The Last Will Be First

The Last will
be First
A leadership paradigm
learned in hard places
Paul Rattray
The Last will be First
The Last will be

First
/|\
A leadership paradigm
learned in hard places
By
Paul Rattray
2
“It is a great pleasure to share something that

has changed my paradigm of leadership.”
Pastor Júnior Peres
3
Copyright
Title: The Last will be First
Subtitle: A book about a leadership paradigm learned in hard places
Author: Paul Rattray
Publisher: Paul Rattray
Email: dayakbule@gmail.com
Copyright © Paul Rattray, 2019.

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means without the express
permission of the author other than quotations for research purposes. The term “Sacrificial
Successionâ” is registered trademark.
4
Contents
Contents ................................................................................................................ 5
Purpose .................................................................................................................. 9
Introduction ......................................................................................................... 11
Last First Succession................................................................................................. 12
Dedication ........................................................................................................... 16
Layout .................................................................................................................. 18
Legacy that Lasts................................................................................................ 20
More About Succession ............................................................................................ 20
Less about Leadership .............................................................................................. 21
All About Sacrifice ...................................................................................................... 23
Focus on Successors ................................................................................................ 24
Serve Successors................................................................................................ 27
Put the Last First ........................................................................................................ 28
Prepare Successors in Advance ............................................................................... 32
Make Everything Known ............................................................................................ 37
Entrust the Work to Successors ............................................................................... 41
Serve to Sacrifice ................................................................................................ 46

Handover at the Right Time ...................................................................................... 47
Make a Mutual Sacrifice ............................................................................................ 48
Sacrifice Leadership .................................................................................................. 53
Serve to Sustain .................................................................................................. 59

Remain to Sustain Successors ................................................................................. 60
Teach and Remind Successors ................................................................................ 65
Advocate for and Guide Successors ........................................................................ 67
Apply Sacrificial Succession .............................................................................. 70

Be Leadership Authorised ......................................................................................... 71
5
Sacrifice at the Right Time ........................................................................................ 79

Stay on to Sustain Successors ................................................................................. 81
Model the Succession ............................................................................................... 86
Reward Sacrifice ................................................................................................. 91

Honour Service and Sacrifice ................................................................................... 93
Judge Success on Successors ................................................................................. 94
Know that Success means Sacrifice ........................................................................ 96
Outwork Sacrificial Succession ................................................................................ 98
Succeed through Sacrifice .............................................................................. 100

Put the Last (Successors) First ............................................................................... 101
Practice True Succession........................................................................................ 102
Sacrifice Leadership Mid-Term .............................................................................. 103
Understand Triune Transition ................................................................................. 106
Build Sacrificial Foundations .................................................................................. 109
Application......................................................................................................... 112
Bio | Paul Rattray .............................................................................................. 114
References ........................................................................................................ 115
6
To those great pioneers who have inspired me

through their entrepreneurial thinking and actions
to write this book, thank you!
7
_____________________________________________
Dedicate this book to
_____________________________________________
May yours be a legacy that truly lasts!
8
Purpose
My purpose in writing this book, The Last will be First, is to share with you a
uniquely effective leadership paradigm that puts the last (successors) first.
Called Sacrificial Succession, it requires predecessors to sacrificially hand over
their leadership to successors. Sacrificial Succession changed my paradigm of
leadership because I saw people challenged by conflicts and crises thrive as
leaders in some of the hardest places on earth. I can vouch for their success
because I witnessed first-hand their transition from fearful and traumatised
successors into courageous and confident leaders succeeding in hard places.
These unlikely successors succeeded especially because their predecessors
willingly sacrificed leadership for them. This transformation from last to first,
first to last, is what Sacrificial Succession is all about. Within this sacrificial
paradigm, leaders serve by preparing successors, sacrifice leadership for them,
then help by sustaining these successors as leaders. Sacrificial Succession has
also been applied in developed countries like Australia, with similar success.
Ultimately, my aim in writing this book is to change your paradigm of
leadership from being leader-focused to successor-centric. Be willing to learn
its principles and apply them, because it is a legacy that truly lasts! Each of
these Sacrificial Succession steps of serve, sacrifice and sustain are explained in
practical detail, so that you can apply this sacrificial paradigm yourself, then
share these secrets to successional success with your family, friends and
colleagues.
Stories from leaders who have successfully applied Sacrificial Succession are
shared throughout the book as firsthand evidence that this leadership paradigm
works. As my marketing guru mate, Gary, says, “Sacrificial Succession is
uniquely effective, because the success is in the sacrifice.” I guarantee this
journey you are about to take with Sacrificial Succession will be life-changing
and paradigm-shifting—if you faithfully apply its principles. You can be sure of
its success in your life and leadership and that the impact of your sacrificial
legacy will continue through your successors because these timeless principles
have stood the test of time.
9
As a companion book, The Last will be First Meditations is a more concise

version of this book. It focuses on the main principles of Sacrificial Succession
explained in the following chapters and is written in the form of daily
meditations that are meant to be read every day for a month. Read these daily
meditations before or while you are reading this big book and regularly, say
once a week. Sharing your thoughts about Sacrificial Succession with a friend
or colleague over a coffee or meal will help you process these ideas better.
Even better, why don’t you buy them a meditational booklet, which comes
with each of these big books so that you can study these principles of Sacrificial
Succession together? Because Sacrificial Succession always involves a close
relationship between practitioners, studying and applying this sacrificial and
relational paradigm together is the most effective way of learning its principles.
Thank you in advance for taking the time to read this book. I believe it will
change your paradigm of life and leadership as much as it has changed mine.
Sincerely,
Paul Rattray
10
Introduction
“It is impossible! They are not ready. They are too immature…there are too
many tribal differences!” shouted our country leader, Davi, slapping his hand on
the table for added emphasis. We were discussing the transition of leadership
from more than 50 foreign leaders to indigenous successors in one of the
world’s newest nations. Their country had recently been through a genocidal
conflict that had left at least a third of its population dead and many of the living
traumatised and without hope.
Before that, these people had suffered generations of neglectful colonialism
and inter-tribal warfare. To impact this nation, we had to select successors from
this pool of poorly educated, emotional potentials. Most of them had limited
leadership experience. Nearly all had been personally brutalised or were
severely traumatised by the war. The urgency to start this leadership transition
“now!” was amplified when the President of this new nation publicly threatened
to revoke the visas of our foreign workers, confiscated then re-appropriated one
of our legally purchased properties.
To be perfectly honest, I felt severely underqualified for this massive task.
When I talked with a mentor about this transition, he bluntly shared his
experience of more than 50 years of leadership in the culture of the foreign
workers I was leading: “It will be challenging! Leadership successions in this
culture usually happen with an organisational split or the current leader leaves
in a pine box [dies].”
Despite these challenges, my leadership had given me the responsibility to
implement this leadership transition. It was a daunting task, even with my many
years of cross-cultural living in the region, project management experience and
university education. During my doctoral research, I had studied succession
planning and found its systematic strategies and plans for leadership transition
helpful. I was also impressed with the values of servant leadership: great leaders
choose to serve others rather than themselves1.
However, neither field adequately explained the relationship between current
11
leaders [predecessors] and future leaders [successors] in a leadership

succession. Answering this question seemed especially vital to this transition,
because our potential successors were not ready to lead yet nor were our
predecessors ready to let go. During my research, I found a philosophical paper
by John L. Williams called “Confucius, Mencius, and the Notion of True
Succession,2” especially helpful for my situation. It observed that only when a
successor is directly influenced by their predecessor, can a transition be called a
“true succession”.
Last First Succession

My conclusion for our situation was a simple solution. Our foreign managers
as the predecessors must directly influence their indigenous successors. Now,
how could they do this as servant leaders? As I studied the origins of servant
leadership, I read a story about workers who were offered and agreed to do
contract work for a business owner3. Some started early on, others were
recruited throughout the life of the project right up to it nearing completion. At
project completion, all the workers came to get their bonuses and the owner
instructed his manager to pay those who had started last, first and pay them the
same bonuses as those who had started first and worked the longest.
Those who started first were understandably angry because they rightly
expected to come first and get paid more than their counterparts who started
later. The owner responded to their complaints by saying, “Friends, I am being
fair with you. You agreed to work for these wages, right? So, take your pay and
go. I want to give those who were hired last the same pay I gave you. I can do
what I want with my own money. Why would you be jealous because I am
generous? So, the last will be first and the first will be last.”
Reading this concluding statement about putting the last first was an
epiphany or my “aha” moment of realisation. To impact this nation and bring
about a successful transition for our indigenous successors, they must come
first. Their predecessors, the foreign workers, must come last4. To be a genuine
“last-first” succession, these predecessors must directly influence their protégés
by preparing them as successors.
12
This act of predecessors putting the last first by personally preparing

successors in a ‘true succession’ relationship is part of what became the legacy
of “Sacrificial Succession” that I share with you through this book. Everything
that we did from then on focused on applying what we were learning about this
‘last-first’ legacy paradigm. Sacrificial Succession is a legacy paradigm because
current leaders are expected to personally prepare successors, sacrificially hand
over leadership to these successors then support them in an ongoing way5.
After getting approval from my leadership for this Sacrificial Succession
focus, I shared my plans with our country leaders, starting with our top
managers. Eventually everyone in the organisation—more than 2000 people
were informed about our transition plans. At the time, we had 50 foreign
managers and two indigenous potentials. Neither party were impressed with my
transition plans. Our foreign leaders believed that our indigenous potentials
were not ready for leadership. Our indigenous candidates agreed, many of them
crying out (literally!) that they were losing their ‘parents’ and mentors.
I assured them that we were not leaving them as ‘orphans’ and shared a plan
whereby we committed to serve them by preparing them as leaders. Each of our
foreign leaders were required to personally prepare at least one indigenous
successor over a three-year period. They were to sacrifice for them by handing
over leadership to these successors at a time that maximised their chances of
success. Then, these predecessors were to sustain these successors and their
successions by staying on for a certain time to help their successors as leaders.
Those who did not commit to these conditions or failed to fulfil them were
given an early release from their contracts and sent home. Many did leave.
Most who stayed and made the sacrifice said it was well worth it! Many of
these predecessors shared with me how Sacrificial Succession had changed their
paradigm of leadership transition from being selfish to sacrificial. Others were
amazed to see successors thriving in a nation where they never thought it
possible. Davi said to me, with tears in his eyes, at the graduation ceremony of
our first group of indigenous successors, “Brother, it’s a miracle!” Indeed, it
was.
After Junior, another foreign leader in this transition, applied Sacrificial
Succession, he joyfully shared, “There is no conflict. There is no rupture with
13
the founding fathers. There is a synergy of forces.” He went on to say, “Thank

you for sharing Sacrificial Succession with me. It has changed my paradigm of
leadership. In my culture, competition defines leadership succession. Now I
have learned a new way, Sacrificial Succession. I strongly encourage you to
share this paradigm of Sacrificial Succession with others.”
In three years, we had replaced all 50 of our foreign leaders with indigenous
successors. Remember, when we started, we only had two candidates. Today,
these indigenous successors run: the most popular private FM radio station in
the country, a model, government accredited “best practice” children’s school
and 17 branch offices and function centres. This includes a company providing
vocational and leadership training. Most of our businesses are financially
sustainable.
For another nation, devastated by more than 50 years of military dictatorship
and junta rule, our Sacrificial Succession legacy is of predecessors from one
ethnic group handing over leadership to hundreds of successors from another
people group that were their traditional enemies. These Sacrificial Successions
have genuinely impacted the nation as people witness former enemies serving,
sacrificing for, and sustaining each other.
A project in yet another country dominated by religious tensions and conflict,
has seen greater unity amongst hundreds of predecessors and successors from
different religious traditions and ethnic backgrounds. Prior to this, they had had
never cooperated closely before. Together, as these prejudicial barriers have
been broken down, they have developed successful peace-building and de-
radicalisation activities. They have also created sustainable micro-business
enterprises, such as local collectives producing herbal teas, soaps and
medicines. Former Islamic militants engaged in arms and drug smuggling are
now producing legitimate [legal] goods and services locally and training their
former brothers-in-arms to peacefully do the same.
Applying the paradigm of Sacrificial Succession has played a big part in their
ongoing success, because they are systematically passing on these skills to their
successors. Sacrificial Succession is also being applied in places that are less
chaotic, with positive outcomes. Mike was the top leader of a multinational
company who prepared a young successor, handed over leadership early then
14
stayed on to help him. Pete founded a mega church then sacrificed leadership
for his young protégé much earlier than anyone expected. He continues to help
his successor by leading from behind.
All these sacrificial leaders, and many others, are leaving legacies that last
through Sacrificial Succession by serving, sacrificing for, and sustaining their
successors. I listened to my friend, Junior, and others, who encouraged me to
share this legacy paradigm. We believe that Sacrificial Succession will work for
you because we have seen it work for others and ourselves. We are also sharing
Sacrificial Succession with leaders in many other different organisations and
places around the world.
It is our experience of applying these Sacrificial Succession principles of
serve, sacrifice, and sustain that I am inspired to share with you and others who
also want to leave a leadership legacy that truly lasts. Thank you for reading my
personal testimony of Sacrificial Succession so far. My story is a work-in-
progress still being written. Now, you can write your own sacrificial succession
story too. I hope you are inspired enough by what I have shared so far to read
the remainder of the book and see its potential for your leadership legacy by
putting it into practice.
Reflection
Think about the statistics that say only 15% of organisations are preparing a
specific successor and 39% have no viable internal candidates who could
immediately replace a leader if the need arose or that most Christian leaders
have no succession plan in place…?6
o How true are these statistics in your organisation?
o What would these statistics be in your organisation?
Consider the practice of “true succession” being about a predecessor directly
influencing a successor and the close relationship between them…
o Who are you influencing in this successional way and how are you
doing that?
o What is a personal example of a true succession relationship that
inspires you?
15
Dedication
Most of what I have learned practically about Sacrificial Succession has
come from witnessing colleagues and friends being sacrificial. Without their
willingness to prepare successors, sacrifice leadership for them and sustain
these successors as leaders, I would have few real-life stories to share. Through
colleagues like Junior, testifying to a paradigm shift in leadership to Cindy who
believes that these sacrificial principles are ‘treasures’ that must be shared with
others, I am challenged and encouraged to keep sharing these legacy truths.
Without these confirming stories from the field, of sacrificial farmers,
pastors, pioneers, entrepreneurs, managers, and directors, I would have been
limited to ideas and theories rather than the rich, personal histories of these
sacrificial leaders. Thank you for your real-life stories of service and sacrifice in
hard places and difficult times.
The support of family, friends, and colleagues throughout this sometimes
painful yet positive journey of discovery is a blessing. They spur me on to keep
writing about and sharing this paradigm of Sacrificial Succession. Their help
throughout the process of writing down the vision so that others can run
confidently with it by reading and re-reading drafts, making comments and
corrections to numerous versions, has made this book a reality. It is a work-in-
progress made possible by this personal and professional support.
Minus the people who willingly ran with these principles by applying the
seemingly illogical and strange idea of sacrificing oneself for the success of
another, then Sacrificial Succession would have remained a great theory or
ideal, without practical examples from real people. For that, I want to especially
thank David, Davi, Junior, Pete, Mike, and Keith for humbly and faithfully
applying Sacrificial Succession to their leaderships.
Here, we are not just talking about chief executives but also farmers, pastors,
and entrepreneurs. Most are just normal people who did something
extraordinary by being sacrificial. Seeing sacrificial successors taking over
leadership in countries and cultures where Sacrificial Succession is an
16
uncommon practice has proved that these timeless principles stand the test of
time today. For all the help and support I have received, I am truly thankful.
Thank you,
Paul Rattray
17
Layout
This book starts with a purpose page and introduction. Then, there is an
overview of Sacrificial Succession and the challenges facing many leadership
transitions today. Following that, the three key principles of Sacrificial
Succession: serve, sacrifice, and sustain are explained. Finally, there is an
application of Sacrificial Succession and a brief conclusion.
After reading this book you should be able to understand and apply these
principles of Sacrificial Succession to just about any life or leadership
transition. An application page at the end of the book will help you personally
model this paradigm. Throughout, practical examples of sacrificial people and
their leadership transitions are focused on as the primary evidence of the
potential for Sacrificial Succession to be the best way of leaving a leadership
legacy that truly lasts.
Here are some of the things people have said about their experiences of
applying Sacrificial Succession to their leadership transitions:
• It is a great pleasure to share something that has changed my
paradigm of leadership. Sacrificial Succession is a practical principle
that will just be effective if it is put into practice. Junior, Brazil
• Sacrificially handing over leadership to my successor was tough! But
the success I have seen in a hard place is worth it. David, Myanmar
• Handing over leadership to a young successor much earlier than
expected, freed me up to mentor many more leaders and have much
greater impact.” Pete, Australia
• It is a miracle! I never thought that we could have so many successors
in such a difficult and challenging place. Davi, Venezuela
• I never imagined that sacrificially staying on to caretake the farm I
had sold and helping the young buyer run it could be so rewarding!”
Keith, Australia
These stories and many more are shared in this book. I am confident that if
you faithfully apply Sacrificial Succession, it will help you leave a leadership
18
legacy that truly lasts. Its principles are timeless, so you can have confidence in
their longevity. Thank you for taking the time to read this book. My hope is that
you will put Sacrificial Succession into practice in your own life and leadership.
*Note that most names have been changed to protect the identities of people
working in difficult and dangerous places or situations.
19
1
Legacy that Lasts
Just about every leader of a family or company, or any other human
organisation, eventually faces the challenge of succession, the handover of their
leadership to someone else. The reality is that all leaders will be replaced at
some point by a successor whether they like it or not. Most leaders want to
leave a legacy that lasts longer than they do. Yet, how many leaders handle their
successions well enough to leave a legacy that truly lasts?
Unfortunately, not that many. The proof is that most organisations do not
have enough qualified successors for key positions, yet successors leading well
are vital for organisational stability and sustainability7. The main succession
problems are that leaders either stay on in leadership longer than is good for
them or their successors, or they leave earlier than they should. Both responses
cause similar problems of instability and a lack of continuity.
More About Succession

