ideas presented in this work. This material is made available by the author for the purpose of researching and promoting the ideas presented in this work. You are permitted to share, copy, distribute and transmit this work provided you attribute the ideas in this work to the author and acknowledge that derivative works should not in any way suggest endorsement of you or your use of this work by the author. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar copyright agreement to this one.

Succession crisis is a part of many leadership transitions today. There are simply not enough leaders ready to hand over or take over leadership. According to Barna Group research the main reason for succession crisis in churches is that self-interest dominates many leadership transitions . Two main succession outcomes result from this self-interest. First, many predecessors fail to handover leadership in a timely manner to successors. They either move on before they should or hang around for too long. Second, few successors are prepared specifically as successors by incumbents and those that are tend towards selfishness like their predecessors. Despite numerous professional planning, management and leadership development programs, many of which are borrowed from the secular world, succession crisis continues to occur. While there are mitigating factors, such as an aging population, especially in the west and a younger generation prone to avoid corporate leadership, they are peripheral problems.

Rather, the core crisis is that selfish, worldly leadership orientations are obstacles to the biblical solution: sacrificial succession. The message of this book is applicable to all who are facing leadership transition crisis and want to have more successful successions. This book shares what I am learning about Sacrificial Succession, the altruistic handover of leadership by predecessor for successor success. Now I know that many of you strive to serve others and minister to them sacrificially. In that sense most of you are good--even great--leaders and managers. However when it comes to the handover of leadership to successors, many of your successions are in crisis. The reason I can say this with certainty is that most of you are either being succeeded by family members or in corporate reshuffles. These worldly leadership successions are, however, challenged by the radically sacrificial succession of Jesus. It is his sacrificial succession that is the main theme of this book.

By way of background, for the past ten years or so I have had the privilege of being part of growing churches in the Asia Pacific. During this time, thousands have come to Christ and hundreds have been baptised. Now, many of these converts have been or are being prepared for Christian leadership. Personally, I have learned much from the sacrificial ministry of many of these great church leaders, especially those evangelising Muslims and Buddhists. Yet when I asked many of these leaders about their transition plans and reflected on my own leadership successions, there was a strong sense of unease. The truth is most of us acknowledged that we are largely unprepared for succession. Research shows that we are in good company. Even in the wealthiest and most well resourced secular organisations, successions are some of the most difficult transitions to deal with because they are so politically and emotionally charged . (Due to some of the leadership transitions shared in this book being ongoing, exact names and places are withheld to ensure that the identities of these individuals and organisations remain confidential.)

There is no doubt that many leadership transitions are in crisis! Personally confirming this problem to me is the head of a large and rapidly growing mission with hundreds of full-time workers in the field. He shared openly with me about their aging leadership with few apparent successors. Another top mission leader lamented that his succession candidates were not yet ready as successors. This was despite their desperate need to transition to a national leadership. Their failure to hand over responsibilities to potential leaders was particularly obvious despite the clear need to do so. Unfortunately, most of those better prepared for a succession have either the dynastic handover of leadership to a family member or the corporate reshuffle of top leaders in mind. Anecdotal evidence of dynastic and familial trends comes from the pastors I know who have handed over or are planning to handover leadership to their children. A corporate example of leadership succession comes from the head of an international Christian media organisation. He has prepared a capable local successor yet has his succession plan routinely deferred by a foreign Board of Directors

who prefer maintaining his leadership to the risk of handing leadership over to a younger successor. With strong corporate governance and relative stability, this sort of managerial leadership transition is widely accepted as best practice. Despite these assumptions, there is actually little evidence to show that such corporate succession planning is solving the current succession crisis. Instead, many of the worlds top corporations and leaders remain changeadverse . Unfortunately, they are headed for transition problems, even crisis, unless they radically change tack. Given the obvious need for an alternative, I took Solomons wise words to heart and adding one thing to another set about finding out the scheme of more successful successions. In brief, here is what I am learning about the sacrificial succession of Jesus based on Matthew 20:28. This passage reads in the English Standard Version (ESV): Even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (The ESV and the New International Version (NIV) are most often quoted in this book.) From reading this verse in context (Matthew

20:1-28) and studying its original Greek and Aramaic words, there are three must dos for incumbents to help ensure a sacrificial succession: > Ministry of successor preparation > Mediatory sacrifice of leadership > Mastery of advocacy for successors

Sacrificial successions start with a ministry of sacrificial service by incumbent and successors. Incumbent preparing altruistic successors for succession is its primary focus. Following this is the mediatory sacrifice of leadership by incumbent for successor success. Making the greater sacrifice and sacrificing midtenure are key success factors. Sacrificial successions end with an ongoing mastery of advocacy by succeeded leader for their successors. Preparing a new generation of sacrificial successors is its key post-succession objective. Please prayerfully consider what I am about to share with you regarding sacrificial succession. Because sacrificial succession is such an unnatural method of succession opposing both dynastic and corporate Christian norms, makes it controversial. The fact that Jesus did it

makes sacrificial succession both practical and possible. My prayer is that you are blessed and challenged by this book about sacrificial succession. It is a work-in-progress for me as I learn more about these spiritual and practical truths and try to put them into practice in my own life and work. As you endeavour to apply these truths may your next succession be even more sacrificial and successful!

Your brother in Christ,

Paul Rattray

Thank you, Lord, for inspiring me through your word, especially from Matthew 20:16, about the last coming first and the perfect example of the sacrificial succession of your son, Jesus Christ, that is the basis for this work. Without my national colleagues sacrificing successionally in the difficult mission fields of Indonesia, Myanmar and East Timor, there would not be the great contemporary examples of sacrificial succession supporting this story. The support of my family during my many extended travels overseas is also invaluable. In choosing to share about sacrificial succession thanks must first be given to those who have been willing to honestly share their struggles and victories about their handovers of leadership. The personal stake that these leaders have in their transitions and the pain, joy, conflicts and victories associated with most leadership successions can really only be related to by those that have been personally through them. Therefore, special thanks must go to those leaders who personally and honestly shared of their often-failed attempts to enact more sacrificial successions in their own organisations. Many lost out in the process. The truth is that the unnatural nature of sacrificial succession is mostly unforgiving of leaders. Jesus forewarned of the risks with sacrificial succession by saying in John 13:16 that no servant is greater than his master. This animosity against those who act sacrificially is especially obvious in organisations that allow the natural selection of kin and position to dominate. Anyone who has every researched and written anything of substance, and has a family to care for and nurture at the same time, as I do, knows the sacrifices made by them for any writing goal to reach fruition. A big thank you to my

wife, Riani and my four children: Dian, Joshua, Amali and Miesha who have patiently, for the most part, accepted my regular absences during the writing of this book. To those who willingly set aside time to critique and discuss this book: Simon and Keith, thank you. As another group of contributors, your work is also invaluable. Lastly to you, the reader, thanks for taking the time to read my musing. May your next succession be sacrificial! ~ Paul Rattray

In writing about sacrificial succession, it needs to be clear from the outset that I am talking about the sacrificial transition of leadership from incumbent to successor. As such, this is book not a study of leadership or even servant leadership per se, except where sacrificial succession is regarded as its logical outcome. In so much as leadership is the art of leading and managing people succession is ultimately the act of giving up leadership. Sacrificial succession is the willingness to do this sacrificially rather than selfishly. Before continuing, it is worth briefly explaining seven key definitions about leadership succession and transition that will be used and expanded upon in the ensuing chapters. They are Succession Orientations, Succession Relationships, Leadership Successions, Authoritarian Transitions, Sacrificial Successions and Sacrificial Successors. Succession Orientations represent the altruistic to authoritarian paths that leadership transitions tend to take depending on whether (or not) predecessors and successors act selfishly or sacrificially. Succession Relationships are the direct to indirect relationships between predecessors and successors that normally occur during leadership transitions. Leadership Successions usually involve the transfer of managerial or familial control directly or indirectly from incumbent to successor. In this context Authoritarian Transitions are characterised by top leaders authorising a succession and their successors exercising this authority over their subordinates. In contrast, incumbents ministering altruistically, sacrificing their leadership early then staying on as advocates for their successors defines Sacrificial Successions. Similarly, Sacrificial Successors are characterised by their altruistic ministries of service and submission to Defining Succession incumbent's mediatory sacrifice and ongoing advocacy on their behalf.


Successions nearly always involve three transitional phases: 1) Ministry of preparation for leadership, 2) Mediatory negotiation of leadership and, 3) Mastery through leadership. Each phase is common to leadership transitions and succession outcomes are most dependent on the degree to which each phase is sacrificial or selfish. Similarly, successors tend to be ministers, mediators and masters depending on their personalities and positions in an organisation. Their succession orientations range from being sacrificial to selfish and are usually mediated by selfinterest unless they deliberately act to combat these natural tendencies by being sacrificial.

stand in sharp contrast to the selfinterested dynastic and corporate successions commonly observed as succession norms today in many churches and ministries. Yet it is exactly this unnatural quality that makes sacrificial succession so powerful. In Matthew 20:28 Jesus explains this truth to his immediate successors, the disciples. He came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. For all Christians, the spiritual truth of this statement should be clear: Jesus came to serve us sacrificially by giving his life as a ransom for our sins. Through his resurrection and by the power of the Holy Spirit, the Christ lives forever to intercede for us. He is our eternal advocate before the Father (Hebrews 7:25).

Sacrificial Succession In introducing sacrificial succession these key definitions should highlight important differences between selfish and sacrificial succession and leadership. Sacrificial succession is the logical outworking of genuine servant leadership. It is where a ministry of sacrificially serving others dominates. Note that logical does not mean natural. A ministry of servanthood and sacrificial succession are, in fact, unnatural. They

Why these spiritual truths so evident in the humanity of Jesus have not been practically applied as often to sacrificial succession as they have to servant leadership is surprising. This is especially strange given their obvious and intimate seminal connection and liminality. By seminal, I mean that one, servant leader-

ship, should beget the other, sacrificial succession. In other words, the latter is the outworking of the former. Liminal means threshold, the bridge between one thing and another, where an apparently chaotic event, such as death leads to a rebirth that brings life . The death and resurrection of Christ are the perfect spiritual examples. An instance from nature is fires that kill are also necessary for certain plants such as the Australian cycad to germinate. The liminality of sacrificial succession is that predecessors who sacrifice their leadership for successors are likely to forge the strongest relationships possible with their inheritors for generations to come. Though obviously much broader in scope than succession, sacrificial Christian martyrs down through the ages are evidence of this truth. For example, Paul and his successor Timothy were martyred, as were Pontianus, bishop of Rome and Anteros his successor, etc. Similar stories from China and Africa and India , to the present day emphasise that altruistic sacrifice, particularly by leaders for followers, strengthens rather than weakens their relationships and sucix

cessions. Even secular research strongly supports this truth . Possibly our reticence as Christians to apply such an important spiritual truth as the life-giving death of Jesus Christ to a practical, far less spiritual activity as succession, is a fear of devaluing Christs sacrifice. This caution is understandable. Another reason may be that many Christians are uncomfortable with equating the perfect propitiatory sacrifice of Christ for the sins of the world with the obviously imperfect sacrificial handover of leadership in human successions. Given that the servant-orientated ministry of Christ was mainly an exercise of his humanity, seeing the human side of Christs propitiatory sacrifice and applying it to sacrificial succession does not diminish but enriches its spiritual significance. Christs explanation, in John 15:13, for example, that a man can show no greater love than to lay down his life for his friends adds weight to this point. From this brief introduction to transitions, it should be obvious that a different sort of succession than the current naturalistic corporate and dynastic transitions that have crept into some churches and ministries is needed. Indeed, most Christian leaders acknowl-

edge that a succession crisis is occurring and that a reorientation from the current status quo is needed. Similar to the spiritual Good News that Christs sacrifice is sufficient for saving sinners is the practical good news that a sacrificial succession can save leadership successions from crisis. Making these comparisons between the spiritual and practical nature of the sacrificial succession of Jesus should be encouraging. By the power of the Holy Spirit we can become more sacrificial successors. That these spiritual truths cherished by Christians for millennia can be practically applied to contemporary successions should be promising and exciting! This book is laid out in seven chapters. To help with studying and applying sacrificial succession, it is written in easy-tounderstand English that is meant to be particularly helpful to those who do not speak English as a first language. In the first chapter some examples are given of successions in crisis to explain why so many leadership transitions are in such serious trouble. Then, in Chapter 2, the biblical basis for the succession of Jesus is presented as the radically unnatural alternative best

suited to solving current succession crises. From there, the next three chapters explain the ministry of preparation, mediatory sacrifice and mastery of advocacy modelled by Jesus. These three successional phases are the foundational truths and characteristics of sacrificial successions and successors. Following that, in Chapter 6, the unnatural nature of sacrificial succession as a direct outworking of genuine servant leadership is explained. Contemporary versions of servant leadership are also critiqued. In the final chapter, the key truths of sacrificial succession are reapplied as practical solutions to the case studies reviewed in the first chapter that are equally relevant to the transition crises faced today.


Successions In Crisis
In place of your fathers shall be your sons; you will make them princes in all the earth (Psalm 45:16).

From the leadership successions in crisis shared briefly in the previous section I now want to return with more detail in this chapter. Along with these current successions, some historical ones from the Bible, namely those of Moses, Joshua and David are also reviewed. As the above verse succinctly explains, succession is about one leader replacing another with its ultimate meaning going beyond hereditary succession. My main purpose in this chapter is to point out the main reasons why so many successions are in crisis. Some of the most commonly offered solutions to succession crises are also critiqued. When I first started asking my friends about their successions, I was surprised that so many honestly admitted they were unprepared for such an important event.

Then again, when I reflected on my own lack of preparation for succession, it confirmed that being unprepared for a succession is actually quite a common problem . Reasons cited for succession crises are mainly attributed to top leaders not being made responsible for managing a transition, a lack of leadership development of future leaders and not enough systematic succession planning and management . As I shared my concerns with other leaders they admitted the personal reality of their own succession challenges and failures. For example, the director of a big, international Christian organisation admitted that leadership succession is something we do badly. 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. Another top leader, in this case the head of a large and rapidly growing mission to Muslims, made similarly candid comments. While their harvesters in the field are preparing and appointing successors reasonably well, their top leadership is aging. No successors have been intentionally prepared to take over these top jobs. In terms of future sustainability, he admitted that the lack of successor preparation was one their gravest threats to longer-term sustainability.

spired me more than any other. Yet I cannot, in good faith, emulate his succession plan. This is because Joshua fails one of the most basic criteria for successful succession: to intentionally prepare successors then handover leadership to one of them.

Failing to handover leadership Therefore, in terms of succession Moses was a better leader than Joshua. For example, Moses prepared both Caleb and Joshua as potential successors by sending them to spy out the land of Canaan and report back to him (Numbers 13:1-2,

A lack of successor preparation Actually, the failure of these leaders to personally prepare successors to take over leadership is a common problem with leadership transitions. In fact, failing to prepare successors is probably more common than failing to plan for succession per se. Historically relevant examples of this issue are found when comparing the transitions of Moses to Joshua and Joshua to the Judges. Both Moses and Joshua were great leaders. Of that there is no doubt! Joshua is one of my favourite Old Testament characters and his book has probably in12

14:6-9). Due to their faithfulness, the Lord honoured both Caleb and Joshua by allowing them to enter the Promised Land. Moses formally handed over leadership to Joshua before his death. The people recognised this succession of authority by obeying Joshua (Deuteronomy 34:9). The Lord confirmed the appointment of Joshua as Moses successor on a number of occasions (see for example, Deuteronomy 1:38, 3:28, 31:14). Similar to Moses, Joshua had a detailed plan for his succession that formally ended his leadership with a renewal of the covenant of friendship between the tribes

and promise of faithfulness to the Lord (Joshua chapters 22-24). However, there is no evidence that Joshua prepared successors or appointed anyone specifically to replace him (Joshua chapters 22-24). Confirming this conclusion are regular references to everyone doing as they saw fit following his death (see Judges 21:25 and chapters 17, 18 and 19, for examples). Now you may be thinking that I am being too hard on Joshua. While he apparently did not appoint a specific successor Joshua was succeeded by the first Judges who led the people corporately. This included his faithful colleague, Caleb who remained true to his calling. Interestingly, this sort of corporate structure is quite common in leadership today. Indeed, some of the Judges, like Gideon and Deborah, led well. There are similarities between the corporate structure of the judges and those of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) and pastors today. It is worth noting, however, that most of the Judges successions, including Samuels, ultimately failed. Unfortunately succession crisis was also the norm

throughout much of the royal dynasty of David. Similar conclusions can be drawn about many contemporary corporate and dynastic successions. More detailed reasons for these problems will be one of the main topics of a later chapter. However, before continuing, it is important to reiterate the primary nature of the problem with these successions. Per se it is the failure to prepare sacrificial successors and handover leadership to a successor in a timely manner rather than a failure to plan for a succession and develop leaders that is their main weakness. Distinguishing between planning for and managing a succession and preparing successors then actually handing over leadership to a successor is critical. So is the difference between leadership and succession. As previously mentioned, leadership focuses more on leaders leading now, whereas succession, as the headline verse Psalm 4:16 states, is future focused on successors. Unfortunately, many socalled succession solutions emphasise succession planning and successor preparation that is more about leader develop-


ment than predecessor sacrifice for successor success. Therefore, while aging incumbents having difficulty handing over to an uncertain next generation of leadership is a genuine problem, especially in the west, it is not the cause of succession crisis. It is a symptom. Instead, the primary cause of succession crisis and transition disasters is the failure to prepare sacrificial successors then hand over leadership sacrificially. Thus, where most successions get into trouble is in the handover of leadership. More often than not this transfer of authority is to a managerial successor. As a rule, these bureaucratic leadership techniques and management technologies work well enough until the succession. Then, due to the intensity of the competition, self-interest instead of sacrifice kicks in. Sometimes, these succession troubles occur because of conflict over who should be the next successor. In other cases it is about when a succession should occur. At other times, succession crises are simply caused by incumbents unwilling to have others take their place. The resulting crisis often ends in succession failure. Despite these risks, our headline

verse of Psalm 45:16 shows the critical importance of successions occurring from one generation to the next.

