Part V - When Succession Fails: Cautionary Tales from Conclave to Boardroom
Throughout this series on succession planning, we've used the papal conclave as a lens to explore the conclave's structure, its political dynamics, gender limitations, and knowledge transfer processes. But perhaps the most instructive lessons come from examining what happens when succession fails – when carefully designed systems break down, when political maneuvering overwhelms institutional interests, when identity biases distort selection, or when knowledge transfer never occurs.
The Catholic Church has weathered its share of succession disasters over two millennia. From the Western Schism that produced multiple competing popes to politically manipulated elections that elevated corrupt leaders, the papal model has occasionally failed spectacularly despite its elaborate safeguards.
Similarly, contemporary organizations across sectors regularly experience succession catastrophes – transitions that damage capacity, erode mission effectiveness, destroy financial stability, or even threaten institutional survival.
By examining these cautionary tales across time and sectors, we can identify common failure patterns and develop more resilient succession approaches.
The Great Western Schism: When Fundamental Legitimacy Fractures
The most dramatic papal succession crisis, the Western Schism (1378-1417), saw rival factions elect competing popes, each claiming legitimate authority. For nearly four decades, the Church had two (and briefly three) competing papal claimants, dividing Europe into opposing camps of religious and political allegiance.
This catastrophic succession failure did not result from absent procedures but from their breakdown under political pressure. The conclave system existed but couldn't maintain legitimacy when fundamental questions arose about election validity.
We see similar legitimacy crises in modern succession failures:
Mozilla Foundation's Leadership Collapse
When Mozilla appointed Brendan Eich as CEO in 2014, his selection followed proper board governance procedures. But within days, controversy erupted over his earlier political donations opposing same-sex marriage. Despite procedural correctness, his appointment fractured Mozilla's community and undermined his authority to lead an organization built on progressive values.
After just 11 days as CEO, Eich resigned, leaving Mozilla in leadership limbo. The organization had followed proper succession procedures but failed to anticipate how the selection would affect its legitimacy with key stakeholders. Mozilla lost three CEOs in two years during this tumultuous period, demonstrating how succession legitimacy crises can cascade into extended leadership instability.
The Sierra Club Insurgency
In the late 1990s, the Sierra Club experienced a profound legitimacy crisis when an anti-immigration faction attempted to take control of the board through formally correct election processes. The succession system worked procedurally – board elections occurred as scheduled – but the organization nearly fractured over fundamental questions about who should guide its future.
Only an emergency mobilization of members to vote for an alternative slate prevented a hostile takeover that would have dramatically changed the organization's mission focus. The crisis revealed how succession systems focused exclusively on procedural correctness without attention to mission alignment can threaten organizational survival.
The Lesson: Succession planning must address legitimacy, not just procedure. Systems must anticipate contested transitions and create mechanisms for resolving fundamental challenges rather than assuming procedural correctness ensures acceptance. The conclave eventually resolved its schism through an ecumenical council that transcended normal procedures – a reminder that extraordinary succession crises may require extraordinary resolution mechanisms.
Founder Syndrome: When Succession Exists in Name Only
While the papacy doesn't suffer from founder syndrome, many contemporary organizations experience succession failures when founders can't truly let go of control.
Komen Foundation's Leadership Crisis
Susan G. Komen for the Cure faced massive backlash in 2012 when the organization decided to defund Planned Parenthood. Though CEO Nancy Brinker had supposedly transitioned leadership years earlier, she remained the de facto decision-maker as Chair of the Board. When public outrage erupted, Brinker announced she would step down as CEO – a position she had already officially left but continued to control indirectly.
This succession in name only created governance confusion during crisis. The organization lost significant donor support and public credibility because its succession had been structural rather than substantive – transferring titles without actual authority.
Feed the Children's CEO Carousel
When founder Larry Jones was ousted amid financial mismanagement allegations in 2009, the organization had no viable succession plan despite its multi-decade history. What followed was a devastating leadership carousel – five CEOs in seven years – that severely damaged the organization's effectiveness and donor confidence.
Each new leader attempted to establish authority while the founder continued to influence operations through lawsuits, public statements, and relationships with long-term staff. The organization had technically "succeeded" its founder but never resolved the underlying power dynamics that made genuine leadership transition impossible.
