Part II - Red Hats and Hidden Agendas: The Politics of Succession
In Part I of this series, we explored the structure of the papal conclave – how its decision space, predetermined processes, and psychological rituals create a framework for effective succession planning. It sounds wonderful, but if we’re being truthful, behind those locked doors and beneath those scarlet robes lies something far less divine: politics.
Robert Harris' novel "Conclave" strips away the veneer to reveal what anyone who's ever navigated a leadership transition already knows – succession is ultimately about power. Who gets it, who doesn't, and whose vision for the future prevails.
So let's dive into the political realities that shape succession, whether in the Sistine Chapel or your boardroom.
The Faction Game: When Cardinals Choose Sides
In "Conclave," the College of Cardinals quickly fractures into factions. The Italian bloc. The conservative wing. The reformists. The Global South coalition. Each with their own candidates, priorities, and visions for the Church's future.
“Every significant leadership transition creates factional dynamics. The old guard versus the new generation. The finance committee versus the program team. The risk-averse versus the innovation advocates. The founder loyalists versus the change agents.”
These factions rarely appear on organizational charts (but do exist through whispered conversations in hallways, private text threads, and strategic coffee meetings) but they shape succession outcomes more powerfully than any formal process.
In my work with nonprofits navigating executive transitions, it is highly valuable to discuss power sharing and power mapping – identifying the informal power centers that will ultimately determine succession success or failure. And just like Cardinal Lomeli in "Conclave," those managing transitions must understand these factions without being captured by any of them.
Secrets and Scandals: The Currency of Succession Politics
In the movie adaptation of "Conclave," the most dramatic moments revolve around revelations of secrets – hidden backgrounds, concealed relationships, buried scandals that suddenly emerge during the selection process. These revelations don't just create plot twists; they shift power dynamics and reframe the entire succession question.
Every leadership transition involves similar information asymmetries. The board member who knows about the financial irregularity that others haven't noticed. The deputy director aware of the founder's problematic behavior with staff. The longtime volunteer who understands community relationships invisible to newer leaders.
Information becomes currency in succession politics – hoarded, strategically shared, often weaponized. And those who control critical information often control succession outcomes, regardless of their formal authority.
In "Conclave," Cardinal Lomeli navigates this treacherous information landscape by prioritizing institutional integrity over factional advantage. When he discovers damaging information about a leading candidate, he doesn't use it to advance his preferred alternative – he ensures all cardinals have the information needed to make an informed decision.
Identity Politics in the Most Literal Sense
In addition to secrets, there are also stark identity politics of succession.
The conclave represents an extreme case – 100% male, predominantly European, exclusively ordained within a specific theological tradition. But most leadership transitions involve similarly complex identity dynamics.
In the nonprofit sector, we often witness a predictable pattern: organizations founded by white, wealthy, well-connected individuals who eventually transition to more diverse leadership – but only after the founder has consolidated power, secured funding streams, and established organizational legitimacy.
This pattern reveals uncomfortable truths about power and credibility in our sector. Founders with privileged identities can access resources, networks, and opportunities often unavailable to leaders from marginalized communities. Then, when succession occurs, these organizations suddenly "discover" the importance of diverse leadership – often without acknowledging how privilege shaped their founding narrative.
I've witnessed this dynamic repeatedly: a charismatic white male founder transitions power to a woman of color who inherits all the operational challenges without the founder's structural advantages. The board congratulates itself on its progressive succession choice, then holds the new leader to standards the founder never had to meet.
The conclave, with its homogeneous composition, at least avoids this particular hypocrisy. It makes no pretense of identity diversity. But most organizations exist in the tension between homogeneous power structures and aspirational diversity commitments – a tension that often erupts during succession planning.
“Effective succession requires naming these dynamics explicitly. Which identities have been centered in organizational leadership? Which have been marginalized? How do these patterns shape assumptions about “qualified” candidates? What unstated identity criteria are operating beneath the surface of selection discussions?”
The Board Room: Where Succession Politics Really Happens
In the nonprofit world, succession politics centers on a crucial body that doesn't exist in the papal model: the board of directors.
Boards occupy a uniquely powerful position in succession planning – they typically hire and fire the executive director, yet many board members lack deep understanding of day-to-day operations. They hold fiduciary responsibility without programmatic expertise. They make succession decisions despite limited interaction with potential internal candidates.
This creates a political environment ripe for manipulation. Have you ever witnessed the following?
Executive directors cultivate board allies to influence their own succession.
Senior staff attempt to curry favor with board members to position themselves as potential successors.
Funders or foundations pressure boards to consider preferred candidates, leveraging financial contributions to dominate decision making.
The conclave, for all its flaws, at least operates with relative independence from external financial pressure. Cardinals don't need to worry about donor reaction to their selection. They don't fear funding cuts if they choose the "wrong" pope.