Dynastic to corporate successions To avoid these succession risks, most leaders who are prepared for successions have either the dynastic handover of leadership to family members or the corporate reshuffle of top leaders in mind. Another option is a mixture of both. Many of the non-western leaders I know have prepared for succession by handing over leadership to, or are planning to be succeeded by, their children. For example, one pastor has already handed over the leadership of two churches to a son and daughter respectively. In another case, two thriving missions have chosen dynastic succession from father to son. Others have opted for the corporate oversight of a board.

Family first policies Worldwide, dynastic or familial successions are probably the most common leadership transitions. Dynastic successions prefer kin as successors. King Davids succession to Solomon is representative of many dynastic transitions.

Typical of most familial successions it was relatively well planned. Davids potential successors, his sons Adonijah and Solomon, were the main contenders. They would have been well prepared, in fact groomed, during their lifetimes in anticipation of being potential successors. Amidst the manipulations of Adonijah, Davids favourite wife Bathsheba and, other interested parties such as Davids general, Joab, Solomons succession was finally confirmed by his father, then by God. Whether or not this was a succession allowed rather than approved by God, is pertinent. Certainly the resulting succession outcomes are questionable. Solomons succession resulted in a divided kingdom. The poor quality of most Davidic successors and Gods apparent disapproval of this system in 1 Samuel 8:1-18, strongly suggests that God does not favour dynastic successions, royal or otherwise. That Israels dynastic system came about as a result of the people rejecting, by negatively reacting to, the poor corporate oversight of the Judges and bad priestly dynasty of Samuel should also not be overlooked. The pertinence of these issues applied to current transitions points to the inade15

quacy of both corporate and dynastic successions and the perfection of sacrificial succession. These factors will receive more attention later. Around the world, even in the West, dynastic and familial successions continue to dominate. Despite the pre-eminence of corporate best practices such as formal succession planning, the reality is that family successions are far more common, especially in smaller firms. Most of the issues highlighted by the dynastic succession of David to Solomon are found in familial successions today. The favouring of kin over all other contenders, conflicts between competing family members, the failure to appoint a successor and continuing to lead after being succeeded are all problematic issues common to family succession in particular. Dynastic successions are potentially the most authoritarian or autocratic of leadership transitions, because they involve direct next-of-kin or indirectly related family members. It is important to note that family members can be part of the extended family related by birth or relationally due to having a close relationship with and to the dynasty. Given these non-genetic factors in dynastic relationships, I prefer to use the term familial successions in that

family, particularly in the East, is much broader in scope than immediate kin. Furthermore, familial successions are seldom exclusively dynastic. For example, in dynastic transitions the family often retains ownership and allows its management succession to be professionally managed . Research shows that one of the main risks to family business successions in the United States is this disconnection between ownership and management in succession planning. Whatever professional and technical factors are combined with a dynastic transition, family successions are fundamentally threatened by the risk of their tendency to put family first. Even where servant leadership is practiced by successors, it seldom changes the ineligibility of non-family members as successors and is one of the main reasons why dynastic successions cannot be endorsed by sacrificial succession.

long-time family friend heading up a large media organisation evangelising mainly Muslims. He has prepared a capable local successor yet has his succession plan routinely deferred by a foreign Board of Directors. Instead of replacing him they prefer to maintain his leadership. Since 2002, this fine brother has been sharing with me his burning desire to handover leadership so he can spend more time mentoring future leaders. He is frustrated that his willingness to sacrifice leadership earlier than his Board of Directors expects is continually being deferred by them. Next year (which has been for a number of consecutive years now) he assures me is the year he will give the Board of Directors an ultimatum: approve my succession plan or I will resign. Only time will tell if he is willing to do that, but so far he has not taken that final step. With strong managerial control and relative stability, this sort of corporate succes-

Succession best practices Given the obvious problem of favouritism within family successions, most western dominated organisations prefer more corporate approaches to leadership. A relevant example comes from a

sion is widely recognised as best practice. These so-called best practices often involve systematic succession planning and management. They include internally developing more potential succes-

sors in leadership, especially in the field of professional management. Computer techniques and technologies that facilitate such preparation by matching people to jobs in real time are also recommended and widely used. Despite the pervasiveness and obvious benefits of these managerial techniques and technologies, there is little outcome evidence to show that such corporate succession planning and leadership development is actually solving the succession crisis . In other words, a direct link between these formalised practices and better succession outcomes remains weak. Instead, self-interest is found to dominate most corporate successions, especially when it comes to top leader transitions such as Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) . In fact, when compared with dynastic successions, corporate successions prove to be only marginally more successful in certain circumstances. For example, corporate successions are shown to outperform dynastic transitions primarily in larger scale, more complex operations, such as manufacturing industries . Here, professional financial, managerial and risk assessment skills appear beneficial and help improve sustainability. Where regulations forbid dynas17

tic successions, such as with public and government organisations, the above corporate succession rules normally apply. Interestingly, in smaller scale operations that require greater flexibility and a more long-term view of risk and investment, family successions hold their own or outperform corporate transitions. The fact that small to medium enterprises remain the backbone of developed economies is testament to this truth. In many ways they actually do better than corporate successions, especially in times of uncertainty.

In Conclusion To conclude this chapter, let us review the two main causes of succession crises. Almost without exception they relate to a lack of successor preparation and failure to hand over leadership to a successor in a timely manner. Selfishness rather than sacrifice also plays a key role. It should now be clearer, too, that developing leaders to lead is different to developing successors to succeed. Being great at the former does not mean good at the latter. From the successions reviewed it should also be obvious that a great leader is not

guaranteed a great succession simply by being a great leader. This is because in successions it is the quality of their successors rather than their own leadership that is more important. Poignantly illustrating this successional truth is Joshua, who led well but largely failed in his succession legacy through his successors the Judges. A brief review of the two most favoured transitions, dynastic and corporate successions should now have made the limitations of both more obvious. Family successions, in particular, are limited by their favouring of kin over all other comers. Reinforcing this was our review of the Davidic successions. Corporate successions utilising systematic succession planning technicians, techniques and technologies show promise yet prove largely powerless to solve the succession crisis. Their particular problem seems to be the overreliance on professional management and technical mastery that tends towards self-interest at the expense of other leaders who are more sacrificial. In the next chapter, the sacrificial succession of Jesus is introduced as an unnatural alternative to both dynastic and corporate leadership successions. During

the time prior to his death, through a parable about succession, Jesus clearly teaches his disciples and us about ministering without expectation as a prerequisite to sacrificial succession. To wrap up, some of the key points to note in this chapter are that good leadership does not guarantee great successions because the former is more temporally focused whereas the latter is fixed on the next generation of leaders, successors. Another important factor is that planning for a transition does not equal preparing successors for succession. A final factor to keep in mind is that both dynastic and corporate successions in all their various forms and functions are naturally more self-interested than sacrificial. Dynastic successions tend to be selfish because of favouring family ties before all other altruistic relationships. Corporate transitions are selfinterested in that their processes normally put selfish masters before sacrificial ones.

Some things to think and talk about 1. What is a difference between succession and leadership? 2. What are the most common causes of succession crisis? 3. Why was Moses a more successional leader than Joshua? 4. Which of the successions were dynastic or corporate? 5. How is planning in a succession different to preparation? 6. What are the main strengths of corporate successions? 7. What are the main strengths of dynastic successions?



The Succession Of Jesus

Whoever wants to be first must be your slavejust as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:27-28).
As shared in the introductory sections, I have been personally blessed to witness most of the Christian leaders I know serving rather than being served, as Jesus commanded in Matthew 20:28. Of concern is that so many of these same leaders, me included, are failing to practice the sacrificial succession that Jesus also commands in the latter part of this same verse. Making, and acting on, the connection between serving and sacrificing in successional terms is critical. To do that, I am particularly drawn to the sacrifice of Jesus as a ransom for many as the solution to the leadership succession crises faced by so many of us. In Matthew 20:1-28 and its parallels in Mark 10:17-45, Luke 22:24-28, John 13:1-15, The first last and last first There are two major successional truths presented through the Parable of the

14:26, 15:9-17 and 26-27, Jesus teaches and models this sacrificial succession. In successional terms, the succession of Jesus starts with a ministry preparing his successors. Jesus follows this by the mediatory sacrifice of his leadership for his successors. His succession continues with an ongoing mastery of advocacy for successors. Since each of these successional truths is explained in the next three chapters, this chapter is a brief introduction to the topic based on the succession of Jesus and two stories: a parable and analogy about transition.

Vineyard Workers in Matthew 20:1-16 that challenge both dynastic and corporate successions. It is helpful if you read and reread this parable in the Bible. Note that dynastic successions usually put family first and corporate successions tend to favour managerial abilities. Through its key point in verse 16 about the last being first and first last, Jesus teaches that the choice of successors should not be based on the twin merits of performance and tenure. Instead, the truth of serving others without expectation of a return is emphasised. While this parable is only found in Matthew, its relevance to succession is confirmed by a parallel passage found in Mark 9:30-35. In these passages, Jesus does three key things. He predicts his upcoming death, and remains separate from his many other followers. He does this to specifically prepare his disciples for succession. In this transitional context Jesus deals openly with their arguing about who is the greatest [leader] and most likely successor. By reiterating the truth: Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all, Jesus is reinforcing the successional truths of Matthew 20:27-28 cited in our headline quote at the beginning of this chapter.

There is no doubt that the more common spiritual understanding of this parable being primarily about salvation by grace rather than works is equally true. Matthew 19:30 and Mark 10:31 respectively, confirm this primarily spiritual interpretation. However, applied practically to transitions its successional truths are equally confronting. To more practically apply and sharpen these truths for transitions, in the next section I have rewritten the parable of the Vineyard Workers into a story that, I think, better suits the terms and timing of a leadership succession. I hope you find this angle helpful. Remaining true to the practical intent of this teaching to the disciples about succession is my aim.

A Succession story A story is told about a certain business owner who embarked on an unusual successor recruitment drive. At the beginning of the year the business owner bargained with a group of workers until they mutually agreed to work for fair hourly pay and a specific bonus following a 12-month contract.

After three months, more workers were needed, so the business owner went out and hired more workers promising to pay them fair wages and a good bonus. These workers gladly accepted. The business owner went out and hired more workers on the same fair pay and bonus basis three months later and again in the ninth month of that year. Then, in the 11th month, the business owner went out recruiting even more workers, again promising fair wages and bonuses. At the end of the year the business owner asked his manager to gather the workers together to give them their bonuses beginning with those who started last. Surprisingly especially for those who started first and last, the same bonuses were received by all. 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. Didnt you agree to these terms? Take your bonuses and go. If I want to give the workers who started last the same bo22

nuses as you, dont 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. Honestly, at first take it appears unnatural and unfair that those serving the longest and working the hardest should get the same reward and chance at succession as those who had served far less in terms of time and effort. Remember, the last group of potential successors had worked, if you could call it that, only 1/12that is 11 times less of the time that their longest serving counterparts had worked who started first! No matter what measure is used it does seem unfair, does it not for the last to come first?

Reject performance and tenure norms Yet Jesus is unambiguous. The twin merits of performance and tenure common to most naturalistic successions are not part of his sacrificial succession plan. His response in Matthew 20:14 to those who have served with this sort of selfish expectation is: Take what belongs to

you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. It is worth noting in the fine print of the story that Jesus came to an agreed settlement with the first group of workers, whereas the latter groups of workers accepted the promise of fair payment without negotiation. Another relevant aside is that this parable may have been prophetically referring to the 12th Apostle, Paul. He was in a similar position to these workers hired last, because he did not have the record of tenure or performance the other disciples had with Jesus. Maybe the perceived need to draw straws for a replacement disciple for Judas in Acts 1:20-26 could have been avoided if there had been a greater retention of this parables truth among the immediate successors of Jesus. Certainly Paul was recognised as the Apostle to the Gentiles by early church leaders (Galatians 2:6-10, 2 Peter 3:15-16). This was in spite of his unnatural birth (1 Corinthians 15:8-9) and is evidence of this successional truth in practice. By rejecting the naturalistic performance and tenure of working the hardest and longest, there is an obvious need for alternative successor selection criteria. Otherwise, a return to the default op23

tions of dynastic and corporate successions is inevitable, as their prevalence in leadership transitions confirms. I believe that the alternative of sacrificial succession is exactly what Jesus is commanding in our headline quote at the beginning of the chapter. By talking about serving to sacrifice specifically to his immediate successors the disciples, following this parable, Jesus is reiterating his successional terms and conditions. Successors should serve without expectation and incumbents willingly sacrifice their leadership for their successors success, just as he was about to do for them. Now you should have a better understanding of sacrificial succession and its terms and conditions. There is a need to reject performance and tenure to sacrificially serve others without expectation. To further reinforce these successional truths, I want to share another analogy about succession called Three Gates. Three Gates Analogy 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 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 called MINISTER and upon entering it you will be able to minister to whomever you choose. Remember to choose 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 able to master or mediate, but maybe I can serve my leader. He entered the third and smallest gate and became Minister. Each went on their re24

spective journeys using their chosen strengths. Eventually each arrived at a great river too wide to cross. Looking around each potential successor saw the other and their leader standing looking across, through the mist, 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 out of the fog. I only take two passengers at a time and one must stay with me as payment for the others 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 pointedly. 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 others 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 will pay 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.

should also be obvious in their fellow leadership competitors and are common human behaviours, especially amongst leaders . These characteristics of the people, processes and positions normally associated with a transition are well within the scope this succession analogy. The main focus of this story is on the sacrificial to selfish tendencies of predecessors and successors. Anyone who has ever been involved in or with a leadership succession knows how competitive such a contest can be. There are the 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 or friend, is a common ploy, especially in dynastic successions. Another effective tactic, if used with care, is taking the direct approach and personally seeking special favours from incum-

Masters, Mediators and Ministers Three Gates is an analogy about sacrificial succession as the altruistic handover of leadership. It shows the characteristics of leadership successions and successors. Any want-to-be leader should be able to recognise more of themselves in one of these characters than the others. These behaviours and characteristics

bent. Being willing to serve and even sacrifice in anticipation of meriting special favour is also a key strategy of selfinterested leadership successors. When we hear about or become aware of these selfish behaviours most of us become indignant, right? Yet if we are honest we have all played such games or at

least thought about playing them. Oftentimes we dont hear about these politics of leadership successions because decisions are just lorded over us by those in authority . These sorts of leadership successions are authoritarian by nature. Whether dynastic or autocratic, bureaucratic or benign, authoritarian successions are the rule rather than exception. Truth be told, 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. This selfish, ultimately authoritarian, behaviour is the antithesis of sacrificial leadership succession. Jesus identifies these authoritarian tendencies in his explanation of rulers and authorities (Matthew 20:25) discussed later in this book. 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 altruistic sacrifice by the Leader of his leadership specifically for his successors success. This definition of sacrificial succession is the main topic of this book. It is applied

as the sacrificial solution to the succession crises that are acknowledged from corporate boardrooms to family bedrooms. What is being called for here is no less than a reorientation from authoritarian leadership transitions to sacrificial successions. Through studying the sacrificial succession of Jesus the core problems with dynastic and corporate successions will become clearer and sacrificial succession will become the obvious solution. Before concluding this section and chapter, I want to share with you this alternative of sacrificial succession through the original Bible meanings of ministry, mediation and mastery expressed through our headline verse . Ultimately, these words are the best guide as to whether or not a succession is sacrificial and scriptural. Returning to our key verses (Matthew 20:27-28) Jesus says the purpose of his leadership is to serve others. The first interpretation of the word minister is to serve others as a servant (doulos) does. With servanthood there is no expectation that through serving others a servant will become something other than...well a servant.

Servants serve without expectation of positional advancement through their service. Their service is the end not a means to another end such as a promotion. The other expression of ministry is that of sacrificially serving others through a leadership (diakonos) position. In other words using ones leadership position to serve others rather than yourself. Understanding altruistic service as occurring prior to being in leadership, then ministry as taking place though leadership helps in considering the genuineness of a potential successors motivations for serving. With mediatory sacrifice, the understanding of the word is that of a restorer of peace (mesit!s) through a ransom price paid (lytron), usually by a master, to give slaves or captives their freedom. This is a critical point to understand because of its centrality to sacrificial succession. Even if a slave could save up enough to pay for their own ransom and ultimate freedom, it is the right of the master to grant them that freedom. A ministers freedom is gained by the greater sacrifice of the master in both paying the price for their freedom and foregoing the position of being master.

Therefore, sacrificial succession is not based on the self-effort of successors, but the sacrifice of predecessor for successor success. Instead, it is the greater sacrifice of incumbent for successor that pays the succession price. Finally, altruistic mastery, unlike other worldly leadership systems, is not the pinnacle of personal advancement before leaders move on to their next leadership or management position. In practical terms mastery in a sacrificial succession is about staying on postsuccession to be an advocate for successors with leadership and guide to help them with their transitions. Spiritually confirming this practical characteristic of mastery in successional leadership, Jesus, in John 14:26, says that he is our Advocate or Helper (parakl!tos), the one who intercedes before the Father on our behalf. Jesus goes on to say that the Holy Spirit will teach (didask") and explain to (hypomimn!sk") his successors all things and remind them of everything he has said to them through instruction and explanation. In Conclusion The call of Jesus to a ministry of sacrificial service and mediatory sacrifice of leadership is summed up by our head27

line verse about sacrificial succession in (Matthew 20:27-28). In practical, successional terms there is a two-fold command here for leaders. Serve rather than expect to be served and be prepared to sacrifice your leadership for your successors success. Jesus had proved this first truth to his disciples through his ministry of sacrificially preparing them for succession and serving many others, especially the poor and sick. By willingly dying in their place, in this case literally, he was perfectly demonstrating the truth about mediatory sacrifice whereby incumbent sacrifices their leadership for successor. For the practical purposes of sacrificial succession, the scope of this discussion is not intended to delve deeply into theological issues about Christs eternal headship of the church. The terms minister, mediator and master are, however, deliberately used with this Christological basis in mind. An altruistic minister is meant to serve others through their position of leadership as Jesus did. Sacrificial mediators should give up their leadership for successor success. A masters post-succession advocacy is another form of sacrificial ministry, because it requires subordination of self to work through successors.