For example, most leaders stay on in in their roles until they leave the
organisation and are replaced by a similar sort of leader whose tenure follows a
similar pattern. Like a breaking wave, this “peak and crash” mode of leadership
is unsustainable because even if leadership candidates are being prepared
internally, there is little incentive for predecessors to have a stake in developing
their successions or successors. For example, in most corporate transitions,
predecessors are discouraged from having a personal stake in their own
successions because of genuine concerns about conflicts of interest.
20
While there are legitimate reasons for these concerns about favouritism, if
predecessors and successors are prepared, supported, and rewarded for being
sacrificial, many of these justifiable worries about conflicts of interest and risks
of nepotism are reduced or eliminated. Sacrificial Succession can help reduce
the risk of leader conflicts of interest even further because previous generations
of sacrificial leaders continue to be good ambassadors even after they have been
replaced as top leaders by successors of a similar sacrificial character.
Mike is a good example of an ambassadorial predecessor who continues to
have positive input into the organisation he once led. Sacrificial Succession also
helps solve another common legacy problem: the lack of commitment by many
younger generations to staying around long enough to become good leaders or
successors. For example, many younger people, especially in the western world,
do not see themselves staying in a job or organisation for more than a few years
before moving on to something else more rewarding or satisfying.
Therefore, due to these non-committal trends, giving the younger generation
incentives to stay on as potential successors is vital8. Sacrificial Succession’s
core focus on predecessors personally preparing successors in a discipling
relationship helps keep leadership candidates committed to the cause and more
likely to stay longer-term. Predecessors are expected to directly influence their
successors by personally preparing them for the succession, sacrificing
leadership for them, then staying on post-succession to help sustain these
successors. Because of the close interpersonal relationships fostered between
practitioners, Sacrificial Succession results in a much stronger commitment to
each other and the organisation than most other leadership transition models.
Less about Leadership

It is important to understand, however, that legacy problems occur even in
organisations that effectively train future leaders. This organisational problem is
not found in the production of potential leaders or of leadership candidates in
the pipeline. They have plenty of potentials. Their fundamental problem lies in
the inability or unwillingness of current leaders to sacrificially handover
leadership to younger generation successors at a time that suits these successors
more than themselves.
21
Here, in unpacking this problem, it must be emphasised: leaving a legacy that

outlasts a leader is much more about succession and much less about leadership.
I recall pointing out the reality of this problem to Jeff, a top leader in one of the
best practice national training organisations I know of personally. They have
trained and sent out hundreds of great potential leaders to work in other
organisations however are not effectively preparing successors themselves.
To his credit, he humbly and honestly acknowledged the reality of their
ageing leadership and the need for successors and succession. Jeff emphasised
that the Sacrificial Succession sticking point was in their top leaders. “My
leadership do not want me to release my role to a successor, neither do they
want to relinquish theirs,” was his frank assessment.
Another great leader of a multinational media company, Fred, had spent time
preparing a good potential successor. However, in this case, his leadership
refused to consider his protégé or any other offers of candidate successors
because they did not want him to hand over his leadership. They considered the
risk to stability too great, despite Fred’s commitment to stay on in an advisory
role to help his successor and the succession.
Younger generations of leadership candidates are unlikely to commit long-
term to organisations that, because of their ageing leaderships, obviously do not
intend to handover leadership any time soon. A systemic symptom of this
underlying problem are the increasingly ageing leaderships amongst many
farmers and pastors9. Not having enough successor candidates or not handing
over leadership to the next generation becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that
often results in successional dysfunction—or worse—failure!
Having seen organisations large and small face and often fail these
transitional challenges, and experienced these successional challenges and
failures myself, I set my mind to finding a better way of doing transitions. I
committed to learning how to leave a leadership legacy that can truly outlast
me. While I found much of the succession planning literature helpful in terms of
its focus on the leadership transition process, it did not deal adequately with the
character qualities required of good predecessors and successors, nor the
importance of the relationship between them.
Servant leadership, on the other hand, does explain many of the
22
characteristics of servantship required of leaders, such as putting others,

especially followers, first. However, servant leadership’s weakness in terms of
succession is its failure to explicitly address or even recognise the sacrificial
handover of leadership that encourages servantship to continue from one
generation to the next. Inadequately explaining this sacrificial relationship
between predecessors and successors is a major limitation of both succession
planning and servant leadership.
Through this learning process, especially from nationals working in difficult
fields, we now understand that the most successful successions come,
paradoxically, through leaders sacrificially putting their successors first in three
ways. Initially, by predecessors serving successors. They do this by preparing
successors in advance for succession. Second, by sacrificing leadership at a time
that most benefits these successors. Third, by sustaining the next generations of
successors even after they have become leaders by predecessors staying on to
help them. This book documents my search for answers to the succession crises
and challenges that we faced in our multinational projects and companies
working across many cultures and nations.
All About Sacrifice

Before sharing these legacy experiences and the principles that we learned
along the way about Sacrificial Succession, it is important to understand the
meanings of the key words I use to frame and explain this legacy paradigm.
This section will focus on these key definitions of sacrifice. Sacrificial
Succession is a systematic, cyclical process of sacrificially handing over
leadership from one generation of leader to the next. In a successional context,
such as a leadership transition, a legacy is a gift or blessing personally imparted
or given by a leader or predecessor to his or her successor.
In the case of Sacrificial Succession, the greatest gift or legacy imparted is
the sacrifice of leadership by predecessor at a time and place that most benefits
the successor. Being sacrificial is willingly and intentionally paying the greater
price and making the bigger sacrifice for someone else’s benefit. With
Sacrificial Succession, it is this vicarious or substitutionary self-sacrifice of
leadership by a predecessor for a successor’s success that is the key action. A
23
succession is about the transitional handover of leadership from one leader to

another and the time before and after this transfer of power and authority
occurs.
It must be acknowledged, however, that most successions are not sacrificially
planned with the success of successors foremost in mind. Instead, most
transitions are reactive, contingency plans for replacing a current leader with a
successor “when the need arises...,” or a more proactive strategic plan focusing
on “...who will do what and when” in an upcoming transition.
Indeed, both types of transition planning are necessary and normal, however
neither is personal or predictive enough for a Sacrificial Succession. A
Sacrificial Succession is personal, from predecessor to successor. It is as though
predecessors are saying to successors, “As I was prepared, so I am preparing
you.” Its timing is predictive: “I am telling you this now before it happens, so
that when it happens, you [and everyone else that needs to know] will know I
did what I said I would do by handing over my leadership10!”
Focus on Successors
Therefore, to personally leave lasting legacies, whereby the leaders or
predecessors sacrifice leadership at a time that most benefits successor success,
requires Sacrificial Succession. Its focus is fundamentally and unashamedly on
successors and their success in succession. Leaders lead and manage others.
Skilled leadership is about leading and managing others well, however the
scope of leadership in this book is limited to its positive impact on succession.
On this basis, succession focuses on transition. It encompasses the period:
before succession occurs, the pre-succession, during which leadership is handed
over—that is, the succession itself, and after leadership is handed over, the post-
succession period. Due to this focus, the stories shared in this book are mostly
about sacrificial leaders and their successions, with some examples of less
sacrificial transitions provided to help by comparison. The people chosen as
case studies are almost without exception great leaders, however the focus of
our analysis will not be on their leaderships per se.
Rather, their success as leaders will be judged by the quality of their
24
leadership transitions. This evaluation is based on the legacies they leave behind
through their successors and successions. Despite being from different eras,
cultures, and organisations, each of the leaders in our case studies were united
in their desire and efforts to leave a successful leadership legacy for themselves
and especially for their successors. Their successes and failures are the main
evidence used to present and apply these principles and practices of Sacrificial
Succession to leadership transitions.
Because many of the Sacrificial Succession stories shared in this book are
currently unfolding and, due to the sensitive nature of these projects or the
political and religious sensitivities in the hard places where these people
operate, many of their personal and work details must remain confidential.
However, it is because of these high risks and the fact that Sacrificial
Succession has not only survived (it has thrived!) in these challenging
environments of leadership uncertainty, that I find these real-life stories so
relevant and encouraging. Leaving a positive legacy that lasts longer than we do
is a challenge all of us face whether we like it or not. In these high-stake
environments, it is critical to do the transition right.
Sacrificial Succession provides a framework or model for leaving a
leadership legacy that lasts, because it is defined by the sacrifice of leaders
willing to put the last [successors] first. Serving successors by preparing them
as next generation leaders, sacrificing leadership for them at a time that
maximises their success as leaders and staying on to help successors continue
this sacrificial transition in the next generations is the purpose of every
Sacrificial Succession. Each of these steps in a Sacrificial Succession are
explained in more detail through the upcoming chapters, starting with the initial
step of predecessors serving their successors by putting them first.
Reflection
Think about the legacy that you are leaving right now in your life and
leadership…
o Is your legacy more sacrificial than selfish and why is this so?
o What steps can you take to leave a more sacrificially successful
legacy?
25
o Who do you know is leaving a sacrificially successful legacy and why

so?
26
2
Serve Successors
Much has been said and written about Servant Leadership or Servantship in
terms of leaders putting the needs of others, especially followers, before their
own. During the stage of serving successors in a Sacrificial Succession, many of
the same servantship principles of willingly coming last, humbly being the least
and putting the needs of followers first, apply11. However, it is important to
understand that the focus of serving in a Sacrificial Succession must always be
on preparing successors for the handover of leadership if it is to be genuinely
sacrificial from a legacy perspective.
With servant leadership, leaders can—and often do—faithfully serve their
followers for a lifetime. Provided the substance of their leadership is defined by
servantship, that is they are genuinely motivated to serve their followers and
others by putting them first, they are rightly regarded as great servant leaders
even if they do not hand over leadership to a successor. This is because, with
servant leadership, its end or expected outcome is servantship. Genuine servants
should have no aspirations beyond serving others whether through a leadership
role or not.
However, even a lifetime of servant leadership cannot work effectively
within the Sacrificial Succession paradigm because its primary purpose or
expected outcome is for predecessors to handover leadership sacrificially to
successors. For leaders to put followers before themselves is not genuinely a
Sacrificial Succession unless they sacrifice their leadership for their successors,
then stay on to help these successors and their protégés with their transitions.
Therefore, to be genuinely sacrificial, leaders must serve by preparing
27
successors for leadership, hand over leadership to these successors and follow
up this sacrifice with a period of helping sustain successors in their new
leadership roles. Serving successors in a Sacrificial Succession is only
successful through the sacrifice of leaders who do hand over leadership to
successors at the right time for them to succeed in their leadership transitions.
In a Sacrificial Succession, this sort of servantship is about leaders serving
their successors by willingly coming last and being the least in relation to their
protégés. An analogy of this relationship between leaders serving successors
and sacrificing leadership for them comes through valuing hard currency or
physical money or credit cards. Coins, notes or cards that are only etched on one
side and are blank or defaced on the other side are a worthless currency because
they are only legal tender if both sides of the coin, note or card have the correct
and legible watermarks, words and symbols.
A similar successional principle applies for leaders, even those who faithfully
serve followers by putting them first. Leaders who do not prepare followers as
successors, then sacrifice leadership for them, are not legal tender in a
Sacrificial Succession because one side of the successional coin, note or card,
the sacrifice of leadership, is blank. Therefore, genuinely serving successors in a
Sacrificial Succession must be about having both sides of the leadership coin
filled in. The first side of the coin, card or note is about serving successors by
preparing them to lead and the second side is that of sacrificing leadership for
them.
In a Sacrificial Succession, this act of service for successors cannot be
successfully implemented unless it is followed by the sacrifice of leadership for
them. Only when both sides of the proverbial coin are marked, with the first
side defined by the servant leadership of predecessors personally preparing
successors and the second side by predecessors sacrificing their leadership for
these successors can the currency of Sacrificial Succession be truly validated as
authentic.
Put the Last First

Therefore, serving successors sacrificially is explicitly about predecessors
28
putting the last [successors], first. To put the last and least first literally means
positively discriminating in favour of successors and their success as leaders.
By successors being successful in succession, predecessors are successful.
Putting this principle into practice is tough, as one of my colleagues, David,
shared when handing over his leadership and a large portion of his income to his
successor in a third world country devastated by decades of civil war.
Compounding these problems were seething ethnic hatreds exacerbated by
economic mismanagement due to the rule of an oppressive military junta. Once
the ‘rice bowl’ of Asia, now this country could barely feed its own people.
David’s tribe were one of the many nations in this country that had been
savagely persecuted by the dominant ethnic group. For David, Sacrificial
Succession in practice meant putting himself last and his successor first. He did
this by handing over leadership earlier than he had originally planned and
sharing more of his income, than he initially anticipated, with his successor.
Others, like Va and his team needed to be sacrificial by handing over
leadership to successors from the dominant ethnic group who, collectively, had
mercilessly persecuted their tribe throughout their long history together.
Naturally, neither side of these conflicting groups particularly liked or trusted
each other. For Va, Sacrificial Succession practically meant putting first
successors from an ethnic group that had historically persecuted his people for
centuries. To give you an idea of the enmity that existed between these people,
here is part of an email he wrote me:
“One of the famous sayings among our people is: ‘don’t waste your time with
this people; they can go to hell!’ Now, this mindset that I had for these people
has been eliminated and I embrace them with love.”12
Va learned to really love these people when he committed, as a leader, to
serve them as successors by sacrificially handing over leadership to them, which
included sharing financial support. For a leader such as Va to come last,
practically means that another, his or her successor, must come first.
Therefore, in a Sacrificial Succession, practical sacrifice means a leader must
put their potential successors and their opportunity to succeed first and foremost
in mind with everything they do. This willingness by leaders to serve through
being the last and least is not, however, an end in and of itself. Rather, this
29
service to successors is the means to an end: Sacrificial Succession. Here is

where Sacrificial Succession fundamentally diverges in focus compared to
servant leadership. In servant leadership or servantship the end is serving others,
because that is the calling of a true servant.
However, with Sacrificial Succession, practically putting the last first means
that predecessors prepare successors who are also willing to be the last and least
so that the legacy of Sacrificial Succession can continue from one generation to
the next. Herein is the ultimate purpose of being last and least: Leaders prepare
disciples and successors to willingly be the last and least who, when they
become leaders, also do likewise. They give up their leaderships for the success
of their successors. This is the primary calling of sacrificial leaders.
Because of this sacrificial purpose, the focus of a Sacrificial Succession is
less on leadership knowledge, its management strategies, and administrative
techniques and more on the sacrificial relationship between predecessors and
successors mediated by the handover of leadership. The process by which they
intentionally prepare for, and commit to, the handover of leadership from one
leader to another, then do it, is the focus of every Sacrificial Succession.
Decrease so Successors can Increase

A practical outworking of this relational legacy is that leaders intentionally
decrease their authority and influence over time, so successors can increase
theirs. This willingness by leaders to come last by putting their successors first
is ultimately what defines true greatness in leadership and in a Sacrificial
Succession. This process of predecessors decreasing their authority so
successors can increase theirs is about giving successors the opportunity to
lead—and supporting them in these leadership roles—even if there is doubt
about their ability to do so13.
Davi is a good example of this leadership greatness. He managed a huge
project in a country mentioned earlier, that was devastated by civil war,
preceded by generations of brutal tribalism, neglectful colonialism and
genocidal conflict. Davi had to deal with committing to this principle and
process of letting go of leadership in a Sacrificial Succession while struggling
with genuine doubts about the lack of leadership capabilities amongst his
30
potential, indigenous successors. Davi’s concerns were perfectly justifiable and

completely logical.
During this traumatic time, at least a third of this small country’s population
had been murdered and massacred. Understandably, its people were
traumatised, lacked hope and self-confidence. Many would spontaneously start
weeping uncontrollably when recalling their personal tragedies. Yet this was the
pool of potentials from which we had decided we must choose as our successors
if we were to impact this nation. To be genuinely sacrificial, Davi had to
commit to preparing indigenous successors and handing over leadership to them
from a pool of people that were arguably not the best leadership candidates.
As shared earlier, when first broaching the topic of transitioning to a national
leadership with Davi, his response was one of shock and disbelief. He cited
some good reasons not to go ahead with a Sacrificial Succession to indigenous
successors. His foreign leaders were better managers and more courageous than
the nationals. His pool of indigenous successor candidates was not mentally or
emotionally strong enough to be leaders. There were too many ethnic
differences between them as tribal people.
Rightfully, Davi worried about their maturity and ability to lead given the
trauma so many had recently faced. Almost all had lost family members in the
civil war. Many had suffered or witnessed extreme brutality. Despite these
enormous challenges, we went ahead with the leadership transition anyway,
preparing these unlikely leadership candidates as successors. I recall Davi’s joy
when seeing these successors at their graduations. They were confident and
hopeful for the future and ready to play their part in positively impacting their
new nation. What a transformation!
Knowing first-hand, the tragedy and trauma from which these leaders had
come, made their transformations that much more amazing! Nearly all these
graduates had become leaders when we formally handed over leadership to
them as our national successors in a special succession ceremony a few years
later. Indeed, it was a miracle!
Today, these successors continue to lead well even with the difficult and
ongoing political, social and economic challenges in their country. It is
important to note, however, that these unlikely successors would never have had
31
the chance to succeed, if their predecessors had not been willing to decrease in
the process of preparing them as leaders. Decreasing and increasing take time.
Prepare Successors in Advance

