The Hidden Saboteur in Succession Planning
Succession planning is often hailed as a cornerstone of good leadership and governance, yet in practice it frequently falls short. Boards dutifully create emergency CEO lists and groom talent pipelines, but when the moment of transition arrives, organisations still find themselves in turmoil.
Why? A crucial element is being ignored: power.
When we talk about power in succession, we’re not just talking about job titles or decision-making authority. Power is the web of influence, relationships, and control a leader accumulates over years, control over budgets, strategy, alliances, and even the narrative of the organisation’s history. It’s the invisible currency of leadership. In succession planning, deciding how it will be transferred is just as critical as deciding who will take the seat.
Beneath the formal process charts and polished press releases, unspoken power dynamics, ego, legacy, and fear, lurk as the silent saboteurs of leadership succession. As one expert bluntly observes, the emotional nature of letting go makes real-world succession “damnably hard.”
Research shows barely half of major companies have a written succession plan, and of those that do, only 14% of leaders feel their organisations handle it well. This gap between theory and practice owes much to power’s complex grip on leaders. When the time comes to hand over the reins, no one talks about the elephant in the room: the personal attachment to authority, influence, and status.
Ego, Legacy, and Fear: The Power Dynamics We Don’t Discuss
In theory, succession planning is a strategic exercise in future-proofing the organisation. In reality, it’s an emotional, deeply personal journey for those at the top, and a negotiation about who will hold the levers of power next.
- Ego protects symbolic power: The attachment to the status and visibility that comes with the role.
- Legacy protects narrative power: The desire to control the story about how their leadership will be remembered.
- Fear protects positional power: The reluctance to give up the decision-making authority that comes with the position.
Leaders who champion “what’s best for the company” can become surprisingly risk-averse when their own exit is on the table. Avoidance is common. Conversations about “life after me” are deferred because they’re uncomfortable, and the focus stays on short-term targets instead of succession readiness.
Some experience what can be called legacy jitters , the anxiety that the organisation will falter without them, or that their significance will evaporate once they leave. Ironically, this fear can be self-fulfilling: by delaying or undermining the process, leaders increase the risk of precisely the failure they fear.
In more extreme cases, founder’s syndrome sets in: leaders refuse to let go, even if it means stunting the organisation’s growth. Research shows nonprofits led by founders often have smaller budgets and slower growth than those led by successors. The desire to cement a legacy can end up undermining it.
When Leadership Becomes Identity
One fundamental reason power is so hard to relinquish is that, for many leaders, the role has become indistinguishable from the self.
Being “CEO” or “Executive Director” isn’t just a job title; it’s their identity. Studies of outgoing chief executives found a telling split: nearly half saw the CEO role as part of who they are rather than just a position they held. Over years or decades, the boundaries between the person and the office blur: the organisation’s achievements become personal achievements, and the authority they wield day-to-day becomes a core piece of their self-worth.
As one leadership advisor put it, “Founders are very tightly tied to the organisations they start, from an identity standpoint.”
That’s why stepping down can feel like losing a piece of oneself. Management scholar Jeffrey Sonnenfeld calls it “a plunge into the abyss of insignificance.”
Leaders who manage to keep their identity larger than their title, who see themselves as stewards rather than owners, navigate transitions more gracefully. Those who don’t are more likely to resist or sabotage the process, consciously or not.
Boards must recognise this. Too often, succession planning focuses entirely on the incoming leader, ignoring the emotional and power journey of the outgoing one. Without empathy and foresight, even the strongest successor can be undermined before they start.
The Fallout of Avoiding the Conversation
What happens when the emotional and power dynamics are ignored? History is full of succession failures where control, influence, and ego turned leadership handovers into crises.
Take media mogul Sumner Redstone of Viacom, whose saga famously inspired the TV drama Succession. His refusal to plan for leadership transition spiralled into years of public family feuds, lawsuits, and corporate stagnation. Convinced no one else could run the business, he shut out his logical successor, his daughter Shari, and tightened his grip instead of loosening it. By the time she eventually took control, the company was weaker and his legacy tarnished.