Sacrificial succession is similar in principle to other biblical mandates such as taking up your cross, dying to self and being a living sacrifice. In honour of Jesus perfectly living out these truths we endeavour to do the same, albeit imperfectly, by the power of his Holy Spirit. By openly predicting his upcoming sacrificial succession, he was emphasising the integral link between sacrificial ministry and mediatory sacrifice. Through the Parable of the Vineyard Workers and its seminal truth about the first being last and last coming first, Jesus underscores the unnatural nature of successions not based on personal merit. Indeed, this parable highlights the difficulty in breaking the cycle of preparing and choosing successors based on the twin merits of performance and tenure. Consider for instance the consequences if these meritorious succession criteria had been applied to the apostles Peter and Paul. Probably two of the best apostles would have been disqualified before they even started! Peters failure would have most likely been due to poor performance, especially given his denial of Jesus. For Paul, his relatively short tenure as a Christian leader and terrible prior track

record of persecuting Christians would probably have disqualified him on the grounds of both performance and tenure. Thankfully for Paul and Peter and for us, we are judged on the basis of Christs sacrificial succession for us and our acceptance of the sufficiency of that mediatory sacrifice. Then, as the Three Gates analogy emphasised, all succession orientations are characterised by ministry, mediatory and mastery motivations. The key difference for each value is whether a leaders ministry mediates a selfish or sacrificial mastery in terms of succession. More often than not, leadership successions prove to be selfishly orientated. In both the parable of the Vineyard Workers and the Three Gates, important successional truths are revealed about rejecting tenure and performance in favour of service and sacrifice. Right (sacrificial) and wrong (selfish) ways to minister, mediate and master in a succession are also disclosed. These truths were modelled through the succession of Jesus and confirmed through the transition from Peter and Paul. Both these men became arguably the two most important successors of Jesus.

In a naturalistic dynastic or corporate succession probably both would have been disqualified as successors. The fact that Jesus recognised the potential in both men as successors and empowered them to do his will is a real encouragement to all of us. For me, sacrificial succession powerfully demonstrates what the most unlikely of successors (like me!) can becomesacrificial successorsthrough the forgiveness of Christs sacrificial death, resurrection and indwelling Holy Spirit. Even more encouraging, is that Peter and Paul lived up, albeit imperfectly, to Christs successional terms. The fact that they lived out a ministry of sacrificial service to others and willingly sacrificed their leadership for their successors powerfully confirms this truth . The mutual love, loyalty and friendship inspired by predecessor sacrificing leadership for successor, is second to none. Secular research and anecdotal evidence shared in later chapters reinforces these vital spiritual truths as practical realties that continue to inspire leaders and successors today. I hope you have found this successional truth of sacrificial succession as encouraging to you as it is to me. How to be

more successional and successful shall become even more obvious as we continue our journey of sacrificial succession through the life of Jesus. The three key steps needed to make this reorientation towards sacrificial succession are shared in the following chapters.

Some things to think and talk about 1. What is the point of the Parable of the Vineyard Workers? 2. What succession norms does this parable challenge? 3. What are two historical examples of this parable? 4. Who do Ministers, Mediators and Masters represent? 5. What is Matthew 20:27-28s integrally linked truth? 6. What succession tactics are normally used by successors? 7. Who was the most successional in Three Gates and why?



Ministry Of Preparation
I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his masters business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you (John 15:15).
As we continue our journey through Matthew 20, immediately following the Parable of the Vineyard Workers, Jesus predicts his upcoming death, for a third time. In so doing, Jesus continues preparing his successors, the disciples, for his upcoming succession. His openness and transparency during his ministry of preparation and service is an inspiration to all who aspire to successful successions. In Matthew 20 verses 17-20, Jesus models three important successional truths necessary for an effective ministry of successor preparation. He takes his potential successors aside to foretell of his upcoming death and resurrection. In other words, he does not disclose these sensitive details, publically, outside of the group.

Neither, however, does he discuss these confidential matters privately one-onone, without the other disciples and potential successors being present. Both approaches help to limit the speculation and rumours that are so often rife amongst aspiring leadership contenders. By clearly explaining the manner and timing of the succession, Jesus makes clear what is so often left unsaid or remains unplanned in transitions. Another important point in the successful preparation of successors is the appointment of a successor well in advance of the actual handover of leadership. Peters acceptance as leader by the early church and Jesus apparent reference to him being the primary successor in Matthew 16:18-19 and again following his re-

instatement in John 21:16, reinforces this important pre-succession truth. This truth makes logical sense in successional terms, because naming successors prior to the succession helps in preparing them and others for the upcoming succession. However, by introducing this Biblical chronology, these assumptions do beg a question. If Jesus had explicitly appointed Peter as successor in chapter 16, why were they still arguing about it in our key passage of Matthew 20? A related question is why did Jesus not explicitly acknowledge Peter as successor at this conflict point? Admittedly, these verses associated with Peters succession are not as explicit as the other successional aspects of service and sacrifice. Therefore, conclusions about Peters candidacy as successor being announced by Jesus well in advance of the succession must be given less weight than some of the other verses about succession with the parallel passages quoted previously. That being said, similar to many scripture passages, sacrificial succession is a matter of interpretation. Ultimately, scriptural exegesis or interpretation is up to you, the reader, as an informed par32

ticipant. If you are a believer in Jesus, then personal enlightenment by the Holy Spirit, our Counsellor and Advocate is promised. Ask him to confirm to you or caution you regarding these successional matters. Despite this valid precaution, I remain confident in saying that a pre-succession ministry of incumbent directly preparing successors, appointing a successor and predicting the timing of a succession well in advance of it occurring makes logical and biblical sense. Furthermore, contemporary secular research into succession planning and management confirms the wisdom of these ancient practices . Organisations that internally plan their successions, develop their successors and manage these transitions well in advance are more likely to succeed than those that dont. The headline passage in this chapter of John 15:15, sums up a pre-succession ministry of preparation. Jesus considers his successors as friends rather than servants. This quality of sharing and strength of relationship are far superior amongst friends than between masters and subordinates. Jesus makes everything he has learned from his Father known to them. Again the quality of this

relationship is much more direct and intimate than most teacher-student interactions.

scribes such close succession relationships . Successors being directly influenced by their predecessors, as were the Apostles by Jesus, are salient examples of this truth.

Direct succession relationships While the ministry of Jesus was obviously far more than preparing successors, for the purpose of succession his preparation of the disciples as successors was exemplary. As the passage above emphasises, Jesus taught his successors everything he had learned from his father. This practice of revealing everything one knows to potential rivals is unusual, especially where a dollar value is often given to such proprietary knowledge and the knowers who control it. Knowledge is power. Therefore, passing on knowledge unreservedly is an important successional truth. Transferring and modelling all you have learned to your successors is a key part of a ministry of successor preparation. An emphasis on close and direct successional relationships between incumbents and successors in preparing for succession is a must for this transfer to successfully occur. The Jewish blessing, may you be covered by the dust of your Rabbi aptly de33

Philosophically this sort of transition is called a true succession, because predecessor directly influences successor . In Christian terms, apostolic succession is similar in principle (see Ephesians 4:10) and in practice, especially through the Apostle Paul. Simply put, apostolic succession means that successors reflect and represent their predecessor because they have learned to apply their teachings . As such the scope of direct succession relationships in sacrificial successions is limited to these associations. Beyond that, differences between traditional Catholic interpretations of apostolic succession and more modern missional ones are out of scope here. It suffices to say that the authenticity and authority of a true successor comes from their direct succession relationship to succeeded leader. The close relationship Jesus had with his successors the disciples as friends (John 15:15), were practiced by the Apostles with their successors. They were defined as having

been with Jesus (Acts 4:13). Close succession relationships gave these successors their legitimacy and authority, rather than familial ties or managerial capabilities.

With such direct succession relationships between predecessor and successor, the primary legitimacy successors have is through their direct succession relationship with predecessor. Instead of professional managerial and

Disciplic Successors Even though the word disciple has gone out of vogue somewhat in favour of words like candidates, trainees, learners or students, etc., it is deliberately chosen here. This is because it best describes the direct succession relationships explained in the previous section as being critical to sacrificial succession. The authenticity of a disciple is defined by close proximity to predecessor. As a derivative of the word discipline, it also better describes the disciplic process by which someone becomes a disciple. Being a disciple necessitates two types of discipleship that are especially important for ready replacements. First it requires discipline that: actively corrects, moulds and perfects the mental faculties and moral character of the disciple e.g. 2 Timothy 3:16. Second, this sort of discipleship works best when modelled by predecessor directly to successor.

technical skills or familial and collegial ties being the primary determiners or mediators of successor success, it is successors close proximity to predecessors that counts. Paul, in particular, through his Epistles to his successors, such as Timothy and Titus and their churches, exemplifies direct succession relationships. The key relationship is between predecessor (discipler) and successor (disciple). These direct succession relationships are fundamental to passing on successional truths from one generation of successors to another. For example, Pauls successor was Timothy, with whom he had a direct succession relationship. In turn, Timothy was charged with doing the same with his successors (2 Timothy 2:2). Notwithstanding the obvious benefits of knowing managerial succession techniques along with their supporting tools and technologies, none of these methods can adequately replace the importance of

a direct succession relationship between incumbent and successor when it comes to preparing for a succession. One reason is that some of these important successional truths must be modelled in a close succession relationship between predecessor and successor to be effectively retained and applied. These truths about direct succession relationships become more evident as we progress through the ensuing chapters. Learning to minister altruistically without expectation and mediate a sacrificial succession is best understood directly through successional relationships. It cannot really be taught and learned any other way. Unfortunately, one of the main reasons why these sacrificial orientations are not practiced in most corporate successions is that direct succession relationships are normally discouraged. Indeed, there are valid fears of nepotism if close succession relationships are encouraged between incumbents and successors. Thus the practice of separating power between incumbents and successors through the mediating influence of Boards and other such bodies is an understandable and justifiable response to these concerns about bias. As the research cited earlier confirms, self35

interest and favouritism runs rampant in successions, even corporate transitions. Discussed next, the actions of the disciples in arguing about who was the greatest followed by seeking successional favours from Jesus, are all indicative of this being the reality then as it is now. Despite the best efforts to minimise bias though the separation of power, selfishness rather than sacrifice continues to ruin corporate successions and dynastic transitions.

Wrong succession orientations Following Jesus predicting his succession is the intriguing exchange between Jesus and James, John and their mother, the wife of Zebedee (verses 2023, also Mark 10:35-40). They wanted favoured treatment as successors in his succession. Many potential successors, it seems, serve sacrificially with these selfish rather than altruistic ambitions in mind. It is worth spending some time studying this passage because it teaches three important successional truths about wrong succession orientations. Matthew 20:20-23 says, Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him (Jesus)

with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. And he said to her, What do you want? She said to him, Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom. Jesus answered, You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink? They said to him, We are able. He said to them, You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father. From this passage the first reality to emerge is that, one way or another, most leadership contenders will seek favoured treatment from incumbents. Second, the truth is most potential successors are willing to serve sacrificially with selfish expectations. Third, to avoid bias, incumbents must be open to the oversight of others in choosing successors. Each of these successional truths in the above Bible passages is applicable to the previous succession stories shared. Jesus being approached by two brothers and their mother is reminiscent of the tactics used by Bathsheba with David regarding Solomons succession (1 Kings 1:11-31). Sadly David did not seem to be

as open to the oversight of his Father as was Jesus. Be assured that those seeking successional favouritism come in many shapes and guises. Bias is by no means exclusive to family dynasties either. With corporate successions it is often favouritism towards insiders at the expense of outsiders that is most common . Occasionally, it is the other way around. The preference for choosing top leaders and managers as successors over other contenders is another trait of corporate successions. Avoiding favouritism at all costs unless it is to favour those who serve sacrificially is a key truth of a sacrificial ministry of successor preparation and successionwith oversight of course!

Practicing selfish sacrifice Unfortunately, attempts at seeking favour can be so difficult to recognise, even with oversight! Yet recognising selfish sacrifice is a must. As the above study proves, even those who willingly serve and even sacrifice usually do so with expectation of reward or merit. Some of the main reasons for selfinterested successor self-sacrifice and

more genuine altruism are explained in the next chapter. It suffices to say here that the main point of the Matthew 20 passage is that James and John were willing to sacrifice for their successions, albeit selfishly. The exchange between them (verses 22-23) and Jesus is worth rereading. Jesus asks them, Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink? Their emphatic reply, We can! Note their willingness to serve sacrificially and even give their lives, as Jesus was about to do. Equally relevant is that in the next verse Jesus confirms their willingness to serve sacrificially (albeit selfishly) by his affirmative response. Through this exchange it becomes more obvious how difficult it can be to know a potential successors motives. The truth is that even those who apparently serve and sacrifice faithfully can be doing so selfishly. Later in this chapter we will return to these selfish and sacrificial motives or succession orientations, as I choose to call them, with a clearer picture of how to evaluate them. Being able to evaluate the sacrificial to selfish orientations of potential successors is a key to making correct decisions when choosing altruistic successors.

Principles and practices for making these evaluations are explained later.

Being independent of oversight Wisely, Jesus dealt with this appeal for favouritism by not relying on his judgement alone. This third successional truth is a key one to avoiding favouritism and bias in transitions. Being subject to supervision and open to oversight when decisions are naturally clouded by selfinterest, that is our own selfishness and that of others, is vital. In the second part of verse 23 Jesus says, To sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father. Here, Jesus explains that his choice of successor is not his decision alone but Gods. This point emphasises the need for the subordination of incumbent to oversight in choosing successors. Importantly, as emphasised earlier, this entire passage, along with 1 Samuel 8:1-18, casts serious doubt on the legitimacy of dynastic successions being part of sacrificial succession. Apart from the obvious political machinations and emotional manipulation that goes on in families, it is difficult to not have ones judge-

ment clouded when considering immediate kin as successors. That being said there are enormous strengths in families and family business that cannot be understated. Family enterprises are the backbone of small to medium sized businesses. The family unit is central to the church and society. The point here is that applying the centrality of the family unit to business and especially church governance seems risky given its apparently weak biblical support.

taged by favouritism. How often such conflicts are dealt with behind closed doors and in secret or never dealt with properly at all! It is no wonder that so many successions are compromised by this behaviour. Again, Jesus shows the right way to deal with successional conflicts, competition and favouritism by being open and transparent about it. Wisely, he involved those that were offended and caused the initial offense in the discussion, rather than talking with individuals separately about the conflict. This latter approach more easily leads to misinterpretation

Dealing with conflict in secret Then, in verse 24, comes the inevitable, indignant response by the other leadership contenders upon finding out about their own colleagues attempts to win special favour. By dealing with this conflict openly, Jesus succeeds where many succession relationships fail because of trying to keep such conflicts secret. So far, it should be obvious that attempts by potential successors to seek favours are inevitable. It is how incumbents deal with these successional conflicts that really count. As briefly shared in chapter 2, Jesus deals openly with their justifiable anger at being potentially disadvan38

and misunderstanding amongst interested parties. Initially this discussion may have only been with the ten, not including the two protagonists, James and John, who were attempting to seek succession favours. Because this detail is not entirely clear from the passage, when the conflicting parties were first brought together cannot be definitively stated. Either way, it should be reasonably clear that Jesus mainly dealt with his disciples in groups rather than as individuals. Then, from verse 25 onwards, Jesus most likely brings the twelve together to provide his seminal teaching about sacri-

ficial succession being an outworking of genuine servant leadership. In the process Jesus provides one of the most succinct explanations of authoritarian leadership and succession ever written. It is important to note the integral links here in Matthew chapter 20, between the previous verses 26-27 with verse 28. Equally important are the integral links within verse 28: JUST (even) as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, AND to give his life as a ransom for many [emphasis added]. Both highlighted words are important. Just denotes the strong link to the previous verses whereas and connects the two key verbs serve and ransom. To be more successional, we do well to follow in the footsteps of Jesus as the perfect predecessor. Authoritarian successions Going back a little now to Matthew 20 verse 25, it is in this environment of conflict, openness and honesty that Jesus gathers his potential successors together to teach them about the dangers of worldly successions. He concisely warns against the norms of both corporate and dynastic successions.

Jesus explains a three-tier structure of leadership authority that can be applied to virtually all successions. Those in authority authorise a succession and their intermediaries exercise this authority over their subordinates. Sometimes these authorities present themselves to subordinates as benefactors (Luke 22:25). At other times they act as rulers, lording it over their subjects (also Mark 10:42). Here, Jesus also succinctly explains the key characteristics of most successors and successions. They tend to be authoritarian. Authoritarianism in transitions can be strong or more benign. While similar observations apply to leaders and leadership, they are out of scope for our study of sacrificial succession, except where these same principles apply to transitions. Obviously many of the same principles apply because leadership and succession are so integrally linked. The diagram below applies this three-tier hierarchy to the people that are normally involved in corporate and dynastic successions. Similar human hierarchies or positional structures are also observed in churches. Another way of thinking about and applying this hierarchy is as process structures. Instead of looking at the people

who normally fill these positions we can look at the processes or activities normally associated with each tier or class. Suffice to say, from the words of Jesus about worldly leadership hierarchies, wrong succession mastery occurs where leaders are chosen based on positions and processes that favour managerial performance and/or familial power. By their very nature, such successions tend to be naturally managerial-bureaucratic, dynastic-autocratic. The natural result, therefore, is these transitions become authoritarian. That such authoritarianism underpins successions in some Christian institutions is unfortunate and sad, given these warnings by Jesus so long ago. Keeping these natural hierarchies in mind, with successions there are also roughly three stages or phases that potential successors undergo to succeed as successors. These three phases correlate with the three-tier structure normally observed in leadership successions. In the previous chapter, these phases were briefly explained as the succession and successor characteristics of ministry / minister, mediation / mediator and mastery / master. Broadly speaking then, a ministry stage occurs whenever a successor serves per40

sonal or others interests to qualify as a candidate successor. Depending on the field of endeavour, a ministry phase usually involves gaining some sort of technical, managerial or theological qualification or experience. Following this initial phase of ministry, other forms of leadership performance and tenure are used to qualify successors. These forms of ministry are overwhelmingly self-focused and selfpromoting, in other words selfish. In contrast, an altruistic ministry phase is primarily focussed on serving others rather than self. Following ministry is the mediatory stage, which negotiates how one masters. It bridges ministry and mastery. Because of its mediating or bridging role between ministry and mastery, the mediatory phase tends to most strongly define the selfish to sacrificial orientations of the succession and its successors. The reality is that most successions are mediated by the skilled performance of one or all of the above ministry qualifications. As previously noted, coupled with performance is tenure--the time served or worked. Family ties can also mediate a succession.