Preparing successors in advance for succession means talking transparently
through the details of a transition and its timing with successors and other
stakeholders well before it happens. Practically, this means leaders gathering
their followers together and speaking to them privately, yet as a group, in detail,
about their transition plans14. Each person needs to know their role in relation to
others, especially potential successors, so that conflict and confusion is
minimised during the transition process.
While this proactive transparency makes sense, and is in fact common sense,
it is not commonly done by leaders preparing for a succession. Mostly,
preparations for succession are shrouded in mystery or remain unplanned or
under-planned or at the very least not well communicated—because of fears
that transparency about a transition is too risky. Then, a leader suddenly dies, is
incapacitated...leaves or an external crisis occurs threatening to force them out.
An instance of this sort of crisis occurred when one of our projects was
threatened with closure by a country’s President. He publicly threatened to
revoke the visas of all our foreign workers and deport them. The President
partially acted on his threat by directing that one of our legally acquired
properties be confiscated and handed over to another party. This crisis spurred
us into starting the process of transitioning from a foreign leadership to an
indigenous one earlier than initially expected or planned.
Obviously, not all leaders and leaderships face such immediate or dramatic
transition crises, however almost all are or will be challenged by succession. For
example, in another country, our challenge is making sure that indigenous
successors are empowered to become leaders, so they can impact their own
nation more effectively. Being closer culturally and linguistically to their own
people, they are much more likely to have a beneficial long-term impact on their
nation than the foreigners and nationals from other ethnic groups and areas that
started the project.
32
In other places, it is simply the challenge of handing over leadership from

one generation to the next. Younger generations, especially in the developed,
western world, have a reputation for not committing to staying long-term at jobs
before moving on. This non-committal tendency is often used by older
generations as an excuse or reason for hanging on to leadership longer than they
should.
Especially in the developing world, another legitimate legacy concern is
about whether the quality of leadership that people from other ethnic groups or
nations can offer is of a sufficiently professional standard to be effective. All
leaders struggle with a preference for their own people or tribe as successors, be
they family members, friends or fellow professionals. This is another common
succession problem. Each of these successional challenges are helped and
potentially solved by preparing sacrificial successors well in advance of the
succession occurring, with the full knowledge and support of leadership.
For example, Pete, the founding pastor of a mega-church, started preparing
his successor and for his succession seven years before handing over leadership.
This was done with the backing and involvement of his leadership council. He
continues to sustain his succession by helping his successor with his leadership.
Preparing successors in advance takes time, planning and transparency.
Another great example of a forward-thinking succession planner is Mike, a
multinational company director. He prepared his young protégé over several
years before handing over leadership. Again, it is vital to note, that this was
done with the full knowledge and support of the company founders and trustees.
Mike continues to help sustain his successor and succession by playing a key
role as a personal mentor, public ambassador and company executive.
Similarly, whenever we decide to hand over to indigenous leaders in our
international projects, it is at least a three-year process from getting the support
of our leadership to then informing the teams of transitional milestones and
timelines and preparing successors for succession15. This three-year, transitional
process of successor preparation and sacrificial handover should not be
shortened unless it is unavoidable.
Despite these people being in different places and situations, coming from
different cultures and organisations, having varied educational, social and
33
professional backgrounds, each transition started in a similar way. We

committed to talking with stakeholders about succession before the transition
started, so that when it did start, they were prepared for it. This pattern of
getting the support of our leadership for starting a Sacrificial Succession,
personally preparing sacrificial successors and talking about transition well in
advance of it occurring are core elements of a Sacrificial Succession that cannot
be skipped or ignored.
For instance, in one of the countries mentioned earlier that had been
devastated by civil war, this process began by seeking the support of our
international leadership to start a Sacrificial Succession. This executive decision
was followed by gradually informing everyone in the local organisation on a
‘top-down’, need-to-know basis. We started by talking with the top leaders, then
eventually communicated with everyone else in the organisation about the
transition process. This communication plan explained how and when the
sacrificial transition was going to occur and what its implications were going to
be for each of the affected groups.
Be Confident in Uncertainty
Understandably, our foreign leaders did not feel ready to hand over
leadership nor did our indigenous successors believe they were ready to take it
on. Through undergoing this process of uncertainty about handing over and
taking on leadership many times now, we learned something surprising—even
strange—about Sacrificial Succession. If everyone, especially the predecessors
and successors involved, is completely comfortable with the timing of the
handover, then it is not the right time and usually too late. We now understand
that a key part of being sacrificial in handing over and receiving the mantle or
baton of leadership requires accepting—in fact embracing—a measure of
uncertainty, especially in hard places where crisis and conflict are expected.
Because of the complex and dynamic nature of the environments in which we
work, uncertainty is natural and requires faith in the process of Sacrificial
Succession and the power of vicarious sacrifice. In fact, we have found that
uncertainty about the right timing or exact timeframe for a transition, a lack of
complete confidence in the exact terms or conditions for a leadership handover
34
and some doubts about the abilities of people, especially the predecessors and
successors involved in the transition, is healthy.
While this observation may sound strange—even scary—this leap of faith
and trust in the Sacrificial Succession paradigm, and the people and processes
involved, echo what Junior shared earlier: “That Sacrificial Succession will just
be successful if you apply it.” Paradoxically, the success of Sacrificial
Succession is found in this somewhat strange uncertainty and tension. It
requires leaders to be counterintuitive about its terms and timing and trust in the
people and processes involved. Practitioners show their faith in Sacrificial
Succession by believing in the truth of these foundational principles and
applying them.
Surprisingly perhaps, support for the strange success of Sacrificial
Succession is confirmed scientifically by the special attraction people have to
sacrificial leaders and unselfish transitional processes. This willingness by
predecessors to sacrifice for successors and their leaderships allowing them to
do so, especially in challenging situations is, strangely enough, the catalyst for
creating order out of potentially chaotic situations or critical events16. The
attractor, in this case the predecessor, through their mediating sacrifice of
leadership, initiates, reproduces and sustains the basic structure or framework of
the Sacrificial Succession system. Their mediating sacrifice of leadership is its
underlying strength.
In a Sacrificial Succession, order out of chaos or order in complexity is
obtained through this mediating sacrifice of leadership. Due to this willingness
of predecessors to act sacrificially for successors, even the most chaotic of
situations cannot exceed the limits of this strange attractor due the superiority of
Sacrificial Succession over other forms of leadership transition. Sir Francis
Bacon (1909) in his Essay XI, Of Great Place, about greatness in leadership
affirms this truth by saying that “by indignities, men come to dignities...17”
In other words, the Sacrificer obtains the greatest dignity through the
indignity of making the greater sacrifice. A similar observation can be made
about Sacrificial Succession through the sacrifice of leadership by predecessors
for successors. Strangely, through the indignity of sacrificing leadership and
putting a successor first, a leader and their legacy becomes truly dignified and
35
strengthened through that vicarious act. The ‘strange’ principle or paradox here
is that a leader’s authority is strengthened and perfected through their sacrificial
weakness.
Disciple Successors Personally

It is important to re-emphasise here that preparing successors is not just about
a leadership training pipeline or process of preparing people as leaders who can
become successors, if necessary. It is vital not to misunderstand this statement.
Training leaders is important. Leadership training is not in and of itself,
however, preparing successors for Sacrificial Succession. A Sacrificial
Succession’s key strengths are found in the close, direct relationship between
predecessors and successors, their commitment to sacrifice for each other and
the timing of the succession in successors’ favour. Its confidence lies in the faith
and trust that predecessors and successors and their leaderships have in each
other and the paradigm of Sacrificial Succession.
Therefore, the success of a Sacrificial Succession is ultimately about
predecessors personally preparing their own disciples as successors and being
supported by their leaderships in doing so. “I will make you my successor,”
rather than “I will mentor you as a leader,” is an important distinction in focus
and practice here, because it is about current leaders personally preparing
potential successors themselves and being explicit about the purpose of their
successional relationship. ‘If you become my disciple, I will make you my
successor,’ is the operative principle here.
A disciplic relationship focuses on predecessors modelling discipline
themselves and moulding a disciplined character within the lives of their
successors. This close personal relationship between predecessor and successor
is what philosopher John L. Williams, mentioned earlier, calls “true
succession”. It is theorised to occur only where successors are directly
influenced by their predecessors18. Jewish tradition is said to describe this direct
relationship between predecessors [rabbis] and successors [disciples] with a
saying: “May you always be covered by the dust of your Rabbi.” Whether true
or not, it helps explain the mutually agreed investment in time and effort
required of leaders and their protégés.
36
Applied to a leadership transition, such a close relationship requires

predecessors to personally prepare successors for a succession well in advance
of it occurring. Beginning with succession in mind is the starting point and
preparing leaders as sacrificial successors is the practical outcome. As my
colleague, Junior, a career project manager puts it, for leaders, this requires a
‘paradigm shift’19 in thinking—and ultimately action. In a Sacrificial
Succession, this conversion involves leaders putting the success of their
successors before their own success. Such a paradigm shift can only occur when
a current mind-set, mentality or worldview about leadership is replaced or
erased to accept then apply another, in this case Sacrificial Succession.
For Junior, it required faith—a leap of faith—in the principles of the new
paradigm of Sacrificial Succession whilst rejecting his old paradigm of power
leadership. As he shared with me at the time, his old paradigm was defined by
competition and a desire to ‘win’. Evidence of this leap of faith is discarding the
old paradigm of first, first [me first] leadership and embracing the new
paradigm of last-first [me last] Sacrificial Succession. Applying it to a
leadership transition proves a change has occurred. This same paradigm shift
was required of me, as it was of Junior and will be for you. As Junior says, we
can have confidence in these timeless principles of unselfish sacrifice because
they are true, historically and prove themselves true today20.
Make Everything Known

Another key part of serving successors is for leaders to make everything they
know from personal life experience and have learned along the way from their
‘fathers or mothers’ as guides and leaders, known to their successors21. In a
Sacrificial Succession, this interaction is relational rather than content focused.
In other words, it is much more about a predecessor’s relationship with a
successor and what they learn through that direct, true-succession, relationship
rather than what they are taught about leadership by their predecessors. These
sacrificial principles are caught through the personal relationship and friendship
between predecessors and successors rather than taught through instructional
content alone.
Sacrificial Succession is modelled by leaders acting sacrificially towards their
37
successors. Understanding this close connection between predecessor and

successor can be challenging for leaders in cultures where there is no real
history or concept of this sacrificial modelling even in their own language, let
alone in practice. Where there are no words in a language or tradition in a
culture to accurately convey a sacrificial idea, then it is a difficult concept to
understand.
Moreover, if the concept of sacrifice is misunderstood, then reinterpreting it
in a positive rather than negative way becomes increasingly difficult. These are
some of the challenges of explaining a concept such as Sacrificial Succession
that is counter cultural—even illogical, despite its intrinsic truth!
For example, I recall explaining Sacrificial Succession to our national leaders
in an Asian country devastated by more than 50 years of military junta rule and
ongoing civil conflicts exacerbated by ethnic and religious hatreds. I described
Sacrificial Succession to them in English and they interpreted and translated my
words into their national language. As they did so, they looked increasingly
confused—and troubled. When I asked them if there was a translation problem,
they explained to me that the word for ‘succession’ in their language comes
from martial arts. For them, succession meant violently defeating a foe in a
martial arts kick boxing match, hence their difficulty in reconciling this violent
concept with being sacrificial in succession.
Change the Paradigm

Obviously, not all cultures and languages interpret succession in this way.
However, everyone applying Sacrificial Succession will require a paradigm
shift demonstrated by a change of thinking then action about leadership from
the first coming first to the last coming first. Challenging paradigms about
leadership in a practical way is one of the reasons why Jesus washed his
disciple’s feet before teaching them about putting the last first and reminding
them that the greatest leaders serve and sacrifice for their successors22. With
Jesus being a Jewish Rabbi, his disciples did not expect their Leader and
Teacher, who should always come first, to put himself last and be the least and
put them first and foremost by washing their feet.
Jesus challenged their paradigm about leadership through his simple yet
38
profound gesture of putting them first by washing their feet. Unlike the above
example of servantship and sacrificial leadership, many leaders love to show
their power over their followers. Important leaders and managers strive to use
all the authority they have got over people and that is the norm in their power
relationship23. There is even a tradition that one great leader told his followers
to always withhold some of what they had learned from him from their
followers. His logic was that this would keep them from becoming smart
enough to take over their position as leaders.
Whether true or not, this is not the way of Sacrificial Succession. Less
sacrificial leadership traditions encourage leaders to withhold information from
potential successors to maintain their own power and influence. Other transition
strategies overlook handing over to internal successors in favour of outsourcing
from a pool of external candidates. It is important to understand that any
leadership systems which maintain their power and authority over successors
primarily through management hierarchies and transactional authority or social
separation are incompatible with Sacrificial Succession.
To be sacrificial, predecessors must serve their successors and put them first
by handing over leadership to them at a time that is most opportune for them to
succeed. This is a supportive, filial role, such as that of master and apprentice or
guru and disciple, rather than instructive as a coach, mentor, teacher or trainer
does with players or students. It is an important and vital distinction between
Sacrificial Succession and other leadership transition systems that focus more
on the process of transition rather than the relationship between predecessors
and successors.
In a Sacrificial Succession, predecessors make everything known that they
can to their successors in an open, three-way conversation between them and
those in authority and leadership over them. This open conversation extends to
disciples and protégés as future leadership candidates and successors who will
replace current leaders, because the aim is to make everything about the
transition known well in advance of it occurring. Doing this transparently and
honestly is a risky endeavour, especially in volatile places and times, yet is
another vital part of the Sacrificial Succession transition process.
Ultimately, such actions are evidence that a sacrificial paradigm shift has
39
occurred. Having started and run projects and companies in some of the most
unstable and volatile places on earth, we can speak about the strength of this
Sacrificial Succession transparency with confidence from personal experience.
Understandably, in places and times of uncertainty and crisis, our natural,
human tendency is to be secretive and opaque in our communication.
Again, confronting these leadership norms is an example of the paradigm
shift required in a Sacrificial Succession. An instinctive caution about openly
communicating transition plans must be replaced by a willingness to share
transition plans well in advance of them occurring, despite the potential risk of
being betrayed or compromised. Without being foolish about it, this is a risk
worth taking with a Sacrificial Succession.
Remember one of the cases mentioned earlier where the President of the
country publicly threatened to deport our foreign managers? Compounding this
threat, a parliamentary inquiry into our activities had been established and two
of the largest religious institutions in the country had made formal complaints
against us through the Parliament. Publicly announcing our transition plans at
such a time as this seemed crazy.
Talk about Transition

Despite the risk, we decided after careful consultation with our friends and
supporters to go ahead with these transition plans in a transparent manner
because we believed that these timeless Sacrificial Succession principles are
more important than temporal and immediate circumstances24. No doubt about
it, it was risky. This process of communicating openly with all interested parties
and stakeholders took time and was done in stages. I started by sharing these
transition plans with those in authority over me. It was important for me to get
my leaders’ support for this sacrificial transition strategy before I shared these
plans with my team.
Following this authorisation from my leadership to start the transition, I met
with our country manager and informed him of our succession plans. For him
personally, it meant handing over to local successors and eventually moving on
from a country that he and his family had poured their lives into for nearly 16
years. Remember his incredulous response? Understandably, his immediate
40
reaction was one of shock, anger and disbelief. “They are not ready for
leadership! They are too immature, there is too much potential for conflict!” he
exclaimed.
To his credit, even with these legitimate misgivings, we started the transition
process. Our initial audit showed that of our 50 managers, only one was a
national (though not an indigenous local). Even he had not been empowered to
manage a team under his own authority. None of our most promising
indigenous, local candidates were qualified to manage the work and none of
them had prior experience managing similar scale projects.
However, it is important to note that we had made time to observe most of
them and their characters at least over a few years. Our main criteria for
potential successors were people who had demonstrated over this time-period of
at least three years, the willingness to voluntarily serve without expectation.
When promoted to leadership roles these successional candidates had proven
their willingness to serve others rather than themselves through these positions.
These voluntary acts of service rather than professional expertise were what
most strongly qualified these candidates as potential successors.
Entrust the Work to Successors