Newman's Own Foundation Dispute
When Paul Newman established his foundation with a clear succession plan, he likely never anticipated the bitter dispute that would erupt between his family and the foundation's leadership after his death. His daughters sued the foundation in 2022, claiming its leaders had strayed from Newman's intentions.
This case illustrates how even carefully documented succession plans can fail when founder intent becomes contested territory between family members and institutional leaders. Without ongoing mechanisms to interpret and apply founder vision, succession becomes an extended battle over legacy rather than a clean transition of authority.
The Lesson: Effective succession planning must address psychological and relational dimensions, not just structural ones. Founders must genuinely transfer power, not just positions. Organizations need clear boundaries and governance mechanisms that prevent founder reengagement from undermining new leadership. The conclave's tradition of absolute separation between popes (historically through death, now through strict post-resignation protocols limiting Benedict's public role) demonstrates the importance of clean breaks in leadership authority.
Identity Whiplash: When Succession Creates Cultural Vertigo
Some of the most disruptive succession failures occur when leadership transitions create profound identity confusion within organizations. This happens when successor selection focuses on competencies or relationships without sufficient attention to cultural fit and institutional identity.
Apple's Post-Jobs Crisis
When Steve Jobs was forced out of Apple in 1985, the board replaced him with John Sculley, an accomplished Pepsi executive with impeccable corporate credentials but fundamentally different values and vision. Sculley's consumer marketing background clashed with Apple's innovation-obsessed culture, creating a jarring identity shift that alienated key talent and confused the market.
The company nearly went bankrupt before Jobs returned in 1997. This wasn't simply a competence failure but an identity crisis – Apple couldn't function as Apple without leadership aligned with its fundamental character and values.
Manchester United's Post-Ferguson Collapse
When Sir Alex Ferguson retired in 2013 after 26 years managing Manchester United, the club faced a succession challenge similar to a founder transition. Ferguson had so thoroughly shaped the club's identity that his departure created existential questions about what Manchester United was without him.
The club cycled through multiple managers (Moyes, van Gaal, Mourinho, Solskjaer, etc.) without recapturing success. Each brought solid credentials but failed to maintain the cultural continuity that players, fans, and stakeholders expected. The succession planning focused on managerial competence without adequately addressing the club's distinctive culture and identity.
ACORN's Dissolution After Founder Departure
When ACORN founder Wade Rathke stepped down in 2008 amid controversy, the organization had grown to 400,000 member families with significant national influence. Yet within two years, it completely collapsed. The succession failure wasn't primarily about finding incompetent leadership but about maintaining coherent organizational identity during crisis.
Without Rathke's unifying presence, ACORN's federated structure fragmented under pressure. No successor could hold together the coalition of interests that had previously collaborated under the founder's vision. The succession planning had addressed leadership selection without considering how organizational identity would be maintained through transition.
The Lesson: Succession planning must explicitly address institutional identity, not just leadership competencies. Organizations should identify their distinctive cultural elements and ensure continuity of these aspects through leadership transitions. The conclave system excels here – regardless of which cardinal becomes pope, certain fundamental aspects of Church identity remain consistent through established traditions and teachings that transcend individual leadership.
Political Capture: When Succession Becomes Factional Victory
The conclave has periodically experienced succession failures when the process became dominated by factional interests rather than institutional needs. Political machinations occasionally elevated popes who served specific constituencies rather than the broader Church, creating dysfunctional leadership focused on consolidating factional power rather than effective governance.
General Electric after Jack Welch
Jack Welch's 20-year tenure as GE CEO created legendary shareholder value but also fostered an internal succession competition that ultimately damaged the company. When Welch selected Jeff Immelt as his successor in 2001, the decision emerged from an intense political contest between internal candidates that reportedly continued influencing company dynamics long after the selection.
Immelt inherited a politically fractured organization where executive team members had competed for the top job. Some departed after losing, taking institutional knowledge with them. Others remained but maintained factional loyalties that complicated unified execution. Under Immelt's 16-year tenure, GE's value dropped by over $150 billion, eventually leading to the company's breakup.
The succession had become so focused on the horse race between candidates that it neglected how the political process itself would affect post-transition governance and execution.
The Gates Foundation Transition Challenges
When Bill and Melinda Gates announced their divorce in 2021, their foundation faced unprecedented succession challenges. The organization had been built around the founders' partnership and shared vision, with governance structures assuming their continued collaboration.