Most nonprofit successions enjoy no such independence. They unfold in the shadow of funder expectations, donor preferences, and financial vulnerabilities. A foundation program officer's casual comment about a candidate can carry more weight than staff consensus. A major donor's enthusiasm for a particular successor can override strategic considerations.
Effective succession planning requires creating enough financial stability to make leadership transitions without undue external influence. It means developing boards with the courage to prioritize mission over money when the two conflict. It requires acknowledging the power dynamics that shape succession politics instead of pretending they don't exist.
The Tension Between Tradition and Progress
At the heart of "Conclave" lies the fundamental tension in every succession process: tradition versus progress. Continuity versus change. Preserving institutional identity versus adapting to new realities.
The conservative cardinals fear that the wrong successor will abandon core principles. The progressives worry that failure to evolve will render the institution irrelevant. Both believe the very soul of the organization hangs in the balance – and both are probably right.
Every significant leadership transition involves this same existential tension. I've sat with outgoing leaders terrified that new leadership will abandon organizational values. I've spoken with young staff convinced that leadership transitions represent the only opportunity to address calcified practices. I've mediated between legacy board members who supported the original vision and newer board members interested in innovative directions.
The conclave manages this tension through its structure – the cardinals are all products of the institution they're choosing to lead, creating built-in continuity regardless of who emerges as pope. The papal tradition of choosing a new name upon election symbolizes this balance between individual identity and institutional continuity.
Most organizations lack such structural safeguards for navigating the continuity-change tension. Succession often becomes an all-or-nothing battle between institutional preservation and radical reinvention, with neither side fully acknowledging the legitimacy of the other's concerns.
“What if we approached succession not as a choice between tradition and progress but as an opportunity to clarify which traditions remain vital and which changes are essential? What if succession planning began with explicit conversation about this tension rather than allowing it to emerge as factional conflict?”
The Double-Edged Sword of the Founder's Shadow
The papal conclave occurs in the shadow of two profound influences: the two-thousand-year tradition of the Church and the specific legacy of the most recently deceased (or sometimes resigning) pope. Both shape succession politics in ways both visible and invisible.
Similarly, most organizational successions unfold in the shadow of founders – whether literally present or long departed. Founder legacies shape succession politics in complex and often contradictory ways.
I've worked with organizations where the founder remained on the board after stepping down as executive director, creating impossible situations for their successors. I've consulted with others where the founder departed completely, yet remained so psychologically present that decision making efforts regularly devolved into "What would ____ do?" debates.
The founder's shadow creates succession politics even when the founder isn't actively involved. Staff members position themselves as authentic interpreters of founder intent. Board members invoke founder vision to advance their own agendas. Funders reference their relationships with the founder to influence succession outcomes.
Some organizations address this by creating emeritus positions that honor founder contributions while clearly transferring power to new leadership. Others establish clean breaks through term limits and mandatory transitions. Still others create phased succession processes where founders gradually transfer authority over extended periods.
No single approach works for every situation. While I do strongly recommend that outgoing leadership refrain from joining the board, what truly matters is acknowledging the founder's shadow rather than pretending it doesn't exist. Succession politics will revolve around founder legacy whether we name it or not – better to make it explicit than allow it to operate unchecked.
Creating Healthy Succession Politics
I'm not suggesting we can eliminate politics from succession planning. Politics – in the broadest sense of negotiating power and competing visions – is inevitable in any leadership transition. The question isn't whether succession will be political, but whether those politics will be healthy or toxic.
Healthy succession politics:
Ensures critical information is shared across power centers rather than hoarded
Names identity dynamics explicitly rather than allowing them to operate implicitly
Manages external influences rather than pretending independence
Addresses the tension between tradition and progress directly
Acknowledges founder shadows while creating space for new leadership
The papal conclave, despite its dramatic flaws, creates conditions for relatively healthy succession politics. It doesn't eliminate human ambition, factional interests, or information asymmetries – but it channels them in ways that typically prevent catastrophic outcomes.
What if we designed succession processes that acknowledged political realities instead of pretending they don't exist? What if we created structures that channeled political energy toward institutional health rather than factional victory?
This isn't about importing red hats and secret ballots into your boardroom. It's about learning from a system that has managed succession politics – however imperfectly – for two millennia.
In our next article, we'll explore what may be the conclave's most obvious and problematic feature: the complete absence of women from the process, and what this reveals about gender dynamics in succession planning more broadly.
This is the second article in a six-part series examining succession planning through the lens of the papal conclave process. Read Part I here.
Up next: "Breaking the Stained Glass Ceiling: Gender and Succession” where we will analyze the implications of women's absence from the conclave, examine gender biases in contemporary succession planning, and the impact of exclusion on the quality of succession, and explore the glass cliff phenomenon and double standards in leadership evaluation.