Despite these enormous internal personnel problems and external political
pressures, we went ahead with the process of planning and communicating our
succession plans with our people. First, we identified potential successors based
primarily on their servant characteristics rather than professional capabilities,
which we believe always must come second to a candidate’s heart and
character25. Nationals who had stood with us through the good and bad times
and proved themselves faithful servants, willingly coming last and being the
least, were the ones we put first as protégés and started preparing as potential
successors.
It is important to acknowledge that trust and faith in people diminishes when
linguistic, cultural, ethnic, demographic and generational boundaries are
crossed. These differences are compounded where people have been
traumatised due to conflict. The nationals we were preparing as successors met
41
all these potentially negative criteria. When we first shared that we were
planning to hand over leadership to them, and eventually leave, they were
initially devastated. Many openly wept, crying out that they were losing their
parents. Others were angry that we were leaving them as orphans in a land
already devastated and bereft of role models, especially good leaders.
In spite of these misgivings, when we explained that we would prepare them
to lead and that we would walk beside them in the handover of leadership and
help sustain them as leaders in an overall time commitment of about seven
years, they began to display more confidence. As we prepared them for
leadership their confidence grew into a strong sense of purpose to positively
impact their nation.
When we faced local legal and political opposition to our activities, they did
not run to us for help or a solution to the problem, as they once did. Instead,
they responded proactively themselves, telling their foreign predecessors that it
was now their time to stand up and take leadership and responsibility of their
nation’s problems—and be a part of the solution. For us it was truly inspiring!
And you know what? An amazing transformation took place! They
transformed from a disparate group of people broken and traumatised by
genocide and conflict who could not contemplate the possibility of their
founding fathers and mothers handing over leadership, let alone leaving, to a
strong team taking the lead in dealing with local conflicts head on in a mature
manner. Their transformation became the talk of the nation and region! Hence,
our director’s comment about this transformation being “a miracle!”
Indeed, it was a miracle! It was such a joy to observe our successors’
increasing maturity. It is important to understand and reiterate, however, that
this successional process takes time, transparency, humility and honesty. There
must be a willingness to take and accept the risk of interested parties who are
not our friends finding out about our succession plans. Eventually, we publicly
shared our transition plans with our entire organisation (more than 2000 people
at the time), including external stakeholders.
Despite the risk of our enemies and competitors knowing in advance of our
transition plans, and using these plans against us, we considered it more
important to entrust this work to faithful successors in an open and transparent
42
way than fear our enemies and the competition finding out. It is worth noting
that we had several ‘Judases’ during this time who tried to betray us and
actively worked against us26. Betrayals occur. They are an expected reality in
life, particularly for leaders working in hard places. By being transparent and
honest and sacrificial it was much more difficult for these Judases to do damage
to us by destroying our unity.
This process of entrusting the work to faithful successors in an open and
transparent manner started with me personally informing our country leaders of
these succession plans and explaining each transitional step to them. We
followed up these meetings by our county leaders and I meeting with our team
leaders together in a group to explain these plans to them and its implications
for them. Then, we met together with our potential successors and their
predecessors to explain the implications of the transition plan for them.
Finally, we informed and explained in public meetings and forums our
transition plans to all the people in our organisation at the time. Our leaders at
each level of the organisation answered questions and explained their respective
roles to attendees. The work of preparing faithful successors and entrusting
leadership to them and communicating these transition plans, takes time. In this
case it was around three years. These successions are not by decree. Rather,
they are implemented through fostering caring and loving relationships with
people that need to be helped and guided step-by-step through the transition
process from start to finish.
Communicate the Plan

Usually, a Sacrificial Succession communications plan starts with agreement
by senior leaders to implement the plan. This is followed by official
correspondence, well in advance, to senior country leaders and partners to
prepare them for the plan’s implementation. If logistically possible, such
consultations usually involve a series of personal, face-to-face meetings as well.
After that, senior leaders communicate these plans publicly with stakeholders.
These private and public meetings can take up to year to compete and should
always occur prior to the handover of leadership. Having a clear
communications plan and sticking to it with all the parties involved is vital to
43
avoid miscommunications and misunderstandings.

For example, in another country where we are sacrificially handing over
leadership, this nation has been defined by religious radicalism and disunity
between religious groups. In outworking a communications plan for this
transition, I first informed my leadership. Then, I wrote to and spoke with our
senior leadership in-country who oversee this project, informing them of our
transition plans, three years prior to it occurring.
Following that, we had a series of meetings with our team and partners and
contractors to explain in more detail who was responsible for what during the
transition. We continue routinely having these sorts of transition meetings to
ensure that everyone is kept informed of our progress.
Another key question we ask in a transition is whether our local partners want
to continue the project after we have handed over or finish it. Ending or
continuing well have two completely different focuses. Ending well requires us
to shut down and decommission the project, whereas continuing well means
that we need to prepare our in-country teams and partners to carry on the work
after we have left.
Either way, preparing and handing over to sacrificial successors is a
consistent expectation of either type of project transition outcome.
Overall, at least three years must be allocated to disciple a successor who has
already been identified as being willing to serve others by being the last and
least and preparing them and everyone else for the upcoming succession.
Serving successors by preparing them as sacrificial leaders allows no shortcuts.
To be fair to all parties involved in the transition, there must be intentional time
allocated to confirm a candidate’s sacrificial capabilities and prepare him or her
for the most important step of Sacrificial Succession, putting the last first by
sacrificially handing over leadership mid-term or tenure.
Reflection
Think about what “putting the last first” means to you and your work…
o Who are the last and least in your life and leadership?
o How do you serve them by putting them first?
44
o Are you intentionally discipling someone?

o Do you have a successor in mind?
45
3
Serve to Sacrifice
Once this preparation of successors is complete, then leadership must be
handed over sacrificially at a time and place that gives them the best
opportunity to succeed as leaders. This is easier said than done due to the self-
interest of both predecessors and successors, who seldom mutually agree on the
timing for a handover of leadership. Self-interest is understandable given that
few predecessors believe a protégé to ever be truly ready to succeed them. If
you have children, you know what I mean!
Similarly, the self-interest of many [potential] successors tend towards one of
two extremes: over-confident, believing they are qualified to lead before they
really are or a lack of confidence, feeling they will never be ready for
leadership. Given these human factors, the timing of the handover of leadership
in a Sacrificial Succession must be agreed and committed to by its three main
parties: the leadership, predecessors and successors, for it to occur in a timely
and effective manner.
The truth is, few leaders are aware of their impending mortality or ‘use-by-
date’. Consequently, they tend to put off preparing successors or handing over
leadership. This failure to hand over leadership sacrificially in a timely and
orderly manner often leaves a legacy of uncertainty or even crisis behind for
successors to try and clean up. The resulting lack of legitimacy and clarity
usually leads to conflict or concern as successors compete for leadership
positions prior to succession or in its aftermath.
Such successional conflicts are commonly observed in dynasties and have
been major contributors to some of the biggest family, political and religious
46
schisms of all time. Historical examples include the division of the Davidic
Kingdom into Judah and Israel after King David’s death, the warring Sunni and
Shia houses of Islam following Muhammad’s untimely demise and the conflicts
within Buddhism following Buddha’s unexpected death27.
Compare these successions with the more orderly ones of John the Baptist to
Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples, despite them too facing crisis in their
transitions. Both John and Jesus were executed as were many of their
successors. Here, the practical questions about these cases are as applicable for
successions today as they were then: 1) Who were prepared in advance as
successors? 2) How much notice was given of the impending succession? and 3)
Were the ones who took over leadership [the successors] the ones prepared as
leaders by their predecessors?
If each of these questions cannot be answered definitively in the affirmative,
it is not a Sacrificial Succession and is unlikely to be a successful transition of
leadership from one generation of leader to the next. The opposite example of
dynastic leader self-interest, which is defined by leaders staying on to
negatively control or influence their successors for their own benefit, are leaders
leaving before successors are appointed.
In the case of early departures, understandably predecessors fail to play a
meaningful part in their own leadership transitions. Often self-described as the
professional approach to managing successions, it is a common practice in the
corporate-political, western world of today. Here, predecessors normally do not
personally prepare successors and are usually excluded from the transition
process due to legitimate concerns about self-interest and conflicts of interest.
Handover at the Right Time

Between these two extremes of predecessor intervention or exclusion, both
historical and contemporary research confirms that sacrificial and ambassadorial
leaders who stay on to help their successors and their successions are ultimately
more effective than those who don’t28. Both handing over leadership too late in
the transition cycle or leaving too early to play an effective part in the transition,
fail the test of true succession and Sacrificial Succession, because in both cases
47
a predecessor does not have a positive, personal stake in the legacy they leave
behind.
Remember, true succession requires a successor to be directly influenced by
their predecessor. This only comes through a close personal relationship
between the two parties. Similarly, Sacrificial Succession requires predecessors
to personally prepare successors (serve), hand over leadership to them
(sacrifice), then help these successors with their leadership (sustain). Leaving
too early or too late in the transition cycle makes fulfilling these three main
types of self-sacrifice practically, impossible.
As the British soldier and statesmen, Sir John Bagot Glubb, in his 1976 essay
the Fate of Empires and Search for Survival wisely observed: “Any small
human activity…requires for its survival a measure of self-sacrifice and service
on the part of the members. In a wider, national sphere, the survival of the
nation depends basically on the loyalty and self-sacrifice of the citizens. The
impression that the situation can be saved by mental cleverness, without
unselfishness or human self-dedication, can only lead to collapse.29”
This same principle of unselfish self-sacrifice applies to successions in family
businesses as much as it does to corporate transitions or any other leadership
handover. In a leadership transition involving a genuinely Sacrificial
Succession, it is important to understand that a mutual self-sacrifice on the part
of both predecessors and successors is required. The balance must always be in
favour of successor rather than current leaders. By predecessors and successors
mutually humbling themselves in this sacrificial way, both become truly great
in different ways.
Make a Mutual Sacrifice

I think my friend Junior explains the practicalities and benefits of this
principle of mutual sacrifice in a Sacrificial Succession best in his own words:
“It is a great pleasure to share something that has changed my paradigm of
leadership. I admit that it took me a while to understand the pillars of this
vision, especially the principle of Sacrificial Succession, that to me is at the
heart of our project. I realised that Sacrificial Succession is not just a principle
48
of our project, but a timeless principle, that will just be effective if it is put into
practice. I’m leading the transition of a huge project in a country devastated by
war and genocidal conflict, and it has been a great challenge. What makes this
project unique is the way the transition is being crafted. It now has 56 local
leaders. Each is individually prepared to do their job. What changed when we
applied the principles of Sacrificial Succession?
• There is no conflict. Everyone is focused on the same goal. We see
ourselves in our successors when they serve others with excellence. We
rejoice in their success like it was our own achievement.
• There is no rupture with the founding fathers. Even after the succession the
mutual respect is maintained, so there is a continuous monitoring by the
founding fathers.
• There is a synergy of forces. Since we are not tied to posts or positions, it
leaves us free to see the needs and opportunities in other fields.”
To successfully apply Sacrificial Succession in Junior’s case, both the
predecessors (founding fathers) and the successors (indigenous leaders) had to
make sacrifices for each other. For the founding fathers, the sacrifice required of
them was to hand over leadership and finances to successors who they doubted
were ready as leaders.
For their successors, it was to accept the mantle of leadership despite them
believing they were not yet ready and preferring the ongoing leadership of the
founding fathers. Because of the tragic recent history of conflict in their country
and their inexperience as leaders, this sense of not being ready was
understandably heightened. The key to success here was that each party was
willing to mutually humble themselves, one for the other, by each making the
sacrifice that was necessary for a Sacrificial Succession to occur at the right
time.
Weight in Favour of Successors

These predecessors made the greater sacrifice by handing over leadership at a
time that best suited their successors. Despite them thinking these successors
were not yet ready as leaders, they handed over, sacrificing a significant
proportion of their salaries, which was given to their successors. Initially it may
49
seem counterproductive and counterintuitive for current leaders to sacrifice

leadership at a time that best suits successor success and for predecessors to pay
the greater price in a succession. Because this sacrificial way is not the norm in
most leadership successions some uncertainty is understandable and to be
expected.
In most cases, successors are expected to pay the greater price in proving
their worth, ‘hunger’ and desire for the contested position. They succeed by
winning the role, often in competition with or by eliminating other contenders.
However, the importance of this sacrificial weighting being in favour of
successors is that it is much more difficult for these new leaders to then claim
personal credit for winning a leadership role when it has been gifted to them by
the greater sacrifice of their predecessors. Successors that have been gifted the
role of leadership as an unmerited favour by their predecessors and those in
authority who approved their appointment cannot (nor do they have a right to)
boast in their own leadership ability and achievements30.
Because this unmerited favour requires mutual humility on the part of the
successors who freely receive it and the predecessors who freely give it, this
altruistic act helps reinforce Sacrificial Succession as being a mutual sacrifice
between one generation of leader and the next31. This mutual sacrifice by
predecessor and successor one for the other is what makes Sacrificial
Succession much more sustainable than other sorts of leadership transitions,
because of its inbuilt mutual dependency. Each is mutually dependent on the
sacrifice of the other for success.
Based on their specific role in a transitional phase and cycle: predecessor,
successor or disciple, each generation of leader is required to make different
sorts of sacrifices to sustain the succession. For example, a disciple’s sacrifice is
serving their counterparts (the predecessors and successors) without
expectation. Through personally modelling each of these sacrificial roles at the
right time during the transition, each person respectively experiences each of the
sacrifices of leadership that are necessary to qualify them as sacrificial disciples,
successors and predecessors over the life of a Sacrificial Succession.
Therefore, to leave a leadership legacy that truly lasts requires leaders to pay
the greater price in a succession by humbly sacrificing their leadership at a time
50
that specifically benefit’s their successors’ success more than serving their own
interests. By humbly receiving this sacrificial gift, successors are
acknowledging its unmerited favour. This mutual sacrifice by predecessors and
successors for each other helps to sustain the sacrificial nature of the succession
in their own lives and leaderships and in the disciples or protégés being
prepared as the next generation of successors.
Lay Down Leadership

Anyone who says that Sacrificial Succession is impossible to do should think
again, because of Junior’s testimony. In the country where he sacrificially
handed over leadership—one of the world’s newest nations—it had one of the
worst records of genocidal warfare and ethnic conflict in the world. To be
honest, the question that was often asked (or at least thought) by us was, “Could
anything good come out of this nation?” Because of Junior and his successors’
positive experience of thriving in these most adverse conditions, leaving a
leadership legacy that lasts is proven possible through Sacrificial Succession.
In fact, the testimony of their Sacrificial Succession success in this nation is
even being talked about in a neighbouring country. Neighbouring peoples are
saying: “If it can be done there it can be done here too!” Notwithstanding these
great probabilities for success, a Sacrificial Succession must start and be
sustained by leaders who understand vicarious self-sacrifice and are willing to
sacrificially practice it. Practically, such an unselfish sacrifice requires leaders
to lay down their leaderships for their successors. The importance of a close,
interpersonal relationship between predecessor and successor in sacrificially
handing over leadership cannot be overstated.
We have found personally, and the recent and historical research previously
cited confirms, that laying down leadership for the benefit of successors is most
sacrificial where there is a close personal relationship or bond between the
parties. This bond of love, friendship and mateship, between friends, colleagues
or mates who work together and sacrifice for each other is exemplified by
emergency service personnel and soldiers. Their sacrificial relationships have
proven to be some of the strongest of all human relationships known, trumping
even sibling relationships.
51
There is no greater love than the willingness to lay down one’s life for a
friend,’ is the truism here32. The willingness to sacrifice—even die—for a
friend or mate, even strangers, is the essential moral foundation and social glue
that holds people together to achieve a purpose far greater than themselves.
Collectively, such unselfish sacrifices make societies much stronger than those
that do not routinely practice such altruism. Unfortunately, where such vicarious
sacrifices exist, this sort of altruism is often taken for granted rather than
celebrated. However, where it is missing, the absence of such individually
heroic, sacrificial actions for others in a society is to their great loss and
impending failure as a nation.
A similar principle of altruism applies to sacrificial leaders in a succession.
The difference is that sacrificial leaders are not [usually] required to literally die
for their successors. Instead, predecessors are encouraged to be ‘living
sacrifices’ by putting themselves last and their successors first, to help ensure
their protégé’s success and the ongoing sustainability of the succession33. Being
willing to sacrificially lay down one’s leadership for successors is evidence of
the paradigm shift mentioned earlier. It is a practical demonstration by a leader
of a mind transformed from normal ‘me-first’ leadership practices to unselfish
‘me-last’ ones.
Pay the Greater Price