The pattern repeats elsewhere. Uber’s Travis Kalanick was ousted in 2017 without a plan, leaving the company leaderless in a crisis. Microsoft scrambled for a year to replace Steve Ballmer after his abrupt retirement. India’s Tata Group plunged into public turmoil when its chairman was suddenly removed.
The costs are high: stalled momentum, eroded morale, and talent loss as high-potential leaders either wait endlessly in the wings or walk away. In messy handovers, even the incoming leader’s authority is undermined if the predecessor retains too much shadow power.
A Different Model: Publicly Transitioning Power
A compelling example comes from Aliko Dangote, President & CEO of Dangote Group, who has begun relinquishing leadership to ensure a stable, legacy-preserving transition. In 2025, he stepped down from the boards of key ventures, including Dangote Sugar Refinery and Dangote Cement. At the same time, his three daughters, Mariya, Halima, and Fatima, were elevated into major leadership roles across the group, including board seats and executive positions in operations, strategy, and commercial oversight.
Crucially, the move was publicly and prominently announced, signalling to stakeholders, employees, and markets that the succession was intentional, planned, and backed by the patriarch himself. This visibility didn’t just hand over titles, it is intended to transfer the social and institutional power needed to make those roles effective. It told the market, the staff, and partners: “These leaders speak with my voice now.”
By framing the transition as a deliberate act of stewardship rather than a reluctant concession, Dangote has undoubtedly strengthened institutional stability, reassured investors, and modelled a version of succession that preserves both legacy and momentum, a textbook example of passing the torch with intention, not just convenience.
How to Get Succession Right
What does it look like when leaders and boards handle the power dimension of succession thoughtfully?
It starts with a clear plan and open conversations long before the transition date, not waiting for a health scare, shareholder revolt, or burnout to force the issue. Boards and leaders prepare early: identifying potential successors, giving them meaningful exposure and decision-making authority, and gradually shifting responsibilities so they can grow into the role.
And here’s the crucial part: they handle the transfer of power explicitly. That means mapping where influence actually resides, key clients, investors, political relationships, public profile, and deliberately introducing the successor into those circles while the outgoing leader is still present to endorse them.
Equally important is supporting the outgoing leader’s emotional transition. This form of Mindshift Coaching goes beyond the operational handover and can include:
- Coaching or mentoring to help them redefine their identity beyond the role.
- A clearly defined post-exit role that leverages their strengths without undermining the new leader’s authority.
- Public recognition of their contributions , through events, communications, or legacy projects, so they leave with pride rather than a sense of loss.
- Private, candid conversations with the board to address concerns about relevance, influence, or future purpose.
When boards actively manage both the visible and invisible dimensions of the transition, they reduce the risk of last-minute resistance or behind-the-scenes interference, and give the successor the best chance to lead with confidence from day one.
Recommendations for Boards and Leaders
- Make succession a continuous conversation, not a last-minute scramble.
- Map and manage the transfer of influence, not just responsibilities.
- Acknowledge the emotions, address fears about status, identity, and purpose head-on.
- Tie succession to legacy, not loss, position it as a leader’s final, defining act.
- Define post-exit roles clearly, avoid ambiguity that invites interference.
- Publicly empower the successor, visible endorsement builds credibility.
- Build leadership pipelines early, reduce dependency on a single leader.
- Foster a culture bigger than one person, steward the mission, not a personality.
The Final Word
Succession is a test of organisational maturity. Handled well, it’s a strategic evolution that strengthens the business. Handled poorly, it’s a crisis that can undo years of progress.
Ego, legacy, and fear will always be part of the equation, but they’re really symptoms of something deeper: the instinct to hold on to power. The true art of succession lies in consciously, deliberately transferring that power, not just the position.
In the end, succession is not only about passing the baton; it’s about passing the power that makes the baton worth holding. Ignoring that reality is what turns a moment of evolution into a moment of fracture.