The personal split created inevitable factional dynamics that complicated leadership transition. Would staff, programs, and resources align with Bill's priorities, Melinda's initiatives, or establish independent direction? The succession planning had never anticipated navigating such fundamental questions about organizational alignment and priority-setting without unified founder guidance.
The New Republic's Ownership Transition Disaster
When Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes purchased The New Republic in 2012, he initially positioned himself as a steward of the magazine's century-old liberal intellectual tradition. But just two years later, Hughes appointed a new CEO from Yahoo and announced a dramatic digital-first pivot that contradicted the publication's identity.
Mass resignations followed as the staff faction committed to traditional journalism battled the ownership faction pursuing technological reinvention. The succession had become a victory for one constituency (digital transformation advocates) over another (traditional journalism defenders) rather than a balanced transition serving the institution's broader mission.
The Lesson: Effective succession planning must prevent factional interests from capturing the process. Systems should require broad consensus rather than narrow victories, balance competing organizational priorities, and create post-transition governance that integrates diverse perspectives rather than empowering single factions. The conclave's two-thirds supermajority requirement exemplifies this approach – preventing narrow factional victories and forcing coalition-building across competing interests.
Knowledge Cliffs: When Critical Information Disappears
As we explored in our previous article on knowledge transfer, many succession failures occur not because the wrong leader was selected but because essential information never transferred from predecessor to successor. These knowledge cliffs create performance gaps even when succession processes otherwise function correctly.
Disney's Eisner-to-Chapek Transition
When Bob Iger stepped down as Disney CEO in 2020, the board selected Bob Chapek as his successor after extensive planning. Yet just two years later, the board dramatically reversed course, firing Chapek and bringing Iger back.
While multiple factors contributed to this succession failure, reporting suggests that crucial knowledge about stakeholder relationship management – particularly Disney's complex talent relationships – never adequately transferred from Iger to Chapek. The succession process addressed formal responsibilities but not the tacit knowledge about relationship navigation that Iger had developed over decades.
United Way of America's Post-Scandal Transition
When United Way of America faced a leadership crisis after CEO William Aramony's financial misconduct scandal in 1992, the organization selected Elaine Chao as its new president. Despite Chao's impressive credentials, her tenure lasted just four years amid declining donations and chapter disaffiliation.
A critical factor in this troubled transition was the knowledge vacuum created by Aramony's abrupt departure after 22 years. Key relationships with local chapters, understanding of the federated structure's dynamics, and institutional history necessary for effective leadership disappeared without structured knowledge transfer. The succession addressed leadership selection without ensuring operational continuity.
The Chicago Bulls Dynasty Collapse
The Chicago Bulls' six-championship dynasty ended abruptly in 1998 not because key players could no longer perform but because crucial organizational knowledge failed to transfer during leadership transition. When coach Phil Jackson departed following a conflict with general manager Jerry Krause, he took with him not just coaching strategies but intricate understanding of how to manage complex player relationships, particularly with Michael Jordan.
Without this knowledge, no successor coach could maintain the delicate interpersonal ecosystem that had enabled team success. The Bulls went from champions to bottom-dwellers almost overnight because succession planning addressed structural positions without ensuring transfer of crucial relationship intelligence.
The Lesson: Succession planning must explicitly address knowledge transfer, particularly tacit knowledge about relationships, cultural nuances, and context for past decisions. Organizations should identify critical information held by departing leaders and create structured processes to preserve this knowledge through transition. The Vatican's extensive documentation practices and Curia continuity provide some protection against knowledge loss that many organizations lack entirely.
External Shock Succession: When Crisis Forces Unplanned Transitions
Some of the most challenging succession failures occur when external circumstances force transitions before organizations are prepared. Whether through leader death, scandal, or emergency departure, these shock successions test whether institutions have built resilient systems or merely planned for orderly transitions.
Enron's Leadership Collapse
When Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling resigned unexpectedly in August 2001 after just six months in the role, the company faced a shock succession crisis. The board quickly reinstated former CEO Kenneth Lay, but within months, the company's massive accounting fraud emerged, leading to bankruptcy and criminal charges.
The succession failure wasn't just about leadership selection but about governance systems unable to function under crisis conditions. The board lacked independent perspective to manage a transition while investigating emerging problems. The succession process worked mechanically – a new CEO was named – but failed fundamentally because the system couldn't handle simultaneous leadership transition and organizational crisis.