Ironically, by making the bigger sacrifice, predecessors ultimately become
the greater, because by them paying the greater price, they are the benchmark
and example of sacrifice to successors. In so doing, predecessors leave a legacy
for their successors to do what they have done in the past, in the future, which is
to hand over leadership sacrificially too. An inspiring example of this principle
of ‘true greatness’ comes through a farmer friend of mine, Keith.
Formerly a top government bureaucrat, he became a stud breeder of cattle,
then sold his farm to a young, entrepreneurial farmer. He could have walked
away with the money (a sizeable amount) and retired. This is what most people
would do with his means and at his age-stage of life. However, Keith did not do
this. He recognised that this young man needed help running the farm while he
worked another business to pay his loan off. Keith continued as caretaker of the
52
farm and home he established, sacrificing his leadership by staying on to help

sustain a successor who, in some ways has relationally become the son he never
had.
Here is another practical example of true succession and Sacrificial
Succession relationships at work. This wonderfully rewarding relationship
between predecessor and successor would never have been possible if Keith had
been unwilling to sacrifice his leadership by staying on to sustain the succession
or walked away without genuinely handing over leadership. In either case, I
doubt this young entrepreneur would have survived financially or logistically if
he had not been humble enough to receive Keith’s sacrifice of leadership and
willingness to stay on to help sustain the succession.
Neither predecessor being willing to stay on as a guide and helper or a new
leader accepting this sustaining role is easy. Believe me, because I know both
predecessor and successor, personally, it has taken time and is an ongoing
struggle of their wills. This struggle of the wills is precisely the sort of paradigm
shift required of leaders who want to be genuinely sacrificial. Their willingness
to pay the greater price, whatever that price may be is exemplified by the story
or parable told earlier about the leader who went out to find contractors for his
project.
Recall how he agreed payment with his first recruits and continued recruiting
more workers over the life of the project, right up until the project was nearly
complete? Then, when the project finished, the workers came to get their
bonuses. Strangely, the leader instructed his manager to pay those who had
started last, first and give them the same amount as the workers who had started
first34. Note how jarringly ‘unfair’ this parable is unless the paradigm of putting
the last first is understood as the rationale behind the story.
Sacrifice Leadership
While this ‘last-first’ approach to leadership counters conventional wisdom,
it makes the point about Sacrificial Succession well. Unless leaders willingly
sacrifice by sharing their positions and payments with successors through the
process of putting them first, then Sacrificial Succession is unlikely to
53
practically work. Practically speaking, you could call this approach a sacrificial
form of job sharing. Three main principles apply here in relation to the: 1)
position, 2) practice and 3) process of leadership in a sacrifice succession.
Positionally, leaders need to serve their successors by putting them first,
which means preparing them as protégés in anticipation of handing over their
leadership role to them as successors. This position of servantship (willingly
coming last), despite being the superior of a successor is what defines genuine
servant leadership in such a leadership transition. It starts the practical process
of Sacrificial Succession and is a prerequisite for it continuing generationally.
By practically taking this leadership position of servantship, predecessors can
devote themselves to their successors by preparing themselves and their
successors for the upcoming sacrifice of leadership. Here, following the process
of putting sacrifice into practice by taking the steps necessary to implement the
succession are more important than mere intent to sacrifice leadership. These
serve, sacrifice and sustain steps, and their procedures, will be practically
explained in a later chapter where each of these Sacrificial Succession
principles are applied in more detail.
For this section, the act of sacrificing leadership is the focus. As a reminder,
the process of Sacrificial Succession requires a leader to do three things well.
They are to serve successors by preparing them for the succession, sacrifice
leadership for them by handing over at a time that bests suit successor success,
then sustain successors and the succession by staying on to help current and
future leaders. This three-stage process does not fundamentally change from
one generation to the next.
Paying this greater price, positionally, and practically, by serving, sacrificing
for and sustaining successors can only be made by a predecessor personally
invested in the process. Otherwise, it is not genuinely sacrificial, because if
successors make the greater sacrifice through their own personal efforts in a
succession it will be naturally self-interested, unless it is mediated by another.
In this case, the best mediator is a predecessor who has already been through the
process.
A historical example of this sacrificial principle (which tragically continues
to this day through human trafficking) is found in the ransom price paid to free
54
a slave. Even though a slave could potentially save or raise enough money to
pay the ransom price for his or her own freedom, to be freed required a slave
master to accept the payment being offered. Usually, an advocate or mediator
was required to broker the deal or make the payment on behalf of the slave who
remained in servitude until redeemed35.
A similar analogy applies with someone kidnapped for ransom. While the
kidnapped person may personally have the money to pay for his or her release,
usually someone else must be willing to mediate or broker the payment on their
behalf and the kidnapper must also be willing to accept the payment offered as a
ransom for their freedom. Where such tripartite arrangements occur, a person
must want to be freed, a mediator must be willing to pay the price and the one
with the power to accept the redemption must accept the payment or sacrifice
offered. Without exception, the greatest sacrifice is always the one made by the
person in the stronger position for the weaker.
Note here, the key role of the mediator who makes or brokers the sacrifice. In
a Sacrificial Succession, leadership has the authority over current leaders and
potential successors to grant them the freedom to sacrificially give and receive
leadership. Therefore, it is those who are in authority who must release the
predecessors to pay the greater price by sacrificing their leadership at a time that
best suits their successors and give successors the freedom to receive this gift.
Practically, it is this mediatory act of sacrifice by predecessors for
successors, authorised and accepted by their leadership, that defines Sacrificial
Succession. Acceptance of this ‘ransom’ price or payment is a three-way
(triune) tri-partite agreement between the Leadership, Predecessors and
Successors. Again, by analogy, it is like the relationship between the Judiciary,
(judge and jury), Advocate and Defendant. It is the mediation by the advocate
for the defendant, legally accepted by the judge, and jury in some legal systems,
that frees or ransoms the defendant from the penalty or charges.
Understand the Purpose

A question often asked as we share this paradigm of Sacrificial Succession
with those holding a more traditional leadership paradigm is: “How do these
principles of Sacrificial Succession really differ from servantship or servant
55
leadership?” In answering such an important question, it is imperative to

reiterate that the purpose of Sacrificial Succession and servant leadership are
fundamentally different. It is true that many of these Sacrificial Succession
principles are based on servant leadership and servantship due to their aim of
putting others, especially successors, first.
However, as mentioned earlier, the key difference between servant leadership
and Sacrificial Succession is in the outworking or application of sacrifice,
because the end is not to just serve but to intentionally sacrifice for successors
by handing over leadership. Thus, to reiterate once again…it is vital to
understand this difference in purpose as the key distinguishing factor between
servant leadership and Sacrificial Succession. For Sacrificial Succession, it is
the sacrificial handover of leadership along with staying on to help sustain
successors that fundamentally distinguishes it from servantship and servant
leadership.
With servantship, the means and the end are the same: to put others first by
serving them. Sacrificial Succession is different because the means is to
sacrifice, and the end is the handover of leadership. If a handover of leadership
does not occur, then it cannot be called a Sacrificial Succession. It can be called
servant leadership, even sacrificial servantship, but not Sacrificial Succession. It
is the sacrificial preparation of successors and handover of leadership to them
along with staying on to sustain these successors, post-succession, that truly
defines Sacrificial Succession.
Sacrifice Intentionally
Without the intentional handover of leadership by predecessors to successors,
there is no genuine Sacrificial Succession legacy. A legacy, like a will, requires
planning, intent and execution. If you have ever written a will you will know
that it requires a deliberate course of action about how you intend to leave a
legacy behind and to whom. It is an intentional choice about a certain plan of
action culminating in the handover of assets by an executor to a recipient.
Similarly, the handover of leadership in a Sacrificial Succession requires
predecessors to prepare sacrificial successors then hand over leadership to them
according to a plan mapped out and communicated beforehand.
56
A genuinely sacrificial leader will remind his or her successor(s) many times
before handing over leadership of this impending event. Just like making an
effective will, a Sacrificial Succession is planned together with its executors
[leadership] who are in authority, its principles or testators bequeathing
leadership [predecessors], with its beneficiaries [successors] foremost in mind.
The mediator of such an agreement or covenant to sacrifice leadership is the
sacrificer, in this case the predecessor, who has been given the authority by
leadership to make this sacrifice for successor.
In the case of a will, it is necessary to establish the death of the one who
made it, because a will does not take effect until the one who made it has died;
it cannot be executed while he or she is still alive, unless otherwise agreed of
course. Similarly, with Sacrificial Succession, the ‘death’ and execution of the
will is the handover of leadership by predecessor to successor and it must be
confirmed unequivocally, like a will, that this sacrifice of leadership has been
made. Obviously, the ‘death’ of a sacrificial predecessor is not meant literally,
since he or she is required to be the ‘living sacrifice’ spoken of earlier, who
stays on after handing over leadership to sustain a successor. As the mediators
of this covenant, predecessors must ensure that successors receive their
promised inheritance of leadership. Such an agreement or covenant is formal
and personal.
By formal, it means that predecessors must ensure that this covenant
governing the handover of leadership is approved by those in authority over
them and is enacted accordingly by its executors. A personal covenant denotes
the close relationship which a predecessor has with a successor and the mutual
responsibilities each has for the other in the Sacrificial Succession36. Without a
planned and organised handover of leadership designed well in advance to help
successors succeed, a Sacrificial Succession remains an ideal never fully
achieved, like a well-planned will that is never properly executed because the
inheritance is not bequeathed.
Similarly, a Sacrificial Succession that does not involve the mid-term or
tenure sacrifice of leadership, like an unexecuted will, cannot claim to leave a
genuine legacy until these plans are carried out. Failure to handover [sacrifice]
leadership at the mid-point of a transition ultimately robs successors of the
benefit of the sustaining hand of a predecessor to help guide and advocate for
57
them, which is the last part of leaving an inheritance, a truly lasting legacy for
successors.
Reflection
Think about the “the greater sacrificing for the lesser” from the examples
given in the book of Junior, Mike and Pete…
o What was the sacrifice made and why was it sacrificial?
o What was the mutual sacrifice made one for the other?
Identify someone you know who has made a similar “greater for the lesser”
sacrifice and describe what made it ‘sacrificial’…
o On what basis was it a “greater for the lesser” sacrifice?
o How was the sacrifice vicariously or unselfishly motivated?
List the actions that you would need to take for your current service to be
considered worthy as a sacrifice of leadership…
o Who would be the recipient of this sacrifice of leadership?
o How would you go about doing it and what are the risks?
58
4
Serve to Sustain
The last part of a Sacrificial Succession, following the service of preparing
successors and sacrificial handover of leadership is that of predecessors
sustaining newly appointed leaders. Predecessors do this by advocating on
behalf of their successors with leadership and reminding their successors of all
that they have learned about Sacrificial Succession during their time of
preparation. Helping these new leaders prepare their disciples as the next
generation of sacrificial successors is another key role of a successor advocate.
You cannot have success without successors is the adage to always keep top of
mind.
To keep a Sacrificial Succession going successfully requires at least three
generations of sacrificial people working together. These three generations are
the predecessor who is helping to sustain his or her successor, the successor as
incumbent leader preparing disciples and protégés, and the disciples being
prepared as potential successors. Having these three generations of leader
(predecessors, successors and disciples) at any given time being prepared or
already prepared to sacrificially handover leadership to successors are what
sustains Sacrificial Successions.
The sustaining power of sacrificial leaders who stay on to help their
successors is vital to the longevity of a Sacrificial Succession because it helps to
support the other two legs (serving and sacrificing) of the successional foot
stool. To put it another way, the sustain stage is the third strand of the
successional rope that binds together the service and sacrifice of a leader for
successors into a Sacrificial Succession. This relational foundation built on
59
trust, assures the strength of unity between the previous, current and next
generations of leaders.
Remain to Sustain Successors

This heading can be paraphrased as: ‘Don’t leave orphans!’ Sacrificial
leaders don’t just handover their leadership then leave. Instead, they stay on to
help their successors who are now the new leaders in their leaderships and help
prepare the next generation of ‘disciples’ as future successors. Playing this
advocative and ambassadorial role is vital for predecessors who want to stay on
to help sustain their successors. The guiding wisdom of a Sustainer is what
helps successors do even greater things than their predecessors.
Unfortunately, most leaders do not stay on to sustain their successors in this
way. Instead they either leave far too early to have any positive effect on
successors, hang on to power way too long till they are forced to leave, or
orchestrate their successions to suit themselves rather than their successors.
These more typical ‘hero-leader37’ leadership exit styles are the antithesis of the
sacrificial leader required to sustain a Sacrificial Succession.
Given the predominance of these self-serving leader exit styles in transitions
there is an understandable reluctance on the part of many organisations and their
leaderships to consider giving a leader the opportunity to stay on post
succession to help sustain successors. Remember what one of my cross-cultural
mentors told me about his experience of working in a certain leadership culture
for more than 50 years? He recalled that during this considerable time period his
experience of successions involved either an organisational split or the
incumbent leaving in a pine box.
In other words, leaders were succeeded by others when they died, or the
organisation split into factions. Obviously, neither the organisational split or
‘pine box’ succession when a leader dies or is incapacitated, sustains an
organisation or its successors. Having worked with leaders from this culture in
some of the successions shared in this book, I have personally seen how
Sacrificial Succession has diametrically changed the paradigm of leadership and
succession amongst some of them.
60
To their credit, some of them personally changed how they led. In the process
they became sacrificial leaders who prepared indigenous successors, handed
over leadership to them at the most opportune time for successor success and
continued to sustain their successors in leadership for as long as they could. I
recall that after a few months of being replaced, one of these sacrificial leaders
personally thanked me for sharing these altruistic principles with him. He
shared how his paradigm of leadership had changed more than he could have
ever imagined. No longer did he competitively want to lead from the front.
Instead he was willingly leading from behind.
Parent rather than Teach

Notwithstanding the importance of education and training to leading well, it
is vital for predecessors, successors and their leaderships to understand that in a
Sacrificial Succession the sustaining ‘parental’ role of predecessors cannot be
duplicated by instructors, trainers or managers. Based on the principles of true
succession, it is only when there is a close filial relationship between
predecessor and successor because the first has served the last by preparing
them for succession, handed over leadership for successors’ benefit and now
sustains them that a Sacrificial Succession can genuinely occur.
It is the influence and nature of this close relationship between predecessor
and successor that is the glue that sustains a Sacrificial Succession from one
generation to the next. Rather than the content of the instruction or type of
training provided or the position of the manager or seniority of the mentor
giving the instruction, it is the true succession relationship between predecessor
and successor that is the key to an effective Sacrificial Succession.
By personally preparing a successor, the predecessor takes responsibility for
the leader they have created as a parent does for their offspring. This level of
care and concern is more than what a trainer or instructor does for a student they
have trained or taught, or a manager or even coach does for someone on their
team. While there is an understandable risk of nepotism if former leaders use
this close ‘parental’ relationship between them and their protégés for unfair
advantage, evidence shows that these dangers are often overstated. In many
cases, the reality is that these risks are unproven.
61
Indeed, leaders who serve successors sacrificially post-succession have

proven themselves to be some of the best sustainers of successions precisely
because of the personal stake they have in the success of their successors38. In
fact, it could well be that the lack of truly successional relationships between
most current and future leaders is one of main reasons why there are not enough
qualified or committed successors ready to take over leadership positions and
why current leaders are unwilling or hesitant about handing over leadership to
successors. Successional relationships require high levels of trust between
practitioners. Trust develops over time in true succession relationships. Note to
self: As with a precious commodity, trust takes time develop.
Changing the nature of a predecessor-successor relationship from being
transactional, based on a competitive ‘give and take’ between current and future
leaders to being sacrificially reproductive by predecessors ‘putting the last
[successors] first’, requires a paradigm shift in thought and action. When done
genuinely, a Sacrificial Succession changes the dynamics of the relationship
from superior and inferior positions or roles to that of a more egalitarian
friendship and fellowship. Where everything leaders have learned from their
predecessors is willingly made known to their successors and disciples, the
chances of a successful transition increases exponentially.
Be Proactive rather than Reactive

Thus, the sustaining role of predecessor is not a passive activity. Rather, a
Sustainer proactively helps a successor succeed in their new leadership role in
two main ways. As a legacy, by reminding successors of everything they have
been taught and, through advocacy, sincerely acting for and on behalf of
successor interests with leadership. It is important to understand both legacy
and advocacy as a primarily parental relationship rather than a managerial role.
Because of this filial relationship, without exception in a Sacrificial Succession,
the most legitimate protégé is always the one who has been personally prepared
by predecessor as successor.
An example of this successional relationship comes from families. Biological
children are usually easier to train up than adopted children, mainly because
their parents have been able to spend more time training them from a young age
62
and their protégés are more closely related genetically. Secondly, biological
children usually carry less historical ‘baggage’, than adopted children. By
analogy, biological ‘parents’ are usually more aware of these issues because of
having been with their offspring from the beginning, whereas adoptive parents
may have to help their adoptees unlearn lots of bad habits.
Similarly, with Sacrificial Succession, a ‘biological’ protégé personally
prepared by a predecessor is usually a more effective successor than an adopted
‘child’, even if adoptee successors are better trained and qualified professionals.
To reiterate, in a Sacrificial Succession a successor is not necessarily the best
person qualified for the job by their skills, profession or education.
Rather, they are qualified for the job due to the relationship of being born into
and created from this truly successional relationship of serving others and
sacrificing leadership for them. Despite using this analogy of the filial
relationship of biological parents and children to describe the relationship
between predecessors and successors in a Sacrificial Succession, due to their
close genetic and familial association we do not, as a rule, endorse dynastic
successions from parents to their own biological children39.
Practically, we outwork this true succession principle in our projects by
requiring our predecessors to personally prepare successors that they have
discipled themselves from the target nation that they are impacting. To avoid
biological conflicts of interest such as dynastic nepotism, in most of our
projects, predecessors are explicitly forbidden from discipling or handing over
leadership to successors who are family members. Preparing successor
candidates from their own ethnic or professional group, when we are working
across cultures and professions, is also discouraged.
Again, this is an intentional choice, then outcome, of ‘putting the last first. It
is unashamedly a form of positive discrimination. Similarly, when applied to
foreign leaders, national successors rather than other foreigners are chosen as
successors. We base this successional principle on the requirement that each
leader prepares at least two protégés from the indigenous people group or nation
that we are impacting as their successors. On this basis, a predecessor’s success
as a leader is directly measured in terms of the legacy they leave behind
through, and advocacy they provide for, their successors. In successional terms,
63
no successors mean no success or legacy.