After a mediatory phase comes mastery. More often than not, a mastery phase is the outworking of these selfish to sacrificial ministry and mediatory phases through leadership positions or managerial authority. In most successions successors are recognised as masters based on their ministry and mediatory track record. Therefore, self-interested mastery tends to become the pinnacle of an incumbents personal success, whereas sacrificial mastery is others-focused on successor success. Within this framework, in terms of personality, some people are obviously more naturally inclined to be ministers than masters, whereas others do seem prefer being mediators between the two. Remember the salient point Jesus makes on successional authority. Irrespective of the personalities of successors and the professional realities of successions, each of us has the choice of being selfish or sacrificial. Choosing the former approach leads to authoritarian transitions and the latter results in more sacrificial successions. Touching on personality is relevant here because some people are clearly more natural ministers than mediators or mas41

ters. For example, extraverts are often more inclined to master others, whereas introverts may minister to others more easily. Many of us tend to mediate between these two extremes depending on opportunity and cultural expectations. For example, researchers have found that in most western countries, such as the United States and Europe, top leaders are predominantly extraverts rather than introverts . Eastern cultures, on the other hand, often prefer more introverted leaders . An obvious problem with these preferences for certain personalities over others is that other personality types do not get the same opportunities in leadership and successions. These findings are noteworthy, and confirm this succession models validity in terms of personal behaviour and cultural norms. The Bible, however, clearly cuts across both these measures because it is counter-cultural and counters wrong behaviour no matter how well accepted such behaviour might be. It calls all of us to be service and sacrificially orientated irrespective of our personalities and cultures.

Sacrificial service without expectation

By describing these naturalistic succession norms and their authoritarian outworking most recognisable in either corporate or dynastic successions, Jesus is preparing his successors for the radically unnatural alternative of altruistic service and sacrificial succession. Explained in Matthew 20:26-27 (also Mark 10:43-45 and Luke 22:26-27), is this sacrificial alternative. Successors are chosen based on a track record of serving others without expectation then ministering sacrificially through their leadership positions. The act of Jesus washing his disciples feet in John 13:1-15 is probably the best-known enactment of this truth . This sacrificial act is most often associated with servant leadership, the altruistic actions of leaders serving others before themselves. Servant leadership is a term commonly used in both secular and religious leadership fields and consists of spiritual and non-spiritual, biblical and non-biblical influences. This qualification is important to ensuring that a proper biblical understanding of servant leadership and sacrificial succession is developed and maintained. Because genuine servant leadership is critiqued more in the next chapter, I want

to finalise this section and chapter with an overview of what Jesus discusses with his disciples about sacrificial service or servant leadership. Note that the context of a ministry of preparation is in anticipation of mediatory sacrifice, because this is a point critical to understanding the link between genuine servant leadership and sacrificial succession also expounded later. Here, Jesus is clear that his successors are not to be like their more authoritarian counterparts. He goes on to explain the two key requirements of sacrificial service, defined in this book as a ministry of service (Matthew 20:26-27). They are ministering to others through a leadership position diakonos (verse 26) and serving others as a servant does doulos (verse 27). Servant hood is about serving without expectation of advancement through service as a servant does. Ministry is about serving others through a position or office, most commonly recognised through the office of deacons in churches. These are the prerequisites for the successors of Jesus. This ministry of sacrificial service is a precursor to sacrificial succession, with a ministry of successor preparation the key outworking.

In other words, Jesus is saying how you serve defines how you will sacrifice when mediating your succession then master as incumbent. The liminality of sacrificial succession being an outworking of altruistic service should now be clearer. The integral link between the two is spelled out in the key verse of this book (Matthew 20:28). Jesus did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. His successors are to go and do likewise. The liminal aspect of this truth about coming to serve is that this is the primary purpose of leadership just as giving ones self as a ransom by sacrificing leadership is the ultimate purpose of succession. Its liminality is that the former, servant leaders, have the ability to be transformed through the latter to become sacrificial successors. Note that this process occurs through the integral and interacting relationship between these two elements. These two elements need each other to react positively and effectively in terms of succession. Therefore, the seminal aspect of servant leadership in relation to sacrificial succession is that the former should beget the latter. That is what makes both biblically authentic.

As Jesus points out in our key verse, the link between the two is absolutely critical, as the superscriptions on both sides of a coin are vital to that coins recognition as legal currency. With one side blank the coin is not legal tender.

In Conclusion Throughout this chapter the critical need to prepare successors for succession, rather than merely planning for succession and preparing leaders and managers to that end should have become increasingly obvious. Jesus goes about this task by treating his successors as friends rather than servants and makes everything he has learned known to them. The importance of a close succession relationships between incumbent and successors is emphasised. So often, though, incumbents hold back on vital information in fear that it will be used against them by potential successors or as currency for personal advancement. Indeed these fears are justified given the wrong succession orientations of so many successors. These wrong motivations often manifest themselves in seeking favours and selfish sacrifice.


Thus, avoiding favouritism is a key part of a ministry of service and preparation. It is one of the main reasons why dynastic successions cannot be endorsed in a sacrificial succession. Neither can selfish sacrifice. Being subject to the oversight of others mature enough to give advice in these situations is critical. Dealing with these inevitable succession conflicts openly is shown to be the most effective ways of avoiding favouritism. Unfortunately, the result of bureaucratic-corporate or dynasticautocratic leadership is authoritarian successions. In contrast, the radically sacrificial succession of Jesus is the only real alternative to benign or strong authoritarianism. It is the sacrificial service modelled by Jesus and to a lesser extent his successors that lead to sacrificial successions. Therefore, the liminal and seminal nature of sacrificial ministry and mediatory sacrifice lies in its ability to transform both incumbents and successors through sacrificial succession. As such, sacrificial ministry and mediatory sacrifice are intertwined and should be inseparable. Regrettably both elements are often separated, taken and analysed as separate units.

Hence servant leadership is usually presented as being separate from sacrificial succession, even though it should not be. Similarly, other integral links necessary for strong successional relationships are between altruistic ministry and mediatory sacrifice, and predecessor and successors. These interconnected relationships in transitions will become even clearer in the next chapter. Now, we will move on to what is arguably the most important aspect of sacrificial succession--the mediatory sacrifice of leadership by incumbent for successor success.

Some things to think and talk about 1. What three steps define successional preparation? 2. What statement sums up a ministry of preparation? 3. What is an example of a close successional relationship? 4. What are three examples of wrong succession motives? 5. What are three examples of right succession orientations?


6. What are two characteristics of authoritarian successions? 7. What are the three main stages that successor go through?



Mediatory Sacrifice
Greater love has no one than this: to lay down ones life for ones friends (John 15:15).

For a predecessors ministry of sacrificial service and preparation of disciplic successors to succeed, there are two more steps in a sacrificial succession. The second step and focus of this chapter is mediatory sacrifice. In successional terms it is the mid-tenure handover of leadership by incumbent to successor. For a genuinely sacrificial succession to occur, an incumbents ministry of service cannot stop with them sacrificially preparing altruistic successors. Rather, the outworking of an effective ministry of service by incumbents through successor preparation must be their mediatory sacrifice for successor success. Modelled perfectly by Jesus, mediatory sacrifice in a succession is the altruistic laying down of ones life for ones

friends as the headline verse of this chapter, John 15:15, states. For a sacrificial succession to become a reality requires a leader to literally lay down their leadership ambitions for their successors success. While this is figurative of the greater sacrifice of literally laying down ones life, in leadership this sacrificial act is the pinnacle of sacrificial succession and its importance to a sacrificial transition cannot be understated. As the facts are, in real life successions, leaders do not normally lay down their leaderships for successors nearly as often as followers and potential successors sacrifice for their leaders. Thus, the practical truth here is that incumbents sacrifice must outweigh that of successor in

mediating their succession. In so doing, the spiritual truth underpinning Jesus greater sacrifice for us is maintained through sacrificial succession: that of salvation by grace not works (Ephesians 2:8-9). Because we cannot earn our salvation even through sacrificing our own lives, the perfect sacrifice of Jesus is always greater.

Interestingly, Jesus confirms that they will indeed drink from the cup he drinks from and the baptism with which he will be baptised (Mark 10:39). Here, Jesus is talking metaphorically about his death, given that he is preparing them for his succession. The important point to note here is their eagerness to sacrifice, albeit selfishly. After being specific about the nature and

Genuine servant leadership Applied to leadership transitions, sacrificial successors must be more than servant leaders and sacrificial ministers . Unlike servant leaders who willingly serve others through their leadership, genuinely successional leaders willingly sacrifice their leaderships for the success of their successors. They do this by literally giving up their leadership ambitions earlier than expected for the benefit of their successors. Research shows, however, that most incumbents do not do this . Instead, these leaders serve selfishly. Even apparently altruistic acts are more often than not selfishly motivated. To confirm this reality, recall the exchange between Jesus and the sons of Zebedee and their mother. All were seeking successional favours.

timing of his succession, Jesus now uses an analogy about drinking from a cup and experiencing a baptism to which they can all relate. Jesus does this to reinforce his earlier teaching and introduce the newer concept of incumbent being subject to oversight in choosing successors. To me, the importance of this exchange is found in its confirmation that even the most apparently sacrificial successors may, in fact, be serving with their own selfish leadership ambitions in mind. Certainly that is the conclusion that I draw from this passage in context. Therefore, in preparing, choosing and appointing successors, this important successional truth must be kept in mind. One of the most practical and effective methods of doing this is to compare the sacrificial service of potential successors

before they become leaders in their own right with their ministries after being in leadership. Anecdotally, this successional truth is practiced by many of my mission colleagues, especially those in Myanmar (Burma). For example, most of the churches and missions with which I am familiar, require all potential leaders to first prove themselves as field workers, before being eligible for more centralised leadership positions. Servant leadership is probably the term used most often to describe this ministry of service to others. I have deliberately not overused this term because of its widespread use and misuse. Instead, for the most part, I use the term ministry of service. Besides, the terms servant minister and servantship ministry are more accurate descriptions of what Jesus is talking about in these passages. Some of the most flawed thinking about servant leadership in light of servant-ministry is the assumption that it comes more naturally to some than others. In other words, servant leadership is a strength that can be identified behaviourally as a natural trait occurring in some more than others. One of the best48

known proponents of this thinking was Robert Greenleaf, a Quaker Christian. His positivist legacy continues through his successors at The Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. Another example is the Gallup Organisation. Its wildly popular StrengthsFinder material assumes that people should be primarily defined by their strengths rather than weaknesses. Christianised versions of these ideas focus more on spiritual gifts than as secular behavioural psychology. Nevertheless, much of the underlying positive thinking is similar. Importantly, while this thinking is partly true, those who are more natural servants may, ultimately, not be the best sacrificial successors. Instead it is those who have learned to serve unnaturally, in other words sacrificially, despite their naturally selfish ministry, mediatory or mastery traits that potentially make more sacrificial successors. In fact, these unnatural servants are likely to make the best sacrificial successors, as the disciples of Jesus and we regenerated sinners so aptly show. A relevant case in point mentioned earlier is that of both Peter and Paul. One was an impetuous betrayer and the other a

proud persecutor. Christ brought both to their knees. From selfish self-serving leaders they become sacrificial successors of Christ and, respectively, the primary apostolic movers of the Jewish and Gentiles movements to Christ in the early church.

liminality of a ministry of service. Altruistic servant hood and ministry are a precursor to sacrificial succession. In his paper Beyond Servant Leadership Jack Niewold (2007), gives some helpful insights into this successional truth. He says, Servanthood is a biblically sound Christian role (Christology) and has been from the beginning, because it has always been associated closely with martyria or other missional concepts . Martyria, which literally means witness, is closely associated with martyrdom because so many Christians have died as a result of their witness for Christ. Specifically applied to succession, the leadership of John the Baptist and Jesus the Messiah both shows their willingness to sacrifice before their time. John was only six months older than Jesus (Luke 1:24-26). So both were in their early thirties when John said about Jesus, He must increase, but I must decrease (John 3:30). Similarly Jesus willing came last so his disciples could come first (Matthew 20:16). When facing impending death in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus prayed, Father if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will but

Paying the greater price The radical alternative of sacrificial succession is that incumbents pay the greater succession price for successor success. The original understanding of this successional truth is the lytron ransom price paid (Matthew 20:28). Usually paid by masters, this ransom price gave their slaves or captives their freedom. Clearly, such successions are not (in fact could not be!) mediated by the self-effort of successors. This is because it is only a master who can pay the ransom to free a slave, not the slave themselves. Thus, the rule here is that the mediatory sacrifice by incumbent for successor success must outweigh the sacrifice personally mediated by successor for the success of their succession. Otherwise, a genuinely sacrificial succession cannot occur. Of relevance here is the point made in the previous chapter about the

yours be done. Other than the enormous and unfathomable weight Jesus felt in anticipation of being separated and rejected by God because of taking on our sin, herein is also a foundational truth about mediatory sacrifice by predecessor for successor. Recall Jesus discussions with the sons of Zebedee? Jesus asks them whether they can drink the cup [death] he is about to undergo (Matthew 20:). Their confident reply is that they are able. Jesus agrees that they will indeed drink the same cup, yet this does not automatically qualify them as sacrificial successors, for two reasons. First, their motivations for sacrifice must be without expectation, whereas they were willing to sacrifice with expectation. In other words at the heart of their altruism was selfish sacrifice in anticipation of becoming leaders through their sacrifice. Secondly, they were not subjecting themselves to oversight as Jesus was doing through his father. Both these matters are critical factors when considering the relative merits of mediatory sacrifice by one for another. Obviously, the outcome of a mediatory sacrifice by the perfect man Jesus is fundamentally different to imperfect men

(us). Nonetheless, the foundational truth about mediatory sacrifice is the willingness of incumbent to make the greater offering and pay the bigger price. In so doing, incumbent is saving successor from trying to pay the greater price themselves, and either failing or falling short, or in the process becoming proud of their salvation through selfeffort should they succeed. The ransom analogy used by Jesus in Matthew 20:28 is particularly applicable here. A slave can only be ransomed by their master therefore the master must pay the great price that cannot be paid by the slave because it is the prerogative of the master as the ransomer to give the slave their freedom. This awesome truth about the greater making the bigger sacrifice for the lesser and the least lies at the heart of mediatory sacrifice and sacrificial succession. Unless incumbents take the initiative by willingly making the greater sacrifice for successors, by default successors will attempt to selfishly pay the price of their succession.

Serve to sacrifice On this basis, Niewolds understanding of genuine servant leadership is similar

to that of sacrificial succession. This liminal link between martyria and mission in terms of being a witness for Christ and the Gospel is similar to the practical link between genuine servant leadership and sacrificial succession. The link is serving to sacrifice. It is the logical (though unnatural!) spiritual and practical conclusion of Christs ministry. To reiterate, this is the truth of the key verse of this book, which says: Just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28). Martyria is diametrically opposed to meritbased sacrifice aimed at gaining salvation or enlightenment through selfeffort. Consequently, martyria is as opposed to naturalistic servant leadership as lytron is to natural successions. By following self-sacrifice to its most radical end, martyrdom, and viewing it through the lens of some Buddhist, Muslim and Christian worldviews, a clearer picture of what genuinely sacrificial succession is not become more obvious. For example, where self-sacrifice becomes the means for spiritual selfdeliverance or salvation, then almost without exception it becomes a self51

serving sacrifice. In other words selfish. The Islamic belief in Jihad and Buddhist idea of Samadhi are both examples of this thinking, psychologically called religious altruism, in practice . The expectation of supernatural benefits though sacrificial acts defines these sacrifices. Islamic jihad means struggle and is about personal, merit-orientated sacrifice. Through this struggle, including death, one is promised greater assurance of salvation. Buddhist Samadhi or right concentration is about esoteric selfcontrol, which in extremes cases can lead to total cessation of self i.e. death. In both cases, however, such sacrifices are primarily self-focused rather than others-orientated. Unfortunately, selfish martyria has also been used in Christendom, for example during the Crusades, to guarantee salvation to crusaders who died fighting for the cause . Jesus explains lesser examples of these extremes in his teachings about right and wrong motivations for fasting and forgiveness found in Matthew chapters 5 and 6. Of relevance here, note that all these examples of martyrdom involve the sacrifice of followers and successors outweighing that of their leaders. Only the sacrifi-

cial lytron ransoming succession of Jesus outweighs that of his successors. Due to its sacrificial nature the altruistic act of incumbent sacrificing their leadership for successor success weights this sacrifice in favour of successor at the expense of predecessor.

An important indicator of whether or not a succession is likely to be sacrificial is determined by when and how mediation and mastery occur in a transition. If mediation occurs to early or too late in a transition it is not likely to be sacrificial. A sacrificial succession requires midtenure handover. See the following diagram explaining how these successions

Ministry Mediates Mastery Understanding the selfish to sacrificial nature of sacrifice in leadership and succession is critical to grasping the truth of sacrificial succession. The previous examples of selfish to altruistic sacrifice are helpful because they explain how successions normally work. As previously explained, leadership transitions can be understood as occurring in three main transitional phases. They are first the ministry stage, then mediatory and mastery stages. As a rule, ministry occurs during the pre-succession phase. The mediatory phase is where a succession, the handover of managerial authority, occurs. Then mastery is where ministry and mediation ultimately define leadership. A succession legacy is the outcome or output of these transitional phases.

normally occur in either two or three stages. In this transitional context more selfish mastery occurs pre-succession or post-succession in one or two stages, whereas a sacrificial succession involves three distinct stages. Selfish sacrifices have a tendency to end too early in the pre-succession ministry phase or too late in the post-succession mastery phase. Sacrificial successions, on the other hand, are intentionally designed to end mid-term or tenure. That way, outgoing leaders serving through post-succession advocacy primarily defines sacrificial mastery. Based on this transitional map, a simple yet profound succession equation or formula is revealed: Ministry x Mediates x Mastery = Succession Legacy. What this map of transitional phases demonstrates is that a succession outcome is primarily decided by its income.