The United Kingdom's Royal Succession Crisis of 1936
When King Edward VIII abdicated in 1936 to marry Wallis Simpson, the British monarchy faced an unprecedented succession emergency. Though legal mechanisms existed for transferring authority, the psychological and symbolic dimensions of succession were thrown into crisis by the unexpected transition.
Edward's brother, the unprepared George VI (depicted in "The King's Speech"), inherited leadership amid international tensions without adequate preparation for the role. The succession eventually stabilized, but the shock transition revealed weaknesses in a system designed for orderly transitions rather than abrupt changes.
Penn State's Post-Scandal Leadership Vacuum
When the Jerry Sandusky child abuse scandal erupted at Penn State in 2011, the university faced a catastrophic leadership crisis. President Graham Spanier and legendary football coach Joe Paterno were both removed almost simultaneously, creating a dual succession emergency at the institution's highest levels.
The university had succession processes for orderly transitions but no systems for managing multiple emergency departures amid ongoing crises. The board appointed interim leaders who lacked institutional knowledge precisely when historical understanding was most needed to navigate the crisis. The succession system had never contemplated simultaneous leadership transitions during active scandals.
The Lesson: Resilient succession planning prepares for disrupted transitions, not just orderly ones. Organizations need emergency succession protocols, leadership contingency plans, and governance systems that can function during a crisis. The conclave model actually excels here – its structured process activates regardless of whether papal transition comes through anticipated death after illness or shocking resignation.
From Failure Patterns to Resilient Practices
Across these cautionary tales from various sectors and eras, common failure patterns emerge that even the most sophisticated succession systems sometimes experience:
Legitimacy Fractures When fundamental questions arise about succession validity, procedural correctness alone cannot maintain organizational cohesion.
Founder Entrenchment Structural transitions that fail to address psychological and relational dynamics often become succession in name only.
Identity Whiplash Succession focused on competencies without attention to cultural fit and values alignment creates organizational identity crises.
Political Capture When factional interests dominate succession processes, resulting leadership serves constituency agendas rather than institutional needs.
Knowledge Cliffs Critical tacit knowledge disappears during transitions without structured transfer processes, creating performance gaps even with qualified successors.
External Shock Disruption Crisis-forced transitions reveal whether succession systems are merely procedures for orderly handovers or resilient frameworks for maintaining continuity under any circumstances.
These patterns suggest principles for more resilient succession planning:
Legitimacy requires stakeholder acceptance, not just procedural correctness Build succession systems that actively engage key constituencies rather than assuming their support.
Psychological transition matters as much as structural handover Create processes that address the emotional and relational dimensions of leadership transfer, especially with founders.
Cultural continuity deserves explicit attention Identify the distinctive aspects of organizational identity that must survive transition and ensure their preservation.
Factional balance produces healthier outcomes than constituency victories Design systems that require broad consensus and prevent narrow interests from capturing succession processes.
Knowledge transfer needs structured processes Create explicit mechanisms for preserving critical information through leadership transitions rather than assuming it will happen organically.
Resilience emerges from systems designed for crisis, not just orderly transition Develop emergency succession protocols and governance mechanisms that function under pressure, not just in ideal circumstances.
The papal conclave offers valuable lessons in both directions. Its procedural clarity, supermajority requirement, and crisis resilience demonstrate remarkable strengths. Its historical episodes of legitimacy crisis, political capture, and knowledge transfer failures reveal vulnerabilities that even sophisticated systems sometimes experience.
By learning from these cautionary tales across sectors and centuries, we can develop succession approaches that anticipate common failure patterns rather than simply hoping they won't occur in our organizations.
In our final article, we'll explore innovative approaches to succession planning that address these failure patterns while reimagining what effective leadership transition might look like beyond traditional models.
This is the fifth article in a six-part series examining succession planning through the lens of the papal conclave process. Check out Part I, Part II, Part III , Part IV. Up next: "Beyond the Conclave: Reimagining Succession for the Modern Organization” to explore innovative approaches to succession planning and alternatives to the "great man" theory of leadership. We will also provide frameworks for developing succession models tailored to organizational needs, as well as share collaborative and distributed leadership approaches, including the creation of succession-ready organizational cultures.