In a few cases, this successional principle of always preparing local
successors may be difficult or impractical to apply initially, because indigenous
protégés may not be appropriate successors due to their lack of specific skills or
expertise in a certain technical field. However, even with limited exceptions to
this rule, whereby ‘adopted’ heirs rather than personally prepared disciples are
ultimately chosen as successors, the ideal should always be that the most
legitimate heirs in a Sacrificial Succession are our own successional
‘‘offspring” or disciples.
Successors personally prepared by their predecessors, who have proven
themselves eligible by having first served without expectation, must be the rule
rather than exception. Requiring ‘proof of service and sacrifice’ is always more
important than mere proof of concept or capability, despite both these factors
being important in choosing future leaders. It is important to reiterate that
proven servantship and sacrifice are always the more important criteria in a
Sacrificial Succession, despite the obvious need for technical, professional or
managerial competence.
64
Teach and Remind Successors

For predecessors, helping to sustain a succession is about teaching successors
everything they know and reminding them about all the things they have learned
together. This sacrificial relationship between predecessors and successors is,
more than anything else, a friendship, fellowship or mateship, because history
and science proves this emotional closeness to be the strongest human bond of
all. Unsurprisingly, research consistently confirms that these emotional bonds of
fellowship prove even stronger than biological relationships between brothers
and sisters, parents and their offspring40.
A predecessor who sacrificially hands down a legacy that emotionally
sustains the next generation of successors after he or she has gone can do so
successfully only if it follows on from handing over leadership sacrificially
preceded before that by a period of serving these successors as potential leaders.
There are no shortcuts in a Sacrificial Succession; neither are there in friendship
and mateship because the altruistic bonds that form emotional closeness come
from mutually trusting and sacrificing for each other over time.
This emotional closeness between practitioners (predecessors, successors and
disciples) is the metaphorical glue that binds together a Sacrificial Succession
from one generation to the next. Like the glued [laminated] pieces that,
together, make a piece of plywood stronger than its individual layers, is the
triune, intergenerational unity of predecessors, successor and disciples who,
together, strengthen a Sacrificial Succession. If this sacrificial nexus between
generations breaks down, then the Sacrificial Succession effectively ends. As
such, Sacrificial Succession is, by its very nature, only one leader or generation
away from failure if they decide to act selfishly rather than sacrificially in a
transition.
Therefore, in a Sacrificial Succession, the quality or substance of the
sacrificial relationship between predecessors and successors is ultimately more
important than the content of the teaching or instruction given, because it is
what builds and maintains the emotional closeness [trust] that sustains the
succession. Having these sacrificial foundations does not mean, however, that
the content of the teaching and training topics are unimportant, or that coaching
65
and mentoring techniques do not apply. These structural factors contribute to

the foundations of Sacrificial Succession as the meat and muscles rather than
the bones which are fundamentally based on the relationship between
practitioners.
Predecessors teaching successors everything they know and reminding them
of all that they have been taught, especially about Sacrificial Succession, is a
vital legacy. This process of reminding and remembering is about reinforcing
what Sacrificial Succession means for each generation of leader or potential
leader, who is serving as a disciple, sacrificing as incumbent or sustaining
successors as predecessor.
Instead of teaching and reminding primarily being about the transfer of
knowledge and information from one generation of leader to the next, it is more
about the mutually shared experience of having been through or taken part in
each of these stages of serve, sacrifice and sustain. These rituals of shared
experience, history or liminality between practitioners called “communitas,” are
a powerful a powerful force for social cohesion41. In a Sacrificial Succession
this liminal, shared journey together through the highs and lows of the key
transitional points of mutual service, sacrifice and sustenance are what nurtures
and sustains this transition from one generation to the next.
Shared communitas or experience are the relational ties that bind
predecessors, successors and disciples together in a holistic Sacrificial
Succession rather than simply a shared knowledge by practitioners of its parts
and processes. Remember, there must always be at least three generations of
leaders representing these three transitional stages working in partnership
together at any given time for Sacrificial Succession continuity.
Therefore, it is ideal that each practitioner has personally undergone—or at
the very least witnessed—the three stages of serve, sacrifice and sustain42. To
be effective, this triune team of predecessors, incumbents and disciples, must
individually represent one of the three stages of the Sacrificial Succession cycle
of serve, sacrifice and sustain. Each team member (Servant, Sacrificer and
Sustainer) must mutually support the other and, in turn, be supported by their
leadership. Otherwise, this triune team cannot survive long-term. It is why the
next characteristic of a Sustainer in a Sacrificial Succession, advocacy, by
66
(pro)actively supporting successors, is such a vital role.
Advocate for and Guide Successors

‘It takes one to no one!’ is something that children throw back and forth at
each other when taunting and arguing, yet it is statement that holds a lot of
truth. A predecessor needs to be sacrificial if they are to help their leadership
choose sacrificial successors. It takes someone sacrificial to know someone who
is sacrificial. Who better to help choose the next generation of sacrificial
successors than those who have personally sacrificed their leadership for their
successors? Hence the importance of these triune relationships outworking as
advocacy by predecessor for successors.
Successful advocacy is vital both for the successors themselves and for the
Sacrificial Succession, because having someone to advocate for us who
intercedes or mediates with leadership on our behalf helps with the inevitable
mistakes and wrongs that we all, and especially new leaders, make43. This
mediation, intercession, intervention, and advocacy by predecessor for
successor with their leadership is vital in a Sacrificial Succession. The
importance of advocacy for successors is one of the main reasons why
predecessors are so strongly discouraged from an early exit.
A predecessors’ role is proactive—even pre-emptive: To defend successors’
interests, intervene and intercede on their behalf; to promote successor success
as though it is their own. Ongoing predecessor advocacy also helps filter out the
potential self-interest of an incumbent leader who is preparing successors to
eventually replace him or her as leader. It is important to reiterate here,
unequivocally, that this sacrificial team does not act independently of their
leadership. Those who are in authority need to support a Sacrificial Succession
through each transitional cycle and phase.
Ultimately, it is the decision of leadership about who should be the next
successors, not the predecessors or incumbent leaders alone44. It is, however,
the job of predecessors to advocate with leadership for their (potential)
successors within this authorised hierarchy of leadership who support and
oversee a Sacrificial Succession. Having the support of leadership and being
67
accountable to their authority is a key part of the checks and balances that form
the framework of a Sacrificial Succession and help it run effectively and
successfully from one generation to the next.
Without this hierarchy of leadership supporting a Sacrificial Succession by
keeping its practitioners accountable, it is highly likely that favouritism will
creep in and the Sacrificial Succession will ultimately fail. Other than providing
this system of checks and balances, this triune hierarchy of leadership oversees
predecessors who are handing on, handing over or handing down leadership to
successors. They are also the ones who must objectively determine the rewards
and remuneration for leaders who act sacrificially rather than selfishly.
In a triune sense, leadership advocates for predecessors and successors who
act sacrificially by rewarding them for their good work. This is a different form
of advocacy to the proactive support that a predecessor provides to their
successors. However, both forms of advocacy, first by leadership for
predecessors and, second, by predecessors on behalf of successors are required
for a Sacrificial Succession to work well.
This close, triune, three-as-one, relationship between leadership, predecessors
and successors, like the rope of three strands analogy mentioned earlier, is the
sustaining strength of Sacrificial Succession. Together one generation of leader
helps the next apply these sacrificial principles to their own leadership
transitions and that of their successors.
Reflection
Think about the two main roles of a Sustainer: one of which is as an advocate
for successors and the other being their helper…
o How do you practically go about sustaining a successor in this dual-
focus role?
o Who are the leaders in authority that you will deal with as successor
advocate?
o What are some of the challenges you will face as successor advocate?
Making everything you have learned known to your successor as you help
them requires friendship and fellowship…
68
o What levels of trust (High or Low) do you currently have with the
recipients of your sustenance and why?
o What steps can you take to improve levels of trust that better sustain a
successor?
69
5
Apply Sacrificial
Succession
You may have noticed by now that much of what we have shared about
Sacrificial Succession comes in threes. To be effective, three generations of
leader are needed at any given time: Predecessors, Successors and Disciples.
There are three types of sacrificial leadership that serves, sacrifices for and
sustains successors. The three stages of Sacrificial Succession: Serve, Sacrifice
and Sustain correspond with a three-part transitional cycle of pre-succession,
succession and post-succession.
Understanding the fundamentally triune nature of Sacrificial Succession and
its inter-relationships is vital, because each of these three related elements
combine to make a Sacrificial Succession, yet each have their own unique
characteristics and characters that individually act to apply it successfully at the
right time. Because of this design, at least three generations of sacrificial leader:
predecessors, successors and disciples, must always be operating together in a
Sacrificial Succession, to make it viable. Their ‘true succession’ legacy from
one leader to the next is what makes this triune relationship so critical.
For example, those in authority, the leadership, must do everything within
their power to encourage and reward leaders who serve, sacrifice for and sustain
successors. They do this by envisioning together a Sacrificial Succession from
one generation to the next by empowering their leaders to be sacrificial and
entrusting the leadership in an ongoing way to sacrificial successors. Similarly,
70
the three related stages of a Sacrificial Succession: Serve, Sacrifice and Sustain,
are all part of the one transitional process.
Despite these procedural similarities, different acts of service, sacrifice and
sustenance are required of predecessors, successors and disciples. Each are
playing their unique roles of servant, sacrificer or sustainer in the Sacrificial
Succession at specific times during this transition. Successfully applying a
Sacrificial Succession to a leadership transition requires each practitioner to
understand their respective roles at a given time in each of these transitional
stages, the relationships between each role and stage, and their timing.
Practically applying these transitional principles to a Sacrificial Succession
within this triune framework is the primary focus of this chapter.
Be Leadership Authorised
In a Sacrificial Succession, predecessors are the first generation, successors
are the second generation and disciples are the third generation protégés of these
previous two generations. Predecessors must be sent to serve or be
commissioned by their leaderships to do so if they are to leave a similar legacy
with their successors and disciples45. To have the authority, legitimacy and
longevity to outwork a Sacrificial Succession legacy through the next
generations of successors and disciples, a predecessor must be leadership
authorised and sent. Evidence of a predecessor’s humble attitude in action with
successors and disciples are a positive indicator of the current Sacrificial
Succession’s health and its future potential for success and effectiveness in the
coming generations.
The practical power of this Sacrificial Succession principle was excitedly
shared with me by David, who talked about his successor Lee and their disciple
Kho. They were working in what had been a difficult project and challenging
area with significant local opposition from competitors.
David said, “While I am usually excellent at starting new projects, I really
struggled with my message being accepted in this area. When you challenged
me to sacrificially hand over my leadership and financial support to my
successor, to be honest, I was sceptical. I am a better communicator and Lee is
71
not as charismatic or forceful as me. Yet an amazing thing happened. Within six
months of Lee taking over we had more than 20 families involved in our project
and we are now discipling a local man, Kho, as our successor!”
Being authorised by leadership to enact a Sacrificial Succession, that is to
carry it out, requires others to understand that everything sacrificial leaders are
doing in a Sacrificial Succession is not by their authority alone46. Rather it is
backed up by those in authority over them. This hierarchy of leadership
authority that envisions a Sacrificial Succession in their organisation, empowers
leaders to apply it and entrusts leadership to their successors is another practical
example of the triune nature of a Sacrificial Succession in action.
Having a supportive leadership such as this are the precursors or conditions
needed to start a Sacrificial Succession, because without their authority and
support, sacrificial leaders cannot legitimately carry out and sustain a Sacrificial
Succession over three generations of leader. Furthermore, a Sacrificial
Succession requires a leadership to agree on and support different principles of
remuneration and reward for leaders practicing Sacrificial Succession. Their
support is required throughout the transition from one generation to the next for
it to be successful. These practical principles of remuneration and reward for
sacrificial leaders will be discussed later in this chapter.
Serve, Sacrifice and Sustain

Now, we consider the roles of predecessors, successors and disciples as
servants, sacrificers and sustainers of the Sacrificial Succession. Due to the
importance of the ‘true succession’ principle of close interpersonal relationships
in a Sacrificial Succession, ultimately the relationships between practitioners are
even more important than the relationships between other elements such as the
serve, sacrifice and sustain stages and the process of applying Sacrificial
Succession itself.
Therefore, the starting point for successfully implementing a Sacrificial
Succession, once leadership has approved a Sacrificial Succession, must always
be with the people who are putting it into practice. They do this best when each
person understands their individual roles either as Predecessors, Successors or
Disciples, and models the characteristics of Servant, Sacrificer or Sustainer
72
required of them in each of these roles.

A foundational understanding of how these triune roles and relationships
work within each serve, sacrifice and sustain stage of the Sacrificial Succession
is a key starting point. Each of these Sacrificial Succession characteristics, their
respective roles and the relationships between them, are described in more detail
through the following three sections, so this foundational understanding can be
applied effectively to a leadership transition.
Servant: Willing to Serve and Be Served

The main characteristics of a Servant in a Sacrificial Succession are found in
the willingness to be prepared as successors and prepare others as successors.
Willingly “serving and being served” as a key characteristic of servantship is an
important indicator of sacrificial leadership and of a candidate’s suitability as a
successor because it enables others to make a character judgement about their
leadership potential in a Sacrificial Succession.
For current, incumbent leaders or predecessors, their servantship should be
defined by a willingness to choose and prepare sacrificial successors and plan
for their own sacrificial leadership transition in consultation with those who are
over them in authority. Leaders being prepared as successors, serve through
their current leadership positions. The way that they serve and prepare others
through these leadership and management roles and their willingness to be the
last and least in relation to others during this time are notable characteristics
qualifying or disqualifying them as future successors. This readiness to serve
their predecessors is also a sign of humility and another qualifying factor that
confirms disciples’ suitability as future leaders.
Demonstrating a consistent willingness to serve the last and least who are less
than them is evidenced by practitioners doing nothing out of selfish ambition or
empty pride. Instead, in humility they consider others more important than
themselves. Such leaders look not only to their own interests, but also to the
interests of others, by being like-minded, proving they are united in spirit and
purpose. For potential successors or disciples, their key servantship role is to
learn to serve without expecting that their service is a means of gaining
leadership.
73
Then, if selected as leaders, disciples, as potential successors prove

themselves by serving others through their leadership roles without expecting
that their service or skills will necessarily ‘win’ them the position of successor.
Humbly accepting those in authority serving and preparing them for service and
leadership is also a characteristic to confirm for potential successors. Ongoing
indicators of personal pride or prejudice in positions or roles, or towards others,
are warning signs of selfishness that should disqualify candidates.
Sacrificer: Willing to Sacrifice and Be Sacrificed

For
The key characteristic of a Sacrificer is their mutual willingness to sacrifice
and be sacrificed for. Consistently practising both characteristics demonstrates
an attitude of humility that is vital for sacrificial predecessors, successors and
disciples in a Sacrificial Succession. For outgoing leaders, the ones handing
over leadership, their primary role as Sacrificers is to pay the greater price by
making the bigger sacrifice for their successors. Predecessors prove this
sacrificial characteristic best by handing over leadership at a time and place that
benefits their successors more than themselves.
Sacrificial outgoing leaders who are being replaced by successors need to be
sustaining current and future successors in their transitions if they are to be
effective in this mediatory role. Successors who have been sacrificed for by
predecessors paying the greater price, who accept this gift humbly, without
pride in their own ability or a sense of winning this leadership role in their own
strength, best qualify as sacrificial successors.
If incoming leaders [successors] do not evidence this humility during the
handover of leadership from their predecessors to themselves, this is a negative
indicator of their future sacrificial leadership potential and, ultimately, the
Sacrificial Succession’s ongoing success. Leadership should remove such
unsacrificial people from selection, even at this late stage, before they do the
Sacrificial Succession irreparable damage. Deselected or demoted candidates
then need to be given opportunities to prove over again their servant
characteristics before being given another chance of leadership.
The role of Sacrificer for current leaders is to submit themselves to serving
74
the next generations of successors and disciples along with the sustaining help
of their predecessors. They do this by preparing for their own Sacrificial
Succession and their disciples for this transition. Evidence of this mutual
humility in action is a positive indicator of the current Sacrificial Succession’s
health and its future potential for success. Mutual sacrifices, one for another, are
indicative of the positive potential for ongoing effectiveness through the coming
generations.
For potential successors, their key role as a Sacrificer is to be a disciple who
is modelling service to others without expectation of winning a leadership
position through it. Disciples prove this vicarious quality by voluntarily and
willingly coming last and being the least. This sacrificial service should be
shown to superiors, peers and especially towards those in subordinate positions.
Through unbiased service to others in both non-leadership and leadership
roles, disciples help predecessors and successors in the smooth transition of
leadership from one generation of leader to the next. Failure to demonstrate
servantship in either of these roles should disqualify a disciple from becoming a
successional candidate, no matter what their other capabilities may be.
Sustainer: Willing to Sustain and Be Sustained