With each element of this transitional recipe: ministry mediates mastery work together to produce a sacrificial or selfish succession, depending on the ingredients put into each step of the transition. The sacrificial to selfish nature of the ministry and mediatory phases, and timing of leadership hand overs have major implications for mastery and the succession legacy that incumbent leaves their successor. Applying this simple succession formula is dependent on its income or currency as values applied to each stage. Note that this three-phase lateral map, which is expanded upon later with a vertical addition, does not yet take into account hierarchies. Once the three-tier hierarchies explained in the previous chapter, are included, this map becomes more complex because it reveals many organisations mix corporate with dynastic successions at different levels. For example, researchers identify many family owned organisations as having dynastic successions at the ownership level and corporate successions at management level . Given that both dynastic and corporate successions tend to be authoritarian, the ideal solution is for successions to become less self-serving and more others-serving. In other

words successors and succession should become more altruistic. Even secular researcher recognise this need. At the heart of this thinking is servant leadership, often described in secular terms as transformational leadership. As transformational leaders mature, they develop and are developed into othersfocussed, transcendent people who put the interests of others, especially their followers first . The hoped for succession outcomes are altruistic transitions. A significant body of research already cited confirms the power of positive transformational or servant leadership in improving leadership outcomes for both incumbent and potential successors. It should be self-evident that service-orientated leaders are more likely to be transformational, because it inspires confidence in themselves and from their followers. There are, however, two main problems with much of this positive thinking about successions. First, as mentioned earlier, is that naturally transformational and transcendent leaders may not ultimately be sacrificial in terms of willingly giving up their leadership successionally. In other words a servant or transformational leader may continue to serve and

transform others through their leadership long after they should have sacrificed leadership for their successors. Secondly, as our map of normal transitional phases accurately notes, mastery is always an extension of ministry and mediation because it is an integral part of the formula. Therefore, if a sacrifice of leadership does not occur at the mediatory point followed by a mastery of advocacy post-succession, then transcendent mastery continues leadership past its use by date, making sacrificial succession more difficult. When a succession event does not occur mid-term and is not preceded by a ministry of service then followed by postsuccession advocacy, then a transition is unlikely to be sacrificial as Jesus intended. This truth will become more obvious in the next chapter. What should be obvious from studying these succession maps is that both selfish and sacrificial successions are fundamentally influenced by these three transitional phases because they act as conduits of this transitional process. Thus the key to enacting a sacrificial succession, as opposed to a self-interested transition, is found in a mediatory phase defined by a sacrificial succession rather

than servant leadership. This truth is best explained through the sacrificial mediation of Jesus, who gave up his leadership to gain a different sort of mastery than the kingdom his disciples and followers expected.

Sacrificial mediation In human terms, the leadership tenure of Jesus at three-and-a-half years was relatively short-term. This is much less than the average, which research shows currently stands at about seven to ten years . The fact is, though, leadership tenures are getting shorter. More and more leaders are leaving before their time. Unlike Jesus, many leave having failed to prepare successors adequately if at all. There is no doubt these factors are exacerbating succession crisis. Unnaturally, Jesus sacrificed his leadership earlier than his disciples expected. In contrast to many transitions today, however, note that the mediatory sacrifice of Jesus occurred following a presuccession ministry of comprehensive successor preparation. Neither during the pre-succession or post-succession periods did Jesus aban-

don his followers to their own leadership devices, particularly to the option of selfish sacrifice. Yet so often, thats exactly what happens with many successions today. The whole ministry, if you can call it that, of successor preparation, is managerially, positionally or familially inclined rather than service orientated with the benefit of others in mind. No wonder that so many incumbents unwillingly sacrifice their leadership for successor success and most successors avoid serving sacrificially without expectation. If they did act sacrificially, then they would not have much chance of being chosen as successors in such authoritarian successions, as the last normally come last in such self-interested transitions. Imagine how different the succession outcomes of the early church would have been if Jesus and his immediate successors had ministered with the expectations of success had by many leaders today. Here, a brief study of the succession histories of Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad helps provide clear comparisons between sacrificial succession and other more self-interested forms of succession.

Buddha had his Sangha, a collective leadership of his immediate followers as his successors, rather than a single successor. Jesus had his disciples as his apostolic successors, with Peter appointed as leader. Members of Muhammads immediate family and his religious followers were his successors who battled it out for supremacy, with neither side winning convincingly.

Right and wrong succession outcomes These intergenerational transitions resulted in some important and applicable succession outcomes. Today, most Buddhist successions are known to be dynastically orientated, with dynastic masters directly passing on their leadership to individual successors rather than to corporate Sanghas . Islamic successions continue to be primarily divide and conquer affairs. The recent so-called Arab Spring and its aftermath support this reality. Christendom is more apt to result in corporate successions, where successors are mainly chosen from a conclave of top leaders. The fact that this corporate bureaucracy is arguably one of the most stable and successful business models--and largely attributed to Christendom--is

ironic . The successions of Jesus and his immediate successors were so organic and out of control, defined by service and sacrifice, rather than command and control. Is it not problematic for Christendom that it is credited with a corporate system so naturally opposed to sacrificial succession? It is one of the reasons why, I believe it is so difficult for us to be sacrificial successors. There is not enough mediatory sacrifice going on in Christian circles because we have Christian successions that are largely incompatible with the sacrificial succession of Jesus and his successors. The sacrificial succession of Jesus and his immediate successors was defined by their sacrificial service and mediatory sacrifice. For example, Peters willingness to share his leadership with Paul reinforces this important truth about the sacrifice of incumbent outweighing that of successor in a leadership succession (Galatians 2:7-8). Peter sacrificed his leadership of the early Church to share it with Paul and advocate on Pauls behalf with the Jerusalem leadership. In so doing, Peter allowed Paul to, in some ways, eclipse him, especially in the leadership of the Gentile church. It

shows that Peter, in particular, had learned these truths of sacrificial succession well. He was the right successor, despite his many weaknesses. Paul too, through empowering successors like Timothy and Titus to lead, despite their youth, and continuing to guide them as successors after being succeeded echoed these truths through his apostolic leadership. Two more recent transitions worth mentioning, as examples, are those of Fannie Maes David Maxwell to Jim Johnson and F. W. de Klerk to Nelson Mandela in South Africa. Both give examples at the mediatory stage of the transition how the succession event was handled sacrificially and not so sacrificially and the ramifications of each selfish and altruistic act.

Fannie Mae In the case of Fannie Mae, David O. Maxwell voluntarily relinquished his rights to a final retirement payout of $5.5 million in 1991 provided under his contract with the company . He took this action to stop continued controversy over his retirement compensation believing that it could harm his successor Jim Johnson

and the millions of Americans Fannie Mae served. The United States Government established Fannie Mae in 1938 as The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) to provide local banks with federal money to finance home mortgages. Fannie Maes aim was to raise levels of home ownership and the availability of affordable housing. How different Maxwells sacrificial act turned out to be to the selfishness of his successors James (Jim) A. Johnson and Franklin (Frank) D. Raines . Both were ousted due to financial impropriety yet requested and received huge retirement packages. In stark contrast, the amount that Maxwell surrendered contributed to more affordable housing for low-income families, the original aim of Fannie Mae. Johnson and Raines on the other hand arguably contributed to Fannie Maes 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 Africaplagued by transition crisis. Having a close succession relationship, despite their strong political and personal differences, was a crucial factor in the successful transition 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 sacrifice . 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

South Africa

Foundation, which he established. Nelson Mandela is an honoured elder statesmen and peacemaker. A fitting quote from F. W. de Klerk about this tumultuous time in South Africas history and the key role his and Mandelas sacrificial transition of leadership played in it is a fitting conclusion to this chapter about mediatory sacrifice. Finally, leaders must accept that there is no end to change - and must plan for their own departure. As soon as one has achieved ones 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 ones 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 generation .

cession the effects of successor self-effort are minimised. The self-satisfied pride that so naturally comes from knowing that you have made it in your own strength is humbled by the greater sacrifice of incumbent for your success. Instead of successor relying on their own self-service and self-sacrifice, they rely on the altruistic, substitutionary sacrifice of incumbent. Because succeeded leader has acted sacrificially for successor and successor has received that substitutionary sacrifice, the mutually successional relationship is particularly strong. Cheryl Forbes (1983), in her insightful little book Religion of Power simply explains this powerful successional truth by sharing the example of humbly giving and receiving hospitality . This simple act of mutual humility involves sacrifice by both the giver and receiver. Similar to succession, this act of giving up leadership sacrificially by incumbent and the humble acceptance by successor of this substitutionary gift strangely requires

In Conclusion What an encouragement it is to know that empowered by the Holy Spirit we too, like the apostles, can become successful sacrificial successors! With incumbent paying the higher price in a suc58

sacrifice on both their parts. For incumbent it is altruistically sacrificing their own leadership ambitions for successor success and for successor it is subordinating their desire to win succession on their own terms and in their own

strength. Both are practical examples of the much more powerful spiritual truth of the mediatory sacrifice of Jesus. He sacrificed for us and we must accept the sufficiency of that propitiatory act to be saved. Our natural desire for salvation by our own works is an appropriate analogy of the yearning to be self-made in successions. As was emphasised in this and the previous chapters, sacrificial ministry must be the precursor to mediatory sacrifice. Next, the vital need for both sacrificial ministry and mediation become more obvious as we progress to the last phase of sacrificial succession. This last phase, the mastery of advocacy by succeeded leader for successors is, in successional terms, equally if not more, challenging to do than sacrificially handing over ones leadership to a successor. Not walking away but staying on postsuccession to act in a subordinate role is an almost as strange mastery as mediatory sacrifice. By bridging a ministry of sacrificial service and a mastery of advocacy, mediatory sacrifice plays a key role. Yet similar to Christs propitiatory act for us on the cross was verified by his resurrection, the post-succession advocacy by the

Holy Spirit is equally important. Because we are finite and sinful, elements of the sacrificial succession of Jesus are obviously different, particularly in the mediatory and mastery phases. Nevertheless, by applying these spiritual truths practically, leadership successions can and will become more sacrificial. My prayer is that by endeavouring to practise sacrificial succession, albeit imperfectly, our understanding of this Christology may be enriched and deepened in our families, communities and workplaces.

Some things to think and talk about 1. Why must incumbents sacrifice outweigh successors? 2. What are three examples of selfish leadership sacrifice? 3. Why is mutual sacrifice vital in sacrificial succession? 4. How do martyria and genuine servant leadership link?

5. Which two leaders exemplify sacrificial mediation? 6. How are worldly and sacrificial successions different? 7. How is sacrificial succession both spiritual and practical?



Mastery Of Advocacy
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you (John 14:26).
The final aspect of sacrificial succession modelled by Jesus is his mastery of advocacy on our behalf by the power of the Holy Spirit. In so doing, Christ chooses to limit himself to work through us. By the Holy Spirit, he teaches and reminds us of his Word (John 14:26). This dual role of teacher and master advocate is what I describe practically in sacrificial successions as a post-succession mastery of advocacy by outgoing leader. This important spiritual truth applied post-succession involves succeeded leader staying on as advocate for successor. The key words used for advocacy in the various Bible translations are important as they define this sacrificial mastery of advocacy that is so different to worldly versions of mastery. The most commonly used words to describe the

Holy Spirits mastery of advocacy for us are: Helper, Comforter, Advocate and Counsellor. Spiritually, the understanding here is of one called and committed to assist another, to plead a defendants case before a judge by acting as their intercessor. Christ plays this role for us with God. In practical, successional terms, the aim of a mastery of advocacy is to maximise successor success in leadership. In particular, a successional master helps prepare the next generation of successors as their advocate and teacher. By staying on post-succession, succeeded leaders also play a key role in teaching and reminding their successors about sacrificial succession.

Being a master advocate Promising advocacy for successor presuccession and proving it by staying on as succeeded leader post-succession is the ultimate outworking of mediatory sacrificial succession. This mastery of advocacy is an unnatural mastery. It is especially unnatural when compared with more authoritarian norms. With authoritarian successions, most incumbents are succeeded towards the end of their tenures. Normally, this is when they are at the peak of their mastery of managerial power and/or positional influence over others. Seldom, it must be said do such masters sacrificially handover their leadership or stay on postsuccession for the benefit of successors. Yet it is this definition of mastery that defines sacrificial succession in the postsuccession phase. Instead of incumbent giving the last years of their leadership tenures to enhancing their own mastery by fighting off would be contenders, or planning an early exit for profit or advancement elsewhere, they are acting as sacrificial masters to ensure their successors success. The normal argument against such an arrangement is that the chance of succeeded leader negatively influencing

their successor and the succession outweighs the benefits of their postsuccession involvement. Our review and rejection of dynastic transitions being genuinely sacrificial successions, despite their many sacrificial aspects such as long-term service to family and others, is a pertinent example. It must also be acknowledged that corporate successions are in many ways, far more egalitarian than dynastic successions. Corporate successions are not, however, genuinely sacrificial. Even if leaders are routinely replaced in an orderly manner, these transitions tend to be corporately rather than sacrificially orientated towards self-interest. Instead, sacrificial advocates master by having already altruistically handed over their leadership mid-tenure, during the mediatory phase, before the title of master is conferred.

Challenges for master advocates When I have shared the idea of a mastery of advocacy with colleagues their most common response is that it will never work! Their assessment of the problem is two-fold. First, the argument is that it is too difficult to expect succeeded leaders to humble themselves

enough to work through their successor. Second, a successors style may be restricted by the ongoing involvement of succeeded leaders to the detriment of the succession. All of these points are valid and are particularly relevant when successions occur during the mastery rather than mediatory phase, towards the end-oftenure. Admittedly, by then it is far more difficult for incumbent to let go sacrificially. Usually they are forced into letting go unwillingly. In other words, it is a selfish sacrifice or too late in the transition to be sacrificial even if the intention is for it to be so. At this point, another objection to a sacrificial mastery of advocacy is often raised. How can a sacrificial succession work in succession environments where mastery tends to be towards the end rather than middle of a transition? This is a valid question and objection that can only be answered through sacrificial succession. The obvious answer is that sacrificial succession requires a major reorientation from authoritarian succession norms to sacrificial ones. Trying to work within existing corporate and dynastic structures to deliver a sacrificial succession outcome is extremely unlikely because

such worldly systems as defined by Jesus in Matthew 20:25-26 are not calibrated for supporting sacrificial incumbents and successors. In particular, procedurally a mediatory (mid-term) sacrifice of leadership is quite foreign to most leadership successions. A sacrificial succession requires a mediatory sacrifice that transitionally must occur midpoint for a mastery of advocacy to be a possible successional outcome post-succession. The fundamental basis for a sacrificial succession is that a mediatory sacrifice occurs mid-term so that a mastery of advocacy can occur post-succession, because it is such an integral part of this leadership transition. For a sacrificial succession to occur, it must take place mid-term so that outgoing leader can act as master advocate for successor postsuccession. Family successions can also have a similar tenure pattern to sacrificial successions or follow a more corporate transition pattern, whereby the succession event occurs towards or at the end-of-tenure. These successional and unsuccessional truths will be applied in more detail in the final chapter, but are introduced here to emphasise the importance of a

mediatory sacrifice to enact a mastery of advocacy. Here, it suffices that to encourage a mastery of advocacy in a succession requires a change in the way that incumbents are rewarded for mastery. The Parable of the Vineyard Workers and the Analogy of the Three Gates both emphasise this important point. Both the worlds reward and succession systems are turned upside down and inside out by sacrificial succession. As Jesus points out in our key Bible passages and lived out, nothing is easy or painless in a sacrificial succession. It requires a sacrificial ministry to others, especially in preparing successors. A mediatory sacrifice hands over leadership to successors for their success rather than for the benefit of incumbent. Then, a mastery of advocacy requires succeeded leader to stay on post succession to help ensure their successors success. Both transitional phases are, chronologically and procedurally, an integral part of the succession formula introduced earlier: ministry of service x mediatory sacrifice x mastery of advocacy = sacrificial succession. With just one of these sacrificial elements missing a sacrificial succession is unlikely.

Becoming a master teacher This is why promising and providing a mastery of advocacy must be a continuation of a ministry of service through mediatory sacrifice by incumbent. Here again, the strength of the bond between sacrificial ministry, mediation and mastery must be strong. All are a reflection of the other at different stages of the succession. For instance, one image to think of is that of a three-sided pyramid. Each side of the pyramid constitutes one of these sacrificial orientations. Another example is that of a circular process, because sacrificial ministry, mediation and mastery are all different aspects of the same altruistic ministry qualities expressed at different times during a leadership transition. The secondary role of advocacy, though already in use throughout the transition by incumbent, is that of teacher and mentor. Post-succession, this role is primarily about reminding successors, particularly the newly incumbent leader, about what they have learned about sacrificial succession and holding them accountable to these successional truths.Note that the original word used for teach in John 14:26 de-

rives from the word didactic. Importantly, it relates to both active learning and teaching and incumbent holding nothing they know back from successor (John 13:15). This sort of teaching requires incumbent to instruct and model (Matthew 11:1), explain indirectly and directly (Mark 4:33-34) and send disciples out on missions together (Mark 6:7). The prolonged, ongoing nature of this activity for both incumbent and successor throughout the succession cannot be overemphasised. Playing this support role of master, mentor and teacher is unlike most action coaching and teacher mentor programs today. These activities are not just about incumbent preparing successors as leaders. Instead, master teaching and mentoring is an integral part of keeping successors, now the incumbents, accountable for their sacrificial successions, postsuccession. It is about helping them through the initial stages of their successions, particularly in preparing their next generation of sacrificial ministers. This intergenerational aspect of sacrificial succession is nearly as important as the mediatory sacrifice itself because this mastery of advocacy is its genuine outworking. Based on the circular process

image, all the sacrificial succession qualities should apply during the ministry, mediatory and mastery phases. Therefore, servanthood, ministry, learning, teaching, friendship, substitution and advocacy should apply across the entire spectrum of a transition and especially in the succession relationship between predecessor and successor. Certain qualities, however, do apply more than others to incumbent and successor at specific times during the transition. For example, being a learner applies to both incumbent and successor, starting with their sacrificial ministry orientation. Obviously incumbent can take no one sacrificially any further than they are willing to go and have gone themselves. Hence the key verse of this book involves two specific actions in a sacrificial succession. First is to serve rather than be served. Second is to sacrificially hand over leadership as the ransomer of the successor. Here, being a good learner involves a readiness of mind and zeal to search out, inquire after, examine and judge information actively rather than passively. This was the attitude of the Bereans in Acts 17:11. Another equally im-

portant quality of sacrificial successors is that they are teachable. As a mark of their humility, potential successors should be especially open to learning from those in subordinate positions to them. Teachability is a key ministry orientation because it evidences development. Due to a genuine ministry orientation being a learned characteristic rather than inherent trait, teachability demonstrates altruistic progress. Obviously, in a sacrificial succession, incumbent and successors are expected to already have learned to be teachable during the ministry and mediatory phases. Then, through a mastery of advocacy, similar qualities of being teachable are applied post-succession. Succeeded leaders do this by preparing the next generation of successors. They also continue to remind their successors of the sacrificial succession truths that are so vital to its generational sustainability.

succeeded leader is now preparing them for their sacrificial handover of leadership to their successors during the next ministry phase. Three generations of sacrificial successors are involved here. Working out the number of generations of predecessors and successors involved in a transition is another helpful successional indicator because a sustainable sacrificial succession should involve at least three generations of leader in the process: 1. Outgoing Leader Master-Advocate 2. Incoming Leader Mediatory Successor 3. Candidate Successors Altruistic Ministers Who better to share of the challenges of sacrificially handing over leadership with a successor than the one who has been personally through it, their predecessor? This successional truth is emphasised in Hebrews 4:15 where it says that Christ has been through everything that we go through. He is the Great Comforter, Counsellor, Helper and Friend because he personally knows how it feels having already gone through it and now he goes through it with us.