For Sustainers, the willingness to sustain others and be sustained by others is
the most important characteristic of all for this role. Regarding predecessors
who are now newly replaced leaders, their primary role as a Sustainer is to
advocate for current successors and future leaders. A Sustainer does this by
mediating between successors and leadership, continually reminding them of
their roles and responsibilities as sacrificial successors. Advocating for
successors with leadership, that is interceding on their behalf, is another key
sustaining role.
Current leaders also help sustain Sacrificial Successions by selecting and
preparing sacrificial successors as their imminent replacements and disciples as
future protégés. Sustainers model this role best by planning for their own
sacrificial leadership transitions with the guidance of sacrificial predecessors
who act as advocates and helpers. Predecessors, especially, have a responsibility
to remind—and reprimand, if necessary—successors of everything they have
75
learned during their serve and sacrifice stages of leadership. Sacrificial

sustainers help with accountability for all parties, especially successors.
Future leaders who are being discipled as successors act as Sustainers by
submitting to being prepared as sacrificial successors. Even when in positions
of leadership, potential successors act as servants through these roles without
expecting that this service will necessarily win a promotion. These future
leaders help sustain the succession through facilitating a smooth transition by
helping to disciple the next generation of successors together with their
predecessors. They support current and outgoing leaders with their successions,
especially the logistics of the transition, so they are better prepared for these
events themselves. The willingness of Servants, Sacrificers and Sustainers to
sustain and be sustained is what should consistently define each of them in their
respective Sacrificial Succession roles.
Model Sacrificial Leadership

Encompassing these three main roles are seven characteristics or qualities
that Servants, Sacrificers and Sustainers must model as sacrificial leaders in a
Sacrificial Succession. Even though every one of these character qualities must
be modelled by each generation of leader, there are certain qualities that should
be more evident than others in each leader at certain stages of a Sacrificial
Succession. How each of these three stages of Serve, Sacrifice and Sustain are
outworked together with the seven characteristics of sacrificial leadership, are
explained in the following three sections.
Servants must Serve

During the serve stage of a Sacrificial Succession there are two key qualities
of service that must be modelled by sacrificial leaders, be they disciples being
prepared as potential leaders, predecessors preparing successors for leadership
or successors being prepared for leadership. These are also the sacrificial
leadership qualities that must be most evident during the “serve stage” of a
Sacrificial Succession. For servants to serve effectively in a Sacrificial
Succession, they must model the following two sacrificial service qualities
especially well:
76
• Serve without expectation – Willingly come last and be the least

without expecting that this service will necessarily win a leadership
position. This quality especially applies to disciples being prepared
as successors for future leadership roles. It should also be used as
an ongoing measure for judging the service motivations of current
leaders.
• Minister through leadership – Serve disciples and successors
through leadership positions. This stage expressly includes
personally preparing protégés as sacrificial successors. This quality
of ministerial service through a leadership role particularly applies
to predecessors and successors in their main areas of authority and
to a lesser extent disciples as they are given opportunities to lead.
Sacrificers must Sacrifice

Leaders who do not minister sacrificially to others through their leadership
positions and fail to serve others without expectation have no place as
successors in a Sacrificial Succession. If predecessors are unwilling to serve
sacrificially, they will almost surely be unwilling to sacrifice their leadership at
a time that most benefits successor success. For Sacrificers to sacrifice
effectively in a Sacrificial Succession, they must model two forms of sacrifice
especially well:
• Ransom by paying the greater price - This quality particularly applies
to predecessors handing over leadership to successors through sacrifices
that ensure their success. Their sacrifice is defined by current leaders
making the greater sacrifice and paying the bigger price, often literally.
A practical example is a predecessor taking a pay cut to share this
remuneration with his or her successor.
• Sacrifice by laying down leadership - A mutual sacrifice such as this
requires humility on the part of both predecessor and successor. For a
predecessor, it is laying down leadership at a time and place that best
suits successor success. By successors humbly receiving this gift of
leadership, they are sacrificing the opportunity to take credit for winning
this leadership position by their own efforts. Disciples model sacrifice
by consistently putting the ‘last first’.
77
Sustainers must Sustain

Sacrificially handing over leadership is only the half-way point of a
Sacrificial Succession for outgoing leaders. To be effective, they now must
sustain their successors, both as current and future leaders. For Sustainers, there
are two main qualities that must be modelled effectively in a Sacrificial
Succession:
• Advocate for successors – Mediating and interceding with
leadership, especially on behalf of new leaders, and with their
potential successors and disciples. Advocacy and mediation for
successors is a vital role for a Sustainer who wants to leave a
legacy that truly lasts through to the next generation of leaders.
• Remind successors – Communicating the principles of Sacrificial
Succession and qualities of sacrificial leadership that must be
modelled and applied by each generation of leader is the main
responsibility of a sustainer. It includes reminding and
reprimanding successors. This filial role of master-mentor is based
on predecessors having modelled these legacy principles in their
own lives and leaderships.
Care for Each Other

Underpinning all these qualities is the seventh and most important quality of
sacrificial leaders in a Sacrificial Succession, that of maintaining an intimate
friendship, fellowship, care and love for each other. This close mateship (care
for each other), between predecessors, successors and their disciples, proves
itself as it is practically applied from one generation to the next. It is the
evidence of a true succession because of the emotional closeness this
relationship between predecessors and successors and disciples foster. These
true succession relationships of mutual care for each other are the glue that
holds a Sacrificial Succession and its practitioners together. This high-level care
for each other is the basis for the willingness of practitioners to sacrifice for
each other.
Such a filial friendship is not transactional, because it is not built on mutual
benefit or profit. Neither is it dynastic, founded on favouritism or family ties.
78
Rather, it is a friendship and fellowship-based relationship whereby everything

successors have learned from their predecessors is made known to their
disciples in humility, coupled with a burning desire to see them do the very best
they can in their Sacrificial Successions. Leaders must consistently model these
qualities of serving, sacrificing for and sustaining successors during the serve,
sacrifice and sustain stages of a succession. Only then, do they qualify as
sacrificial leaders because they demonstrate the qualities needed to leave a
Sacrificial Succession legacy that outlasts them.
Sacrifice at the Right Time

Note that each of these characteristics of sacrificial leaders must directly
contribute to the three transitional stages of a Sacrificial Succession. These three
stages must be undergone consecutively to be effective. First is the serve stage,
which starts during the pre-succession part of a transition. Next is the sacrifice
stage, which occurs at the mid-point of a succession. Lastly, the sustain stage
occurs post-succession after the handover of leadership has occurred.
All leadership transitions are defined by some form of these three consecutive
stages, even if they just ‘happen.’ The pre-succession stage is the time before a
leader is replaced, the succession stage is the handover period of leadership
from one leader to another and the post-succession occurs after a leader is
replaced. What makes a Sacrificial Succession unique amongst transition
models is that each generation of leader: Predecessor, Successor and Disciple,
play a personal part in each stage of a Sacrificial Succession. They do this by
serving, sacrificing for and sustaining each other during each stage of the
transition cycle.
In contrast, most non-sacrificial leadership successions involve one or two,
rather than three generations of leader. For example, most corporate transitions
involve two generations of leader at the most, such as an outgoing and incoming
chief executive. Even when three generations are included, few models are
designed to involve all three generations of leader helping each other
throughout a transition cycle.
By each playing different leadership roles depending on their status at each
79
stage, each leader gets an opportunity to play every role (servant, sacrificer and
sustainer) as they progress through each stage (serve, sacrifice and sustain) of a
Sacrificial Succession. When each person makes the right sacrifice at the right
time, based on their role at that stage in a Sacrificial Succession, they give the
transition the best possible chance of success.
Predecessors at the serve stage prepare their successors and disciples. At the
sacrifice stage they sacrifice by handing over leadership to their successors.
Then, at the sustain stage, predecessors help their immediate successors and
future successors with their transitions. A successor who is now the incumbent
leader at the serve stage, serves in a similar way, preparing themselves and their
successors for the sacrifice of their leadership. Then, he or she helps their
predecessor sustain the next generation of disciples while they are being
prepared as future successors.
Disciples, as potential successors, prove their eligibility for leadership by
serving others without expectation and ministering to others sacrificially
through the leadership positions that they are given. The importance of each
practitioner understanding their role as predecessor, successor or disciple in
each transitional stage of serve, sacrifice and sustain, by making the right
sacrifices for the right people at the right time in the succession cycle, cannot be
understated. Confirming this truth, if our predecessors in the volatile crisis- and
conflict-affected countries mentioned earlier had not served by preparing
indigenous successors for leadership nor handed over leadership when they did,
then did not stay on to help sustain their successors, I doubt we would have the
sustainable, largely successful successions that we have today.
Commit to a Sacrificial Timeline

Therefore, the importance of practitioners intentionally planning to outwork
each stage of a Sacrificial Succession cannot be overstated. Obviously, with
something so countercultural, if time is not set aside for each stage, it simply
will not happen naturally. Even more importantly, as mentioned previously, at
least three generations of leader are needed to be actively involved at each stage
of a Sacrificial Succession for it to work effectively. To reiterate, this process
starts with predecessors preparing successors for leadership and successors
80
humbly preparing to take over leadership along with sacrificial disciples

preparing to become potential leaders. This leadership transition is publicly
witnessed by stakeholders and approved by those in authority.
Being able to successfully outwork each stage of a Sacrificial Succession
requires mapping out a timeline that dedicates a time commitment for each
Serve, Sacrifice and Sustain stage. As mentioned previously, a Sacrificial
Succession also requires a time commitment by predecessors to work through
each stage of a Sacrificial Succession with their successors. We recommend a
minimal time commitment of at least seven years, though this timeline often
practically outworks itself over ten years.
If possible, equal portions of time for the serve and sustain stages should be
given. The midpoint stage for predecessors to sacrifice by handing over
leadership must be timed to give successors the best opportunity for success and
allow enough time for the practicalities of transferring management authority
from predecessors to successors. Usually this management transfer takes about
a year or so to complete. For example, in one of the riskier country projects
mentioned earlier, we mapped out and agreed on a transitional timeline over
seven years. A commitment was made by top leaders to three years of serving
successors by preparing them to lead.
For this project, to sacrifice leadership effectively, one year was set aside to
transfer management authority, including restructuring company boards,
dissolving or devolving corporate entities. In this case, however, the transfer of
authority took more than a year, mainly because of the need to get government
approval for the dissolution and re-establishment of boards for corporate
governance. Then a further three years were allocated to help sustain these new
leaders in their new roles. During this transitional period our local leaders and
international leadership also committed to this timeline and these conditions.
Based on this agreed sacrificial succession timeline, we budgeted and resourced
these activities accordingly.
Stay on to Sustain Successors

Practically, this commitment to sustaining successors required a predecessor,
81
Junior, to divide his time between two countries as he started serving in a new
project. He did this by preparing successors in that nation while continuing to
sustain successors in our previous country project. Overall, Junior’s time
commitment to this transition was around seven years, however it was cut short
due to illness, which required him to retire from active leadership to recuperate.
These are the realities of life and indicative of why preparing ready
replacements is especially vital for leaders.
Another leader of a large Australian mega church, Pete, agreed with his board
to budget their time and money for him to work through the serve stage over
seven years. He took a year or so to handover leadership and is now committed
to sustaining his successor and the succession for at least seven more years. In
Pete’s case, the total time commitment for his Sacrificial Succession is at least
15 years: seven years of service preparing his successor for leadership, a year
during which leadership was transferred from him to his successor and at least
another seven years helping to sustain his successor and the succession.
Whatever the total timeline agreed for a Sacrificial Succession, enough time
must be committed to each stage of serve, sacrifice and sustain for it to
practically outwork itself effectively and sustainably. Like a bell curve or ripple,
the serve and sustain stages are for a similar amount of time with the peak
sacrifice stage being in the middle. Variations of three questions are usually
asked about Sacrificial Succession when cases such as the two mentioned above
of Junior and Pete, are shared.
1. How is their handover of leadership sacrificial?
2. Why does the transition of leadership take so long?
3. How is it fundamentally different to other leadership transitions?
Answering each question is important to understanding and applying
Sacrificial Succession to a leadership transition. Firstly, the handover of
leadership in both these cases required different sorts of unselfish sacrifice.
Rightly, both Junior and Pete sacrificed mid-term or tenure, rather than staying
on for as long as they possibly could as top leaders. A mid-term handover is a
key indicator of sacrificial leadership in a succession.
Importantly, after handing over leadership sacrificially, both these leaders
stayed on post-succession to help their successors, even after they had been
82
replaced as top leaders. This sustaining act of sacrifice is another key indicator
of sacrificial leadership. Both the mid-term sacrifice of leadership and
sustenance of successors are what fundamentally differentiates Sacrificial
Succession from other leadership transitions and proves their handover of
leadership was genuinely sacrificial. It is important to note in the two cases
cited here that prior to sacrificing and sustaining their successors, both Junior
and Pete had effectively prepared potential successors.
Practice Different Sorts of Sacrifice

Obviously, succeeding at this first stage of successor preparation influences
the success of the ensuing stages. In Junior’s case, part of his sacrifice has been
to divide his time and energy between two projects in two different countries.
He sustained one group of successors in one nation, while starting with another
team of potential successors in another country, without being paid extra.
It is worth noting that Junior could easily have gone on to focus on his new
project and people without needing to sustain his successors in the project he
previously led, since he was not being paid extra to do it. It is a challenge to
divide one’s time between two separate projects and people. Yet this dual focus
is a key part of the sacrifice being made. As Junior insightfully and honestly
puts it, “This sort of sacrifice ‘weakens’ a leader.”
Pete’s sacrifice is taking a significant pay cut that is now shared with his
successor. Committing to staying on to sustain his successor and the succession
in a position where his mastery and success is leading through his successor
rather than himself, is another example of sacrifice. Pete could have stayed on
in his role as top leader for much longer (his board preferred this option) or left
the organisation confident in offers to join top leadership positions in other
organisations possibly paying more money than he earns now.
Both the above examples show how Junior and Pete’s leadership was
sacrificial because it was designed to maximise the success of their successors
rather than themselves. Both these men are inspirational leaders because of their
willingness to hand on (not hang on) to leadership, hand over by sacrificing
mid-tenure then hand down their leadership to their successors by helping to
sustain their successions. Because their success is measured by the success of
83
their successors, both Junior and Pete leave a legacy that lasts longer. Through
being weakened by sacrifice they, their successors and successions, are
ultimately the stronger for it.
Unlike Junior and Pete, most leaders hand over their leaderships more
selfishly. They tend to do this at the beginning or towards the end of their
tenures rather than mid-term. Then, they leave. Either way, this means that they
do not stay on to help their successors or successions. At first glance, the
transition of leadership in a Sacrificial Succession may appear to take longer
than more traditional leadership transitions. Or, it may appear that leaders do
not spend enough time ‘leading’ because they are preparing successors and to
hand over leadership.
This is not really the case if you take overall leadership tenures—that is the
time leaders spend in top leadership positions—into account. Research of top
leadership terms or durations in both for-profit and not-for-profit organisations
show that on average most senior leaders stay in their positions or roles for
around ten years47. Of course, some outgoing leaders, such as Pete, may commit
to longer-term periods of sustaining successors. Staying on to help is healthy if
outgoing leaders remain sacrificial and continue to act as great advocates and
good ambassadors for the company and their successors.
Ensure a Healthy Tenure

Therefore, even with a Sacrificial Succession, it is not so much about the
duration of a leadership tenure. Rather, it is more about how leaders spend their
time serving, sacrificing for and sustaining successors in the decade or so they
are leading in that organisation that differentiates them from other leadership
transition models and norms. One effective way of comparing a Sacrificial
Succession with more traditional transitions is to track how and when mastery
(when leaders are considered at their peak performance or at the top of their
game), occurs.
In a Sacrificial Succession, the track looks like a half-circle—bell curve. It is
lower at both ends and higher in the middle, because a sacrificial leader serves
successors first, then sacrifices leadership for them mid-tenure followed by a
sustaining period post-succession. Mastery is achieved by predecessors
84
sacrificing leadership mid-term, so their work of sustaining successors can

continue afterwards, which especially for them is during the post-succession
period.
This mid-term, unselfish sacrifice of leadership is not the usual way
successions are traditionally managed, even if the leaders themselves personally
practice servantship. Instead, mastery is usually achieved and maintained by
staying in power as the top leader for as long as possible. Thus, as described
earlier, the transitional track of most conventional predecessors looks more like
a wave at the beach. This ‘breaker’ [pun intended] starts low and works its way
up higher and higher. It continues to peak until it crashes over from on high to
be replaced by another wave [leader] who starts this same ‘peak and crash’
process again.
These two analogies of the bell curve and breaking waves explain how a
Sacrificial Succession is fundamentally different, structurally, to other
leadership transitions. Firstly, over time its tracks look more like ripples rather
than the after-effects of waves or breakers. Sacrificial mastery is achieved by
sacrificing leadership mid-term. There must always be enough time committed
to sustaining successors, rather than peaking at the end of tenure or crashing out
early without leaving a sacrificial legacy that lasts from one generation to the
next.
Faithfully Play Your Part