Preparing for succession This is the final and possibly most important job of a master advocate and teacher. Now their job is to prepare both successors and incumbent for their upcoming successions. For the incumbent,

Particularly for successors, the role of succeeded leader is to help prepare them during their ministry of sacrificial service. With incumbents, succeeded leaders advise them of the most promising potential successors and prepare them for their upcoming succession. While an ongoing role for succeeded leader is uncommon in corporate successions, research confirms its benefits . However, this is based on a proviso: that predecessors offer an ambassadorial rather than self-interested service. Potentially, they may even be involved in choosing the next generation of successors. Given that Christ is our eternal Master Advocate and Teacher and here we are talking specifically about human successors and successions, greater freedom for speculation is necessary in conceptualising this phase. And, because mediatory sacrifice does not usually mean the literal death of incumbent and a mastery of advocacy is obviously not indefinite, these ideas are more personal and practical than necessarily Biblical. Because a more detailed timeline for sacrificial succession is applied in the last chapter, to end this section a brief explanation is provided of what a mastery of

advocacy entails in preparing for a sacrificial succession. After jointly preparing incumbent and successors for the next sacrificial succession, a mastery of advocacy by outgoing leader should effectively end. In other words, once the job of advocating on behalf of successors with leadership and helping prepare the next generation of successors is done, the role of a master advocate is effectively finished because their successor now takes their role. The role of a Master advocate and teacher is to ensure that the next generation of sacrificial successors are ready for succession and that incumbent is ready to be succeeded to start this sacrificial cycle again.

In Conclusion As such, a mastery of advocacy is about predecessor pleading the case of successors, particularly the newly incumbent leader, before their leadership. Teaching and reminding successors about the value of sacrificial succession is another key post-succession role of advocate. Clearly there is a potential for bias. After all, an advocate should be biased in favour of their successors should they not?

Obviously, this statement comes with the qualification that both dynastic favouritism and corporate bias be avoided at all costs. The point with a sacrificial mastery of advocacy is that succeeded leader is meant to be enacting a different sort of leadership legacy. It is through their successors rather than through their own leadership that their tenures are ultimately judged. Indeed there is always self-interest involved with successions because there is so much to lose. The difference with a sacrificial mastery of advocacy should be that the success of masters is achieved through the success of their successors. Judgement about their ultimate success should be on this basis. Here is where a successional orientation is fundamentally different to a leadership focus. To reiterate, the fundamental difference in focus between servant leadership and sacrificial succession is not mere semantics. In other words, one is not the other, although the former can become the latter. Consider the historical and contemporary leaderships of the leaders studied earlier. In particular, Joshua and David were exemplary leaders. Buddha and Muhammad too, were great leaders,

even servant leaders, according to some, provided succession was kept out of the equation . That is why it was qualified earlier that most leaders I know are serving sacrificially. However, this is not where the problem lies, though it is where the issue starts. It is in the handover of leadership that most of their successions are in crisis. Practically speaking, what this means for a mastery of advocacy is that succeeded leader must stay on long enough postsuccession to help their successor, now the incumbent, prepare the next generation of potential successors. Providing a mastery of advocacy involves two key roles for succeeded leader. First is their role as master advocate rather than master leader or manager. A master advocate plays a fundamentally different role to leaders in authoritarian successions. Their role is to advocate especially for their successor now in their new role as leader. Second, a master advocate is a teacher keeping the new leader and candidate successors accountable as sacrificial successors by preparing them for their upcoming successions Here, the need is to have three generations of sacrificial successors working together in close succession relationships.

Their joint influence on a sacrificial succession is powerful, not only for the event itself, but from generation to generation. Once this preparation of incumbents and the next generation successors comes to an end, the job of master advocate and teacher is largely done. They can move on confident that they have enacted a sacrificial succession. In the next chapter, I want to share with you the challenges and joys of enacting such an unnatural selection as sacrificial succession in the naturalistically driven world of leadership successions.

6. When does a mastery of advocacy end for a master? 7. Why is a mastery of advocacy so unnatural for leaders?

Some things to think and talk about 1. What defines a sacrificial mastery of advocacy? 2. How do three generations of successors work together? 3. How are sacrificial masters different to other masters? 4. What does advocacy and teaching mean practically? 5. How should a mastery of advocacy be rewarded?



Unnatural Selection
You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you (Matthew 20:25-26)
From our review of the sacrificial ministry, mediation and mastery of Jesus, it should now be more obvious how unnatural a succession it was. Probably the most controversial and unnatural phases of sacrificial succession are the last two, mediatory sacrifice and mastery of advocacy. Most of us can understand and recognise the need for successors to minister sacrificially, especially as successional candidates. However, it is much more difficult to accept the sacrificial handover of leadership by incumbent for successor, beyond the confines of a family dynasty. Even more difficult to accept and practice, for most, is the need for a sacrificial succession to occur mid-term rather than towards the end of a transition. The main justification against mid-tenure hand

overs of leadership is that top leaders are just too important to lose early through a mediatory sacrifice. Secular management guru Peter Senge calls this mistaken thinking about leadership worshipping the cult of the hero leader . His main argument against this wrong thinking about top leadership is its propensity to maintain changeadverse institutions. By change adverse he means that organisations are against change or find it difficult to change due to their leadership structures. Similar observations apply to leadership successions. Admittedly, most corporate successions are stable, reliable and relatively predictable. Corporate transitions do not, however, cope with well with change. Nor do they bring about the suc-

cessional changes needed for more sustainable and sacrificial successions. The idea of incumbent being succeeded earlier than expected to stay on postsuccession to advocate for their replacement is just too much for most that come from this corporate mindset. Alien as it may be, sacrificial succession, would undoubtedly help corporate successions plagued by self-interest as many prove to be.

ship per se. Most of the leaders I know are sacrificial and I have learned much from them in this regard. However, it is not their leaderships that are in crisis, unless it includes their successions. The solution: a mediatory sacrifice by incumbent for successor success is the unnatural trigger for sacrificial succession. Obviously, there are many other more natural succession triggers . Amongst others, they include great leaders unwilling to let go, unexpected deaths or incapacitation, challenges to incumbents leadership and scandals. Broadly speaking, these succession triggers can be further classified as being scheduled and unscheduled, voluntary and involuntary based on incumbent and successor responses to these triggers. Scheduled successions are those that apply to the American Presidency, for example. After two terms, a President cannot be re-elected to a third term. Unscheduled successions are usually caused by untimely deaths, incapacitation or scandals. Most professional organisations have processes for dealing with these contingencies. Despite this risk management and mitigation, these authoritarian successions are by no means sacrificial.

Being succeeded sacrificially Unfortunately, without this unnatural sacrifice mid-tenure, a leader may serve sacrificially yet never actually hand over their leadership in a sacrificial succession. Remember, it was this successional failure that was the main issue of the successions in crisis cited earlier. Incumbents had either inadequately planned for succession, failed to prepare adequate successors, or the transition plans made and successors prepared were sacrificially inadequate. Either way, all acknowledged to a greater or lesser extent that their successions could potentially be in serious trouble if nothing was done to rectify the core problem. It is vital to reiterate here that this succession crisis is not with their leader-

Instead, they are more often not characterised by the self-interest of top leaders sacrificing the interests of other stakeholders to achieve their own ends. For example, the rampant corruption of many third world political leaders and the greed of many first world business leaders is testament to this spirit of selfishness.

ambassador-like . He candidly observes that most great leaders do not do this, instead behaving like, kings, generals and governors. Yet, with sacrificial succession, it is precisely this ambassadorial mastery of advocacy that provides the necessary support to help a successor prepare the next generation of sacrificial successors. In 2 Corinthians 5:20, Paul notes that we are ambassadors for Christ. Christ makes his appeal to be reconciled to God through us. Similarly, sacrificial predecessors are the ambassadors of sacrificial succession to their successors and so forth. It is this voluntary mediatory sacrifice of leadership and ongoing mastery of advocacy by incumbent for successor success that defines sacrificial succession and distinguishes it from other transitions.

Voluntarily handover leadership Diametrically opposed to this leader selfinterest is the voluntary, altruistic otherorientated sacrificial succession by incumbent for successor success. In their excellent paper, When Power Changes Hands: The Political Psychology of Leadership Succession in Democracies, Fredrik Bynander and Paul t Hart, referenced above, note that most incumbents do not handover their leaderships voluntarily to successors. More often than not, incumbents respond to succession challenges by denying or resisting the need to exit. Even if they do exit voluntarily, succeeded leaders seldom stay on post-succession as successor advocates. Jeffrey Sonnenfeld in The Heros Farewell: What Happens When CEOs Retire, describes this quality of staying on post-succession as being

Sustaining Sacrificial Succession For most naturalistic successor selections, this sort of sacrificial mediation and mastery is alien. It just doesnt make sense for incumbents to act sacrificially like this. Nor does it make sense to choose successors who are sacrificial. Yet it is precisely this intergenerational

aspect of sacrificial successions that can sustain altruistic leadership transitions. This is despite it apparently being illogical and unnatural for incumbents and successors to act sacrificially in this manner. Without this intergenerational aspect of sacrificial succession being continually modelled by predecessors and successors, the more naturalistic dynastic and corporate successions inevitably take over and dominate . History proves this reality time and again. Obviously, some will say that these findings actually prove sacrificial successions are unviable I practical terms. In other words, the radically sacrificial succession of Jesus is, humanly and practically speaking, unrealistic and therefore, unsustainable even impossible. Usually, as this argument goes, as a movement or organisation grows, it inevitably becomes more autocratic or bureaucratic by default or by design. This natural outcome of organisational growth and development also naturally effect successions, it is said. More dynastic or corporate successions are the expected result. These observations are true enough where the natural selection of successors flourishes unchecked. Jesus predicted this long ago

through the headline verses of this chapter about authoritarian successions (Matthew 20:25-26). Therefore, it should come as no surprise to us that these are succession norms. As Jesus goes on to say, it is only when sacrificial succession is practiced from one generation to the next and they do as he did, that this vicious cycle of naturalistic successions can be broken. After all, it only takes one unsacrificial succession and successor for things to go back to the natural order of successor selections once again, a la the kings of Israel. Sobering isnt it? Because sacrificial succession is so unnatural, natural selections are the norm. This is despite recognition of the obvious power of mediatory sacrifice by incumbent for successor. Sacrificial succession is unnatural mainly because it is fundamentally against human nature to act altruistically, especially once in leadership. In spite of this reality, if sacrificial succession is both a spiritual and practical truth, which I passionately believe it is, it can work. Jesus lived and died a sacrificial succession. So did most of his immediate successors. Therefore it is proved to work! Whether or not we can do it is up to our reliance on the Holy Spirit and

willingness to actually practice sacrificial succession. Surprisingly, perhaps, even secular researchers confirm the reciprocal power of altruistic sacrifice by leaders for followers . Longstanding research shows that altruistic sacrifice for the common good to be powerful and necessary. For example, soldiers in wars and emergency workers and members of the public in life-and-death situations must sacrifice for the greater good. True stories of 9/11 heroes testify to this fact. Due to practicing these values some societies and cultures are defined by greater levels of altruistic service and sacrifice than others. Altruism is, depending on age and gender, usually offered more often to the needy and weak such as women, children and the elderly. More often than not, men, the strong and courageous are expected to make the greater sacrifice for the weaker.

Sex (1871), he notes that a tribe that sacrifices themselves for the common good are likely to be victorious over most other tribes. However, what Darwin, and most other secular thinkers, wrongly attributes to natural selection is shown to be true only in successions in which leaders willingly sacrifice themselves for their successors. This is much more about altruistic free will than natural selection. Understandably, few secular researchers have applied Biblical sacrificial succession to leadership. Why should they? It is an alien unnatural concept to most. Therefore, as mentioned before, sacrificial succession is a much more unnatural concept for leaders than followers. Nevertheless, the research into altruistic leaders cited in this book actually shows glimpses of this truth and recognition of its importance in transitions by even secular researchers. Yet we have the perfect role model in our leader and Lord, Christ. His mediatory sacrifice and ongoing mastery of advocacy following a ministry of sacrificial service and successor preparation is our prime example. The immediate successors, of Jesus, the Apostles, are great secondary examples.

In conclusion As the so-called father of evolution and natural selection, Charles Darwins insightful commentary about sacrifice is particularly telling . In his book The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to

As a Christian, I find it ironic that we have the corporate model of successions mainly attributed to Christendom rather than sacrificial succession. Surely it is better is it not that we have sacrificial succession, unnatural as it is, credited to us? Sacrificial successions are much more successional to Jesus than corporate successions, of that you can be sure. Ultimately, it must be acknowledged that despite the obvious power of sacrificial succession it is unnatural. Because it is fundamentally against human nature, few humanists are found practicing sacrificial succession. Neither are too many Christians, for that matter! But we can do it in Christ! Selecting sacrificial ministers, mediators and masters at the expense of more managerially and dynastically qualified successors is not going to be easy. Being succeeded sacrificially and voluntarily handing over leadership before the normal time for the benefit of successors rather than self is radical. Sustaining a sacrificial succession by practicing it from one generation to another is nearly impossible. However, Jesus and his immediate successors showed that sacrificial succession is possible. Christs ongoing mastery of advocacy for us makes sacrificial succession a possibility for us too.

In the next and last chapter, the principle truths of sacrificial succession are repeated specifically for those who want to practically apply these sacrificial truths to their own successions. A number of practical suggestions and timelines are expanded upon to assist you to persist and succeed in these vital endeavours.

Some things to think and talk about 1. How is a successful successor different to a great leader? 2. Why are sacrificial successions unnatural transitions? 3. What are the pros and cons of sacrificial succession? 4. What are some practical examples of Matthew 20:25-26? 5. What are some of the most common succession triggers? 6. How does altruism relate to sacrificial succession? 7. How is intergenerational sacrificial succession sustained?


Applying Sacrificial Succession

I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship (Romans 12:1).
Sacrificial succession is an unnatural selection, going against all humanistic leadership methods. Yet its successful outcome is proved by the sacrificial succession of Jesus. Though his death he gives us life (Titus 3:4). Thus Jesus is the Giver of Life . It is his mastery of advocacy by the Holy Spirit that empowers us to sacrificially serve him today. The sacrificial succession of Jesus is a powerful catalyst when practically applied to sacrificial leadership succession. If you are willing to apply sacrificial succession to your leadership transition, in this chapter its seven main successional truths are reapplied. These sacrificial succession truths are grouped into the three transitional phases of ministry, mediation and mastery and their corresponding hierarchy of ministers, mediators and masters. Phase one is the ministry of service by incumbent master preparing ministerial successors for succession. Next is incumbents mediatory sacrifice for successor. Incumbents mediatory sacrifice is the defining act of the succession event. The final phase is a mastery of advocacy by succeeded leader for successors. Since you should now be familiar with these truths from our studying them in the preceding chapters the purpose here is to reapply these truths more practically than theoretically. Current research shows many leadership tenures are now lasting between seven and 10 years . These findings reveal that many


leadership transitions are getting shorter.

cally opposed to such self-interest. Consequently, applying sacrificial succession to leadership transitions is not going to be easy. It goes against the natural order

The truth is, many leaders are not hanging around as long before moving on. Some leaders are even leaving well before the terms they originally committed to work expire. This culture of narcissism is growing, especially amongst the next generation of younger leaders. Of those who do stay on, many do so selfishly. They fail to hand over leaderships when they should. Others move on to their next leaderships too quickly before preparing ready replacements. In these successions, self-interest is often pursued before sacrifice. Instead of practicing sacrificial succession, other stakeholders and their interests are sacrificed for the personal gain of outgoing or newly incumbent leaders. Unfortunately I am talking about some Christian successions, not just nonChristian ones. Thankfully, there is recognition amongst many leaders, Christian and otherwise, that drastic action must be taken to avoid more authoritarian succession norms and crises. The radical alternative explained in this book sacrificial succession is diametri77

of things to select sacrificial leaders and successors. Understandably, human nature tends to avoid sacrifice at all costs. Avoidance of self-sacrifice is especially commonplace once in leadership. Yet this is the level of commitment that both you and I are biblically called to practice, as the key verse of this chapter reemphasises. That is, of course, if we are committed to following in the footsteps of Jesus and his immediate successors as sacrificial ministers, mediators and masters. As mentioned previously, Christ is our eternal, spiritual Advocate. By practically applying the post-succession phase of master advocate, some extra speculation and freedom has been taken. Keep this qualification in mind as you read some of what I have written next because, whilst making logical sense, it does not necessarily have direct Biblical confirmation.

Transitional timeline

Therefore, in proposing the following transitional timeline of seven years and its different phases and positions, I acknowledge speculating somewhat. Yet, given that in the Bible, the number seven symbolises the idea of completeness, it is a good number to start with for sacrificial succession. The fact that current research supports this sort of timeline, for many transitions, further strengthens this case. On this basis, enacting a sacrificial succession could theoretically occur over a seven-year period. It should start with a ministry of service by incumbent preparing sacrificial successors. This phase should, similar to the ministry of Jesus, last about three-and-half years. This period is probably the minimum amount of time necessary for preparing sacrificial successors whilst monitoring their progress. Following a ministry phase, over a sixmonth period, the actual sacrificial succession event should occur. It culminates in the mediatory sacrifice of leadership by incumbent. Then, based on this mediatory phase in the transitional cycle, a mastery of advocacy by outgoing leader should be for at least a further three years post-succession.

Essentially, a mastery of advocacy should end before the next successor is appointed, because the sacrificial succession cycle has by then effectively started again. Each of these phases is integral to successfully implementing sacrificial succession. Every successional phase is explained in detail in the following sections. Together, each one of these stages or phases is critical to a sacrificial succession continuing for more than one generation. To reiterate, these three main transitional phases are the: 1) Pre-succession ministry of service,

especially of incumbent preparing successors as replacements, 2) Succession event itself, specifically

the mediatory sacrifice by incumbent for successor success and, finally, 3) Post-succession mastery of advo-

cacy by incumbent for the next generation of successors.

Starting with the pre-succession phase, this transitional timeline encompasses the period before a succession occurs, the succession event itself and postsuccession period. In this context, the next transitional phase after a ministry of preparatory service is the succession

event itself, the handover of leadership, and the events surrounding it. Following that is the final post-succession mastery phase. Now succeeded leader has handed over leadership sacrificially and is staying on to prepare the next generations of successor.

ual successors, successors at different levels within an organisation or across organisations. Also, this succession map helps in tracking the more or less sacrificial actions of successors over a series of successions and transitions. By tracking transitions over time, then comparing these successions helps predict likely succession outcomes and inform of successor reorientation in the form of corrective action. For instance, a ministry of service that relies on educational service mediated by managerial ability usually results in corporate mastery. Another example is ministries that are relationally motivated and mediated by familial ties. Normally their succession outcomes result in dynastic mastery. As a rule, dynastic successions tend to be more autocratic and hierarchal whereas corporate successions are more authoritarian and bureaucratic. Sacrificial Succession is the Biblical alternative to both these worldly systems. Its ministry of service is servanthood and successor preparation mediated by the sacrificial handover of leadership by incumbent earlier in a transition so they can stay on to advocate for their successors as successional masters.

Tracking transitions As such, being able to track a transition or a series of transitions is helpful for predicting sacrificial to selfish successor orientations at an individual or organisational level. The benefit of tracking transitions is that it enables practitioners to predict likely succession outcomes, so action can be taken to avoid future succession crises. To track a transition, recall the earlier hierarchal and horizontal maps of succession phases or stages and successor tiers or hierarchies. Starting with some form of ministry or service, the rule is that successors progress towards mastery mediated by selfish or sacrificial orientations. What this succession map shows are the paths that successors normally take to incumbency and their positions in that hierarchy as ministers, mediators and masters. This succession map can be applied to, or used to compare between, individ-

The two main questions to ask when tracking a transition: 1) Are these (candidate) successors altruistic or authoritarian as ministers, mediators and masters? 2) Do these (candidate) successors mediate their successions sacrificially or selfishly? Based on the answers to these questions a chart of the pathways successors have taken and are taking become clear through the succession map. If successor orientations are motivated by familial or corporate mastery, then an obvious plan for a more sacrificial reorientation should be made.

Firstly, transitions are nearly always progressive, starting with ministry, then mediation and ending with mastery. When it comes to leadership succession, transitions are almost always hierarchal because successors move up a chain-ofcommand . The only exception is where successors move along a more horizontal pathway towards greater technical or professional expertise. Interestingly, however, successors who are masters in professional or technical fields must usually reorientate themselves as mediators who mediate their successions based on managerial ability or familial relations to move up a hierarchy. During each phase of ministry, me-

By mapping a number of successions before and after reorientation trends towards a more or less sacrificial orientation on the part of successors can be determined. To do this, think about using the Succession Map as a transparency. Overlay different successor orientations and succession outcomes over time to get a clearer understanding of where they are going successionally. To assist with planning a succession reorientation and tracking its progress or regression, there are at least three successional rules to consider.

diation and mastery the basic unit of analysis is whether or not each succession and successor is sacrificial or selfish, authoritarian or altruistic. Remember the applied succession formula: ministry mediates mastery. It predicts that all leadership transitions progress upwards and forwards in cycles that involve a ministry that mediates a certain type of selfish or sacrificial mastery. In organisations, some potential successors start as ministers at the bottom of the ministry ladder serving others as workers or staff. Others start their ministries midway up the successional

ladder, usually because of professional, technical or theological qualifications. Either way, to become a successor, ones ministry must be mediated by something that qualifies the candidate for leadership in that organisation. The rule is, no matter where an individual starts in a hierarchy, advancement in a leadership transition always proceeds from ministry followed by mediation then mastery. Predictably, in the next transitional cycle, a leader again starts with some form of ministry, followed by its mediation then mastery and so forth. Successors are usually moving forwards or upwards and, occasionally, recede backwards, downwards or stop. No matter what succession orientation a successor may have, they have the potential to change and reorientate from sacrificial to selfish and vice versa. It is this potential to change from being authoritarian to altruistic that makes the potential for sacrificial succession so powerful. Through the deliberate sacrifice by incumbents of their leadership for successor success, a strange yet amazing transformation can take place amongst both predecessors and successors.

The successional greatness of John Before practically applying each of these transitional phases more specifically, it is worth sharing one more Bible story that reflects sacrificial succession as being both transitional and intergenerational. To do that, the successional greatness of John the Baptist, as a predecessor of Jesus, comes to the fore. With John the Baptist, three great sacrificial succession orientations are apparent, especially for predecessors and incumbents to emulate: 1. He willingly decreases his influence

so his successor can increase his/her influence (John 3:30) 2. He intentionally prepares and

smooths the way to maximise successor success (Matthew 3:2-3, Mark 1:2-3, Luke 3:2-4) 3. He humbly allows himself to be suc-

ceeded by his successor despite personal doubts about the wisdom of his actions (Matthew 11:2, Luke 7:19)

Whether or not Jesus is a true successor of John the Baptist in the strictest sense

of the word is obviously debatable. Jesus was not a disciple of John in the truest sense of them having the close, direct succession relationship Jesus had with his disciples. Neither did Jesus get his leadership authority or influence directly from John. Yet Johns baptising of Jesus was a successional declaration of adherence to John preparing the way for Jesus . In this sense, I believe, Jesus was a successor of John. Encapsulating this truth is Johns profound statement about Jesus: He must become greater [increase]; I must become lesser [decrease] (John 3:30). Confirming this truth is the testimony of Jesus about John, Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he (Matthew 11:11, Luke 7:28). Apart from its spiritual relevance in reference to humility e.g. the least being the greatest, the last being first, it is supported by our central passage of Matthew 20:26 (see also Matthew 18:1-2, 23:11) as its core successional truth. John was great...more than a prophet (Matthew 11:9, Luke 7:26) because he

humbly lived out the three sacrificial succession qualities mentioned above. John did this in spite of doubts about Jesus as his successor as the context of Matthew 11:2-19 and Luke 7:18-35 show. Successions, especially sacrificial ones are messy. The transitions from John to Jesus to Peter and Paul were not seamless. They involved conflict, doubt, uncertainty and sacrifice. Yet their practice of sacrificial, intergenerational succession is as true today as then. As Jesus says in the closing passage on John the Baptist, But wisdom is proved right by all her children (Luke 7:35) is particularly pertinent for the generational continuity of sacrificial succession. Also of great importance are the necessary steps for a sacrificial succession to occur. Because altruistic ministry mediates sacrificial mastery, there are no short cuts. Each prior step is a prerequisite for the next step that taken together encourage sacrificial succession to occur.

Pre-succession ministry A pre-succession ministry of preparation aims to prepare incumbent and successors for sacrificial succession. For incumbents they are preparing for the media-

tory sacrifice of their leadership to benefit successors and preparing them as replacements. Successors on the other hand are proving their leadership credentials through a ministry track record of sacrificial service prior to and through their leaderships. For incumbent, preparation also involves predicting the timing of their succession and appointing a successor. This phase should be, as mentioned earlier, towards the end of a three-and-ahalf year transition period. Obviously, this transition period could be longer, however the main principle is that a ministry of service must be sacrificial and anticipate handing over leadership mid-tenure rather than towards the end-of-tenure. There are three main steps in this sacrificial ministry of preparation. At the beginning of the transitional period, the key activity of incumbent is personally preparing a group of potential successors. Here, the importance of having the sort of close successional relationship that Jesus had with his successors the disciples is vital.

Recall what Jesus said to his successors in explaining this successional relationship: No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you (John 15:15). Note how Jesus spent time with his disciples. Mostly this was in a group situation teaching them and modelling the truths of sacrificial ministry on a daily basis. This was not only done in a formal setting where much or most leadership training is done today, but in informal settings as well. Jesus personally showed them what to do then followed up these object lessons by explaining and reinforcing these truths again and again. In fact, Jesus did most of this ministry of preparation in informal situations. Often this was done through parables or specific ministry events such as feeding or healing people that were followed up by more reinforced teaching after the fact. This method is evident in our main passage of Matthew 20:1-28. This model of action teaching is confirmed through Mark 4:33-34 which says, With many similar parables Jesus

Preparing sacrificial successors


spoke the word to them, as much as they

could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything. (See also Matthew 13:34-35 and prophetically in Psalm 78:2.) This passage is important because it describes the teaching methods of Jesus that are particularly relevant to preparing successors. He told them stories that practically related to their times and situations with a spiritual object lesson. Then he expounded on every aspect of his teachings again and again when he was with the disciples in private. Importantly, Jesus observed their sacrificial ministries and motivations over a lengthy period of time before appointing them to any leadership positions. In so doing, Jesus was able to make good judgements, with the oversight of his Father, about who would make the best potential successors. He took time to pray about the successional choices that he was about to make.

the details honestly and openly is equally vital. Clearly, he had specific spiritual foreknowledge that we do not normally have. However, by incumbent committing to the best of their knowledge to the timing, place and circumstances of a succession, as Jesus did, the effects from most of the political games that are normally played in successions can definitely be minimised more effectively. Here, Jesus deals with the inevitable seeking of favours and competition between successors openly. In so doing, he was able to handle the negative effects of such actions that cannot be avoided by trying to keep transitions secret. By making predictions about the timing of a succession and the appointment of a successor openly there is less room for speculation.

Appointing a specific successor The last part of a ministry of preparation in a sacrificial succession is the appointment of successors. Only those who minister sacrificially through their leader-

Predicting the timing of a succession Predicting the timing of a succession as Jesus did with his disciples by explaining

ship positions and have a proven track record of servanthood prior to being in leadership should be eligible as successors. The technical, managerial, professional and theological qualifications, ten-

ures and performance that normally come first must come last. In their place, a sacrificial ministry of servanthood defined by serving others without expectation of a leadership position needs to come first. Following this is evidence that the candidate successor is ministering to others sacrificially through their leadership position. Nonsacrificial qualifications should come next only if they must due to specific technical requirements. Finally, from this pool of sacrificial successors a specific successor needs to be nominated and appointed. This seems to make sense biblically, historically and practically. As a rule, even if a collective of successors is chosen, one person will inevitably master anyway. Therefore, practically speaking, it is far better to appoint sacrificial successors than allow one to emerge in their own strength. As explained earlier, hierarchies are a natural part of selfish and sacrificial leadership. The key is identifying the sacrificial or selfish path potential successors take in ministering, mediating and mastering in and through leadership.

Mediating a Succession Following this ministry of preparation and coming towards the end of the three-and-a-half year period mentioned earlier is a mediatory succession. Ideally occurring over a six-month period, the actual sacrificial handover of leadership, the succession event, should be towards the end of this time. It is here that incumbent sacrificially hands over leadership to successor. There are two key aspects of mediatory sacrifice in a sacrificial succession that need to be repeatedly noted and practiced. First, is that incumbents sacrifice must outweigh that of successor rather than vice versa, which does not normally occur. Second, is that the succession event occurs at this midpoint of the transition rather than towards the end of the transition which is normally the case in more naturalistic successions. While, these two steps are rather brief in their description, they are probably the most important to follow and difficult to apply because of their sacrificial nature. It is so diametrically opposed to our sinful human natures is it not to hand over leadership sacrificially to successors at


the mid rather than endpoint of a succession?

Remember the conclusion to this discussion. Jesus explained what true sacrificial succession really meant. It is about serving others rather than self and inten-

The need for mutual sacrifice That inborn desire to master through sacrificing others before ourselves so clearly portrayed in the Three Gates Analogy, is what makes a mediatory sacrifice by incumbent for successor success such an unnatural succession. Equally unnatural for the same humanistic reasons is the need for successors to humbly accept this gift of sacrificial succession from incumbent. Strangely, this altruistic act by incumbent for successor is difficult to accept precisely because sacrificial succession takes away the opportunity for self-effort from successor. That is, the need for successor to minister, mediate and master, even if sacrificially, for selfish ends. This truth was clearly spelled out by Jesus through his discussion with James, John and their mother about them seeking favoured leadership positions in his succession. By going on to explain how successions normally operate in organisations, Jesus emphasised the importance of sacrifice that is reiterated through the key verse of this chapter.

tionally sacrificing leadership for the benefit of successors. This means that incumbent pays the ransom price for successor success.

Mid-tenure successions By learning to minister sacrificially, leaders are much more likely to sacrificially handover their leadership in a timely manner rather than when forced into it towards the end of their tenures. Recall for a moment our review of the successions of Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad. Buddha reluctantly handed over leadership on his deathbed to one of his close followers. Muhammad died without making his successor or succession plan clear. Both were older men when they died. In contrast, Jesus was 33 years old when he was killed and had only ministered for three-and-a-half years. Yet Jesus had prepared a team of successors and appointed a successor to replace him before he died. In comparing these successions, I often ask myself this question. Why did God

not allow Jesus to minister until he was much older as most of his successors did and most of us do today? Of course I dont have the answer and maybe never will this side of glory, if at all. I dont think it is irreverent, by the way, and I do think it is relevant to sacrificial succession. Obviously, I am speculating somewhat here. I believe, however, that a possible successional lesson from the earlier than expected timing, in human terms, of Jesus sacrificial succession is a successional truth in its own right. God did not want Jesus to wait until he was older to sacrificially handover his leadership to his successors. Instead, his mid-tenure and middle age handover was the right sort of model to aspire to. Herein, I believe, is the core successional truth of mediatory sacrifice for us. Not only does incumbent pay the greater succession price for successor, unnatural as that is. The fact that incumbent hands over their leadership sacrificially at the mid rather than endpoint of the transition is also liminal. It is liminal because it allows for the outworking of the last phase of a sacrificial succession to occur through outgoing leader, incoming leader and the next generation of successors.

Post-succession mastery Last and by no means least of the unnatural selections comes post-succession advocacy by now succeeded leader. Over another three years or so, now succeeded leader stays on post-succession as successor advocate. Their primary role is to help prepare the next generation of successors. As John 14:18 promises, Jesus would not leave them as orphans, in other words without advocacy, guidance and help. Through the Holy Spirit he would advocate on their behalf before the Father and teach and remind them of everything he had taught them during his ministry of preparation.

Advocating for successor This spiritual truth applied practically involves succeeded leader staying on postsuccession to act as an advocate for their immediate successor, now incumbent. As advocate, they are extending their role of acting sacrificially in the interests of successor success during the postsuccession, as they did through their mediatory succession and ministry of preparation.

In a sense, it is successional form of ministry or genuine servant leadership. It reinforces the cyclical nature of sacrificial successions. Given the obvious dangers of favouritism, this role of advocacy is rightly discounted by most leaders in corporate successions. It is because of this inherent risk of familial bias that, I believe, sacrificial succession does not endorse dynastic successions. I say this with the qualification that, in many ways, dynastic transitions can often be more sacrificial than corporate successions. However, it is the natural risk of family favouritism so aptly described in the dynastic succession of David, amongst others, that leads me to this conclusion. The fact that dynastic successions were not a feature of the successions of Jesus or his immediate successors reinforces this important point. Though an aside, it is noteworthy and relevant in this context to point out that some scholars argue that James the brother of Jesus was the appointed successor of Jesus rather than Peter . If true, then this dynastic succession is an important argument for the inclusion of familial successions in sacrificial succession.

While I follow the orthodox understanding that Peter was the main successor of Jesus, neither position fundamentally affects the truth of the post-succession role of the master-advocate. In other words, family dynasties must practice the same three sacrificial phases of ministry, mediation and mastery. The point remains though that it is nearly impossible to be genuinely sacrificial and successional if kin must come first.

Reminding and preparing successors The secondary role of a master advocacy is that of master-teacher. It is more a mentoring role by succeeded leader with immediate successor, now the incumbent. For the next generation of successors it is about preparing them and the incumbent for the upcoming sacrificial succession to ensure its success and the generational continuity of sacrificial successions. Notwithstanding the challenges of being a succeeded leader advocating for a successor who is now the incumbent, it is a vital job. For a master advocate and teacher it is about preparing both successors and incumbent for their successions. Succeeded leader helps prepare incumbent for their upcoming sacrificial

handover of leadership and appointment of a successor. In this confronting situation, who better to share in the challenge of sacrificially handing over leadership than the one who has already been through it? This truth was emphasised earlier through Hebrews 4:15 whereby Jesus is able to empathise with us because he has been tempted as we have. For successors, the role of succeeded leader is to help prepare them in their ministry of sacrificial service and advise incumbent of the most promising potential successors. It may also be beneficial to have them involved in choosing the next successor prior to their exit. Either way, the role of master advocate and teacher should probably end before the actual succession event occurs. In a practical sense their job is done. They have helped prepare the next generation of sacrificial successors. It is now the job of incumbents to do the same with their successors. This is the cycle of sacrificial succession that is recommended to you for your serious consideration and practical implementation.

In concluding this book, the challenge of enacting a sacrificial succession now begins should you decide to take it on. I am trying to do this myself. It is a workin-progress let me assure you! Where I have tried to enact sacrificial successions, imperfect as my efforts have been the results have been promising, leading me to continually try and improve. Enacting a sacrificial succession causes the natural laws of human leadership and succession to be turned upside down in favour of an unnatural selection and succession. Therefore be prepared for opposition from the naturalistic naysayers. The next step forward from this book is for us to share together our experiences of enacting sacrificial successions. I have tried to facilitate this online through the following site: www.sacrificialsuccession.com. Remember, this is a work in progress that needs your input--both positive and negative. Note that the Sacrificial Succession logo used as a chapter separator intertwines the two Ss together as a reminder of the unbreakable biblical link between service and sacrifice and its outworking through succession, as the key verse of

In Conclusion

this book, Matthew 20:28, shows. To

help remember the three main phases and seven key truths of sacrificial succession they are repeated again as the The Seven Steps of Sacrificial Succession. To assist you with your reorientation towards sacrificial succession, a Study Guide is provided along with this book. It enables you assess where you personally, your succession relationships and organisation are with sacrificial succession. Also, try filling in the Sacrificial Successor Qualities Checklist. By doing these exercises personally and in a group, then comparing the results, you can get an idea of the sort of reorientation both you and your organisation need to become more sacrificial successors and have more sacrificial successions. Using this information as a starting point, you can start enacting your own sacrificial succession then compare notes with other sacrificial successors. Hopefully, over time, if we use these resources, then share our findings, we will be able to build some momentum with sacrificial succession and it will become a movement amongst Christian leaders and particularly successors for the benefit of their and future successions.

Particularly important for ongoing research purposes are the linking of: 1) the succession relationships of incumbents and successors, 2) with their succession orientations of ministry, mediation and mastery to 3) actual succession outcomes. Mapping these relationships in terms of the people, phases, practices and positions normally associated with the succession, mentioned earlier, should go a long way in contributing biblically to this field of research and practically to more successful successions. As this book draws to a close, I want to re-emphasise the importance of both the spiritual and practical implications of sacrificial succession. Without the sacrificial succession of Christ we could not be saved. This spiritual truth is incredible and central to our faith. By applying sacrificial succession as a practical solution to succession crisis there is always the possibility that the spiritual implications of Christs finished work on the cross and ongoing advocacy for us may be denigrated. It was never my intent to do that. Instead, just as we are called to take up our crosses and serve others first, leaders are required to give up their leadership as a ransom for their successors suc90

cess. Please prayerfully consider what I have shared with you about sacrificial succession. Applying sacrificial succession practically involves a relatively simple logic. Practicing servanthood as a presuccession ministry followed by a mediatory sacrifice of leadership is what allows a post-succession mastery of advocacy. Without this sacrificial bridge, sacrificial succession cannot occur. Hence, when we take the risk and practice sacrificial succession, some strange and amazing things will happen! I believe that we can be more sacrificial successors by the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit and our practical willingness to enact such an unnatural succession. My prayer is that your next succession may truly be sacrificial!

Study Guide for Teams and Individuals Organisational and Individual Succession Audit Facebook Page and Forum for Discussion

Other than that, we are here to help. Our team has pastoral and pioneering succession experience working in the Asia Pacific Region amongst a variety of cultures and peoples. We understand the challenges because we are involved in successions ourselves.

Some things to think and talk about 1. What is your organisations normal transitional timeline? 2. How does a pre-succession ministry

Want more? If you are serious about applying sacrificial succession to your life and leadership this book is really just a tastera starter. There is a lot more information on our website: www.sacrificalsuccession.com. Some of the helpful tools you will find to freely use include:

of preparation work? 3. Who mediates succession events in your organisation? 4. How does succession mastery work in your organisation? 5. In successions are your more sacrificial or selfish?

6. How do/can the sacrificial succession steps work for you? 7. How do you rate your organisation successionally?


About Me
My name is Paul Rattray. I am married to Riani and we have four children: Dian, Joshua, Amali and Miesha. I grew up in West Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo as a Missionary Kid. During that time I learned to be a skilled hunter and cultural negotiator from my adopted Dayak parents and by watching my own parents. My formal education includes three degrees in education, specialising in Indonesian language and culture. Along with founding my own education and training business with branches in Australia, Indonesia and China, I convened graduate and post-Graduate studies in Indonesian language at Griffith University. Currently I am Asia Pacific Missions Manager for www.ChristianVision.com. My passion is to see our National Pioneers and Pastors impact their nations for Christ by sacrificially handing over leadership to their successors so their national churches continue to multiply. In my spare time I write, hunt and advocate for the Indonesian community. Recently I acted as an expert witness in Supreme

Court trials of Indonesian fishermen charged with people smuggling offenses

Sacrificial Successor Definitions 1. 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. (Matthew 20:27) 2. Minister Advances others interests before personal interests through leadership. Ministers serve wholeheartedly through active submission to others and doing good to benefit others, especially subordinates, through their positions. (Matthew 20:26) 3. 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. (Acts 17:11) 4. 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. (2 Timothy 2:2) 5. Friend Acts 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. (John 15:13) 6. Substitute Hands over leadership sacrificially for the success of a successor. Substitutes act sacrificially for the sake of others. Their willingness to figuratively and literally lay down their life for their friends is the best example of this quality. They are ransomers, paying the price for successors. (Matthew 20:28) 7. Advocate Continues to advocate for successors interests even after being replaced. Advocates assist and sometimes plead the case of successor with leadership and remind successors, particularly newly incumbent leaders, about what they have learned and keep them accountable to these sacrificial values. (John 14:26)


Seven steps to sacrificial succession 1. SERVE Ministry of preparation (3 years) ! Prepare and choose sacrificial ministers as candidate successors. ! Predict the timing and terms of a succession to potential successors. ! Appoint a successor with a track record of serving others sacrificially. 2. SACRIFICE Ministry of transition (1 year) ! Confirm leaders sacrifice is greater than that of successors' sacrifice.

! Ensure leader sacrificially hands over leadership to successor during this time.

3. SUSTAIN Ministry of advocacy (3 years) ! Continue helping successors prepare for sacrificial succession. ! Advocate for current leader and next generations of successors.


See http://www.barna.org/barna-update/art icle/17-leadership/323-report-examinesthe-state-of-mainline-protestant-church es and http://www.barna.org/component/word press/archives/77. 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. Peter Senge (2000), The Leadership of Profound Change, http://www.as2commerce.com/pdf/oth er/Senge.pdf, page 2. Leonard Hjalmarson (2011), Forty Years in a Narrow Space, http://nextreformation.com/wp-admin/ resources/liminal.pdf, accessed: 10.12.2011 See Chuck Norris Foxe's Book of Martyrs [online] and Franklyn J. Balasundaram (ed.) Martyrs in the History of Christianity [online] for specific examples and testimonies. 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. The failure to prepare properly for succession is a common problem in both secular (Charan, 2007) and Christian (Crabtree & Cox, 2011) organisations, with more organisations than not failing to have enough internally prepared successors ready for succession and to take over leadership. Researchers cite the lack of: top leader commitment to managing a succession (Charan, 2005), development of future successors (Day, 2001) and systematic planning and management of leadership transition (Martin, 2007) as being some of the most common causes of succession crisis. See Good and Bad Kings of Israel and Judah:

http://www.purelybiblical.com/ftp/K/Ki ngs_Israel_Judah.pdf Tim Barrett & Karen Townsend (2011), Family Business Succession Planning: www.blueprintsforbiz.com/papers/busin ess_succession.pdf, page 1. Andrew Garman & Jeremy Glawes comprehensive (2004) research into succession planning shows that few studies actually link the succession process to its succession outcome making conclusions about the benefits of corporate succession planning to leadership transitions somewhat tentative. Jeffrey S. Harrison and James O. Fiet (1999) found that self-interest dominates CEO successions and that CEOs often sacrifice the interest of other stakeholders for their own ends. Confirming this trend are findings from the Global Financial Crisis (Wargo, Baglini & Kate Nelson, 2009), the narcissism epidemic amongst the younger generation (Twenge & Campbell, 2009) and a general unwillingness to self-sacrifice in a culture of overriding individualism (Bahr & Bahr, 2001). Findings by J. Scott Armstrong (1982, 1991) note that formal and strategic planning, which are both key aspects of managerial succession planning, contributes

to better performance, particularly in manufacturing industries that require sophisticated management systems. The succession orientations (Ministry, Mediation and Mastery) are consistent with social and behavioural research that recognises certain characteristics common to individual personalities such as extraversion and introversion (Brusman, 2011, Hollander & Offermann, 1999) and cultural dimensions shared by nations (Hofstede, 1980, 2002, House et al, 2002) that can be more or less humane. These succession orientations add an extra dimension by being able to describe and map the people, processes and positions normally associated with transitions. (See the Succession Orientations Overview in the Study Guide and for further details consult my e-book The Seven Keys to Successful Succession). In the broadest sense successions range from the chaotic divide and conquer approach to the stable corporate conclave successions primarily attributed to Catholicism (Konrad & Skaperdas, 2007:622). While stable and maintaining the status quo corporate successions focusing on top leadership are found to be change averse and stifle collective innovation (Senge, 2000:2).

The biblical definitions of the sacrificial succession orientations are based on Strongs Online Concordance (http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html) and the Aramaic English New Testament translated by Andrew Gabriel Roth, Netzari Press: 1. MINISTER, MINISTRY a. Servant = "doulos" - a slave, bondman, person of servile condition devoted to another to the disregard of one's own interests, b. minister = "diakonos" - one who executes the commands of a master with the interests of those being served coming before their own. 2. MEDIATOR, MEDIATORY a. mediator = "mesit!s" - an arbitrator who intervenes between two, either in order to make or restore peace and friendship, or form a compact, or for ratifying a covenant, b. Ransom = "lytron" - the price paid for redeeming or ransoming slaves or captives by a master or one in a position to pay the price. 3. MASTER AND MASTERY a. Advocate = "parakl!tos" - one who pleads another's cause before and acts as an intercessor and in the widest sense, a helper, succourer, aider, assistant, b. Teacher = "didask", "hypomimn!sk"" a dual role of preparation by imparting instruction

and expounding on it and in reminding and admonishing others. Galatians 2:1-14, provides a good warts and all example of Peters handover to Paul of the Gentile ministry, as does Pauls handover of leadership of the church in Ephesus to Timothy and Crete to Titus in these namesake epistles. In 2 Peter 3:15-16 Peters gracious commendation of Paul is evidence of their unity. Kevin Martin (2007), The Looming Leadership Void: Identifying, Developing, and Retaining Your Top Talent, http://www.aberdeen.com/. Marcus D. Bieschke (2006), Five Succession Planning Values to Keep Your Organization Alive: http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/pu blications/lao/issue_6/pdf/Bieschke_% 20five_succession.pdf (accessed 07.08.2012), page 3. 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. For a Catholic interpretation see D. Ceabron Williams (2006), Some Reflections on Apostolic Succession, http://www.georgiachurch.org/bishop.h

tm, accessed: 18/12/2010 or for more modern missional approaches Allen Hirsch and Tim Catchim (2012), The Permanent Revolution: Apostolic Imagination and Practice for the 21st Century Church, A Leadership Network Publication, Josey-Bass provide a good overview. See for example Anup Agrawal, Charles R. Knoeber and Theofanis Tsoulouhas (2006), Are outsiders handicapped in CEO successions? Journal of Corporate Finance 12: 619-644. Basil Bernstein, (2000) in Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: theory, research, critique, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc, uses classes of knowers in the fields of education and the church to explain these concepts. 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. Susan Cains The power of introverts video http://www.ted.com/ argues for a paradigm shift in the way people think about leaders and leadership. A change requires overturning preferences for cer99

tain personalities, such as extroverts in favour of more introverts, a relevant example of putting the last first. Servant leadership, popularised in recent times by American management guru Robert K. Greenleaf (1904-1990), claimed by Muslims (Beekun & Badawi, 1999) and mixed with Eastern religious philosophies (Greenleaf, 1970:18), is most strongly associated with Jesus and his earthly ministry (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002:57). Christian leadership guru John Maxwell (2008) correctly identifies sacrifice with leadership by stating in Law # 12 that leaders must give up to go up (page 15), yet like many leadership experts fails to explicitly link leadership sacrifice with successional sacrifice which must involve incumbent sacrificially handing over leadership to successors. In Explaining altruistic behavior in humans, Gintis, Bowles, Boyd & Fehr (2003) note that most acts of selfsacrifice for others are selfishly motivated and centre around the reciprocal benefits or strong reciprocity (page 153) that altruism brings through rewarding those who cooperate and punishing those who violate the norms of cooperation.

Niewold, N. (2007), Beyond Servant Leadership: http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/pu blications/jbpl/vol1no2/JBPLVol1No2_ Niewold.pdf (accessed 13.08.2012), page 133. Joseph Bulbulia (2004), Religious Costs as Adaptations that Signal Altruistic Intention, Evolution and Cognition, Vol. 10, No. 1, page 21, psychologically explains religious altruism as an expectation of supernatural benefits though sacrificial acts. Martyria [witness] and lytron [ransom] are both examples of sacrifices without expectation diametrically opposed to the merit-based sacrifices with expectation of Buddhist Samadhi (Mathews, 2010), Islamic Jihad (Maududi, 2006) and Crusading Christendom (Tangelder, 2002). Tim Barrett & Karen Townsend (2011), White Paper: Family Business Succession Planning: www.blueprintsforbiz.com/papers/busin ess_succession.pdf, (accessed 2/2/2011). John Jacob Gardiner (2006), Transactional, Transformational, and Transcendent Leadership: Metaphors Mapping the Evolution of the Theory and Practice of Governance,

http://www.leadershipreview.org/2006s pring/Article3.pdf, pages 71-72, succinctly explains these leadership styles. Ken Favaro, Per-Ola Karlsson and Gary L. Neilson (2011), CEO Succession 2010: The Four Types of CEO, http://www.strategy-business.com/med ia/file/sb63_11207.pdf, page 47. Vishvapani (2007), NKT Succession & Questions of Authority: http://dharmasights.blogspot.com/searc h/label/Western%20Buddhism (accessed 3.11.2011), for examples. Corporate Christianity or Christendom exhibits many of the same authoritarian succession orientations of stable bureaucratic successions (Murray, 2004, Van Gelder, 2004) because most western corporations are based on hierarchal Christian institutions such as the Catholic and Anglican churches (Davis, 2001). Maxwell Relinquishes Rights to $5.5 Million Final Retirement Payment; Fannie Mae Will Give Money to Low-Income Housing: http://www.thefreelibrary.com (1992). Advice and Descent: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama /fanniemae.asp (2012).

Peter Limb (2008), Nelson Mandela: A Biography, Greenwood Press, page 50. F. W. De Klerk (2011), The Role of Leadership during South Africas Transition: http://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/files/ F_W_de_Klerk_speech_to_Rhodes_Sc holars.pdf, page 7. Cheryl Forbes (1983), The Religion of Power, Zondervan, page 183, explains mutual humility as the antithesis of power leadership. Jeffrey Sonnenfeld (2004), Good governance and the misleading myths of bad metrics: http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/dir-nomi nations/sonnenfeld012004.pdf, page 110 talks about the value of former CEO staying on post-succession in ambassadorial roles. For an overview see: Tom Zacharski (2011) Servant Leadership as a Tool for Effective Business Management: www.tomzacharski.com/files/Leadershi p%20Thesis.pdf (Accessed: 29.07.2011), page 44 and Rafik BEEKUN & Jamal Badawi (1999) The Leadership Process in Islam: http://myroinc.yolasite.com/resources/

Leadership%20Process%20in%20Islam. pdf (Accessed 29.07.2011), page 2. Peter Senge (2000), The Leadership of Profound Change, http://www.as2commerce.com/pdf/oth er/Senge.pdf, pages 1-2. 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 707730. Jeffrey Sonnenfeld (1991), The Hero's Farewell: What Happens When CEOs Retire, Oxford University Press, explains that most types of outgoing leaders are more autocratic and authoritarian. A few are ambassador-like and altruistic, page 7. The tendency for successive generations of leaders to morph from a charismatic founder into more bureaucratic leaders is thoroughly discussed by sociologist Max Webber (18641920) (Allan, 2005, Langlois, 1997) and well described by Melton (2003) in When Prophets Die: The Succession Crisis in New Religions. (See also Cater, Beal & Justis, 2008, for multi-generational research in family firms.)


Confirming the practical truth of Jesus sacrificial succession is research proving the power of leader sacrifice for followers in eliciting similar levels of sacrifice from their followers (Grint, 2010, Singh & Krishnan, 2007, van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). So far there are no studies to date that have applied these sacrificial leadership principles to succession, though Sonnenfelds The Heros Farewell (1988), touches on this truth by characterising some leaders as being ambassador-like (page 7). Charles Darwin (2000), The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex: www.munseys.com/diskone/darwindesc ent.pdf, page 289. The Aramaic English New Testament 4th Edition by Andrew Gabriel Roth literally translates Saviour as Giver of Life (page 644). Research by Coates (2010) and Spencer (2004) into CEO tenures and turnover in top public companies and Page HullTeegardens (2004) Nonprofit Executive Leadership and Transitions Survey 2004, The Annie E. Casey Foundation, http://www.aecf.org/, shows similar trends in fewer leaders staying on to complete their terms and a dearth of potential successors.

National Association of State Personnel Executives (2007), A Guide To Developing your Agencys Succession Plan, http://www.delawarepersonnel.com/org dev/documents/succession_planning_p aper_2007.pdf: accessed 27/12/2010. William B. Badke (1990:195), Was Jesus a Disciple of John? http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/e q/disciple_badke.pdf: accessed 24/12/ 2010. Representative of this view is James Julius Scott, Jr. (1977) in Glimpses of Jewish Christianity from the End of Acts to Justin Martyr (A.D. 62-150) (page 8) http://www.friendsofsabbath.org, accessed, 20 December 2012.