Whatever the duration agreed by leaders and their leaderships for the
transition from one generation of leader to the next, for a Sacrificial Succession
to be successful, enough time must be given for each of the three transitional
stages of serve, sacrifice and sustain, and its three sets of practitioners, to
practically work through the transition together. That is, its servants, sacrificers
and sustainers must be given enough time to outwork each of these Sacrificial
Succession stages together. No stage can be skipped or skimped on, otherwise it
will no longer be sacrificial and most likely its legacy will fail the test of time.
Remember, every succession is only one successor away from failure, so
getting each of these stages right, with the three generations of sacrificial leader
involved, is critical to success. To do a Sacrificial Succession well requires
85
leaders, especially predecessors, to hand on, hand down and hand over
leadership to their successors. In the following example a seven-year transition
is envisaged as a practical example of this sacrificial transition process.
Model the Succession

Because we have outworked this sacrificial timeline in a few of our projects,
we know it is possible. As noted earlier, a Sacrificial Succession is constituted
by the total time invested in the transition by its practitioners plus the specific
time allocated for each sacrificial stage. Getting the practitioners, duration and
stages right is what ultimately counts in a Sacrificial Succession. How these
people and processes work together effectively is described in the following
seven-year successional model.
Serve by Handing On (Three Years)

Over a three-year period, the expected outcome towards the end of the serve
stage is the appointment of a successor with a track record of sacrificial service.
To do that effectively, protégés must be chosen and prepared as potential
successors due to their exemplary, sacrificial service. This service should be
proven over at least three years if possible, because it takes time to observe and
make qualified judgements about a candidate’s sacrificial character qualities
and supporting actions.
By the third year at the latest, the terms and timing of a succession must be
made clear to everyone involved, especially its stakeholders and particularly
successors. In one of our current projects, each leader is required to select and
disciple two successors and prepare to appoint them as their successors. From
our previous experience in similar projects, we take time to observe disciples
serving others. We only approve candidates as successors who have a proven
track record of serving others without expectation prior to and through their
leadership roles.
Sacrifice by Handing Over (One Year)

Based on this successional model, during the first half of year four the
86
expected outcome is the handover of leadership and a significant portion of

financial support by predecessors to at least one successor. The remaining time
in year four is spent with the practicalities of smoothly transferring project
leadership and management authority to successors. For example, in our
projects, some successors became banking signatories or directors of
companies, etc. Others became country or region managers, field trainers and
project coordinators.
Judging the sacrificial value of the handover of leadership applies to both
predecessors and successors. Such a value judgement is based on the following
questions: 1) Did the handover occur as planned [yes or no]? 2) Was it timed
[or not timed] to benefit and bless the successors more than predecessors?
The answers we get to these questions help us to make vital value judgements
about if or how the handover occurred and whether the handover was more
sacrificial than selfish?
Failure by a predecessor to handover leadership to a suitable and approved
successor at the agreed time is a critical leadership failure in a Sacrificial
Succession. Note that the question regarding selfish and unselfish motivations is
asked about both predecessors handing over, and successors receiving,
leadership. The mutual humility with which successors receive the mantle of
leadership along with the practicalities of them humbly sharing financial
support and resources with predecessors must always be considered in
sacrificial terms. For predecessors, the generosity of their sacrifice is proved by
their willingness to lead successors and disciples from behind rather than from
the front.
Sustain by Handing Down (Three Years)

Within this successional model, committing to staying on to hand down a
sacrificial legacy to successors is a self-evident expectation and outcome of a
Sacrificial Succession, yet many leaders fail to finish this important, final stage.
Failing to stay on to sustain successors in a succession is again judged as
leadership failure in a Sacrificial Succession. In one of our projects, our top
leader was not able to stay on but had to move on instead, so in terms of the
‘sustain’ stage of the Sacrificial Succession, he failed. Because he was
87
sacrificial in preparing successors and handing over leadership, he did his best
under the circumstances.
Like most leadership transitions, these are the messy realities that get in the
way of neat ideals. In this sense, Sacrificial Succession is no more immune to
the realities of life than any other transition plan. Thankfully his successor,
Junior, committed to continuing the sustaining work that his predecessor started
but was unable to finish. By committing to stay on to sustain successors, the
expected outcome of a sacrificial leader handing down leadership is one of
advocacy for successors with leadership. They also remind successors and
disciples as current and potential leaders, about the practicalities of their
upcoming Sacrificial Successions and the sacrificial principles that will ensure
the continuity of their legacy.
In Junior’s case, he has played the key role of sustainer especially well,
leaving a legacy of visionary, sacrificial successors behind. Advocating for
successors and reminding them about their upcoming Sacrificial Successions is
a vital role for sustainers because of its strong influence on maintaining a
sacrificial culture from one generation of leader to the next. Because sacrificial
predecessors have personally made this sacrifice for their successors, they are
the best ones to work through this sacrifice with their successors and disciples.
Sacrificial predecessors know how it feels to sacrifice leadership because they
have been through what their successors are going through now.
Because sacrificial predecessors have personally made this sacrifice for their
successors and are now sustaining them, they are the ones best qualified to work
through this sacrifice with them. Sacrificial predecessors know how it feels to
sacrifice leadership because they have been through the pain and gain that their
successors are experiencing now48. Having gone through a Sacrificial
Succession themselves, successors are literally following in the footsteps of
their sacrificial predecessors and in turn are better prepared to be sacrificial
themselves and prepare disciples to do the same.
Note Sacrificial Characteristics

To practically honour sacrificial service requires leaders to note the
characteristics that define such people and differentiates them from those who
88
are selfish or less sacrificial. There are seven characteristics that should be
particularly noted, honoured and rewarded amongst sacrificial leaders.
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. Servanthood is an end in and of
itself.
2. Minister – Advances other’s interests before their own through
leadership. Ministers serve wholeheartedly through active submission to
others and doing good to benefit others, especially subordinates, through
their leadership positions.
3. Learner – Teachable and willing to humbly 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.
4. Helper – Models and makes known to successors everything they have
learned from their predecessors. Helpers actively guide, and directly
model sacrificial qualities to, successors throughout a leadership
transition.
5. Friend – Acts as a companion by involving disciples in their personal
life and work. Friends show genuine affection for their comrades, act
sacrificially, expect nothing in return and are willing to lay down their
lives for their friends.
6. Substitute – Hands over leadership sacrificially for the success of a
successor. Substitutes act sacrificially for the sake of others. Their
vicarious willingness to figuratively and literally lay down their life for
their friends is the best example of this quality. They are ransomers,
willingly paying the greater price for successor success.
7. Advocate – Continues to support successor interests even after being
replaced. Advocates defend and plead the case of successors with
leadership by interceding for successors. They remind successors,
particularly newly incumbent leaders, about what they have learned and
keep them accountable to these sacrificial values.
89
Reflection
Think about the triune (three-part and person) nature of Sacrificial
Succession, the relationships between these different elements or stages in each
transition cycle and entities as the people involved…
o What are the three transitional stages of a Sacrificial Succession?
o What are three sacrificial leader types and their transitional roles?
o Who do you know that displays these characteristics and what are
they?
Consider the implications of implementing a Sacrificial Succession timeline
involving serving, sacrificing for and sustaining successors…
o How would you outwork this transition in your organisation?
o What or who would need to change for this to successfully happen?
o Who would you need to help you achieve this Sacrificial Succession?
90
6
Reward Sacrifice
The success of the serve, sacrifice and sustain stages of a Sacrificial
Succession fundamentally depend on the sacrificial leadership of each
generation of leader involved. However, their service and sacrifice must be
rewarded as a virtue and honoured in social and monetary terms for it to be
genuinely valued. Conversely, selfish sacrifices and sacrificers must not be
encouraged or endorsed. Instead, selfish candidates should be penalised,
removed or demoted unless or until they are able to prove that they are now
sacrificial. By personal example, successors and disciples, and especially their
predecessors, set the sacrificial tone for the next generation of successors by
their acts of service, so honouring them is vital.
To give them the best opportunity to do this well, their sacrifices must be
rewarded by those in authority in two specific ways. Firstly, successors should
be chosen and rewarded by demonstrating a willingness to serve that is defined
by them serving without expectation. They must especially prove these
sacrificial qualities prior to being promoted to leadership roles, then through the
leadership positions they are given. Doing this encourages predecessors to
prepare the right people based on their acts of service rather than their
capabilities alone and gives opportunities for potential successors to aspire to
such servantship as disciples.
Service, sacrifice and sustenance are all leadership qualities that must be
rewarded personally, financially and positionally. For sacrificial people there is
a joy and satisfaction in knowing that their service and vicarious self-sacrifice
has been effective. Remember what Junior said earlier about his successors:
91
“We rejoice in their success like it was our own achievement.” This anticipated
joy of, and hope in, the positive effects of sacrifice is an extremely strong
motivation for the sacrifice of leadership in the first place, as is loving those for
whom the sacrifice is being made49.
Value Sacrificers Socially

Apart from this personal motivation to sacrifice, predecessors must also be
rewarded by being recognised socially and financially as an incentive for them
spending the time to choose and disciple potential successors. Conversely, those
who are selfish should be given social and financial disincentives for not being
sacrificial. Herein is a direct object lesson for observers from the lives of those
who are sacrificial and unsacrificial. In our projects, most predecessors are
personally required to prepare at least two successional candidates for them to
receive an ongoing premium salary and an opportunity to apply for more senior
leadership roles. The practical consequence of a predecessor failing to prepare
at least two sacrificial protégés is that at the very least they receive less money
in their pockets and less recognition of a job well done from their colleagues.
However, in most of our projects, failure to personally prepare any successors
results in the early termination of their contract, or at the very least a demotion,
which in and of itself is a strong disincentive. Secondly, predecessors must be
rewarded for their vital role in a Sacrificial Succession based on their
willingness to put the last, their successors, first. Their remuneration or payment
should directly reflect them modelling these sacrificial qualities, especially in a
mid-tenure handover of leadership that directly benefits a successor more than
themselves, followed by the help that they provide in sustaining these
successors as leaders.
Another practical way of honouring sacrificial predecessors includes
retaining them in key leadership positions because of their sacrificial acts of
service. Not retaining leaders in senior positions who fail to act sacrificially
sends an equally strong message. An example of this practice from the sporting
arena is found in Rugby league football. Great players who have proved
themselves on and off the field as good ambassadors of the code are retained as
coaches of rookie players with playing potential. Retired Australian halfback
92
Billie Slater from the Melbourne Storm team now mentors protégés at his club.
Recognise Sacrificers Financially

In financial terms, remuneration in the form of transition payments or stock
options should be directly linked to, and evidenced by, the sacrifice of
leadership mid-term. The direct benefits to the successor of this mid-term
sacrifice, together with the sustaining work of these predecessors, post-
succession, must be evident. For example, a portion of this reward could be set
aside in trust or in lieu, with the explicit condition being that predecessors must
be successfully sustaining successors and the succession. They do this by
proving that they are putting the last first, which becomes the basis for this final
payment being awarded.
Equally, a failure to successfully implement a Sacrificial Succession would
result in final payments being withheld and given to those more deserving.
Providing rewards and incentives for Sacrificial Succession and disincentives
and penalties for selfish sacrifices will get the message across. Practically, these
sacrificial conditions can be written into contracts and agreements and
contractors and employees can be legally held to these sacrificial standards.
Honour Service and Sacrifice

These acts of service, sacrifice and sustenance by predecessors for
successors, must be recognised and rewarded in an organisation for it to become
part of the leadership culture and legacy from one generation to the next.
Unfortunately, most organisations honour and remunerate leaders at the peak of
the wave example used earlier, whereby they start lower down, eventually peak,
then crash down, to be replaced by another “breaker”. Most top leaders are paid
out for their peak performance, then move on to a similar role somewhere else,
without being held accountable for the leadership legacy they left behind
through successors in their previous organisation or role.
In these cases, remuneration in the form of share options and higher pay are
usually based on leaders increasing company productivity and profitably while
they are in peak power, rather than for their contribution to a successful
93
succession legacy. Within this transactive leadership paradigm, leaders are

responsible and rewarded for how well they manage things and people during
their tenures, not so much the legacies and successors they leave behind.
A Sacrificial Succession, on the other hand, values and rewards leaders more
for the sacrifices they make for their successors and the sustaining legacy they
leave behind for the next generation of successors, rather than only what they
achieve whilst in a top leadership position. Judging and rewarding leaders based
on the success of their successors and successions, rather than primarily on their
leadership productivity and profitability during their tenures as top leaders is a
fundamentally different way of evaluating and rewarding the quality of one’s
leadership.
Judge Success on Successors

Consider for a moment the successions and successors of a few relatively
well-known leaders and their transitions, such as pastor Robert Schuller,
politician Nelson Mandela and businessman David Maxwell. What if they had
been judged sacrificially and rewarded socially and financially for the quality of
their successors and successions rather than the more traditional way of
honouring a leader primarily by what they do while in peak power? In so doing
possibly they and their successors could have been helped to avoid or saved
from the “crash” that each has had to undergo.
For instance, Crystal Cathedral founding pastor, Robert Schuller. As great a
leader as he was in founding a mega-church and TV ministry, his succession
and successors—eventually, after acrimonious family and church splits, his
grandson took over—were not successful in sustaining his church or
successors50. He lost his beloved Crystal Cathedral building and much of his
congregation and leadership in the transition. While his grandson, Bobby, has
done a good job as a pastoral successor, Robert Schuller’s succession was not
successful nor sacrificial from a successional perspective. His is a pertinent and
sad example of a good leader who did not prepare successors well or hand over
leadership sacrificially.
Another relevant example from the political world is the successful transition
94
of power from F.W. de Klerk to Nelson Mandela in South Africa. Despite

opposing each other politically, both men mutually showed humility by de
Klerk generously handing over power and Mandela humbly receiving it51.
Imagine how different the transition would have been had they not been
sacrificial and humble during this transition? Unfortunately, their political
successors, Tabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma were not as humble or sacrificial as
their predecessors. Both transitions are an example of how the next generation
of successors can ruin the sacrificial legacy of their predecessors by being
selfish.
From the corporate world, the mortgage lender Fannie Mae, gives yet another
pertinent example of an unsuccessful succession based on the “peak and crash”
wave analogy used earlier to describe most traditional transitions. David O.
Maxwell left the company in a good financial position and even sacrificially
gave back some of his final pay out, whereas his successors James A. Johnson,
then Franklin Raines, both left Fannie Mae in a weaker financial position whilst
personally enriching themselves and contributing to the global financial crisis52.
Imagine the number of people who lost their homes because of these decisions!
Here is yet another instance where a lack of honesty and humility amongst
successors led to an unsuccessful legacy and succession. Obviously, there are
always mitigating factors out of the control of the predecessors and successors,
such as the family, financial and political crises and conflicts mentioned. Also,
in the case studies cited, the restrictive corporate and cultural structures in
which these individuals operated as leaders, and their own personal decisions all
contributed to success or failure. These are the successional realities of
leadership transitions. That is the point.
So, what if, Robert Schuller, Nelson Mandela and David Maxwell had been
able to choose sacrificial successors and sacrifice their leadership mid-term,
rather than end-of-tenure? Could they have helped better sustain their
successors and successions? Could the outcome have been different? I believe
that the answer is an emphatic “yes”, provided these leaders practiced
Sacrificial Succession from one generation to the next and their leaderships had
supported them in doing so.
95
Know that Success means Sacrifice

Remember, a Sacrificial Succession, as my friend Junior says, requires a
paradigm shift in thinking and action. It is contrary to leadership norms based
on rewarding temporal power and authority at its peak. As another colleague,
Gary, a marketing guru who studied this Sacrificial Succession paradigm
insightfully, says: “The success is in the sacrifice.” He is right. There is no other
way to succeed in a Sacrificial Succession. Using traditional leadership
paradigms that reward and remunerate leaders for the here and now rather than
for the sacrifices they make for future successors and the sustaining legacies
they leave behind is a recipe for failure in a Sacrificial Succession.
Recall the two analogies shared earlier about the waves? A Sacrificial
Succession looks more like a bell curve and its legacy is a ripple that is felt from
one generation of leader to the next. Most successions, however, follow the
peak and crash trajectory, whereby the legacies left by departed leaders often do
more damage than good. These two analogies of the ‘bell curve ripples’ and
breaking crash of waves help explain how a Sacrificial Succession is
fundamentally different in form and focus to other leadership transitions.
Firstly, in form, because over time its tracks look more like ripples rather
than waves or breakers on the water and beaches. Mastery is achieved by
sacrificing leadership mid-term so that there is always enough time committed
to sustaining successors, rather than peaking at the end of tenure and crashing
out without leaving a sacrificial legacy that lasts intergenerationally. Secondly,
because its focus is on predecessors serving, sacrificing for then sustaining
successors. The next generation and their interests must always be put first
rather than last or, as is the case in many transitions, not considered at all.
Make Ripples, not Waves

Imagine for a moment if people like David, Junior, Pete and Mike, to name a
few, had not been willing to sacrifice their leaderships at a time that suited their
successors more than themselves? I am confident that their successions and
transitions would not have been as successful as they are today. The sacrificial
legacies that they have left behind in the lives of their successors are enormous,
96
yet their very success in succession means they have left barely a ripple. A
ripple leaves much less damage than a breaker, therefore its legacy is often less
obvious, yet its effects arguably outlast its more destructive counterpart and are
more positively influential longer-term.
Proving this point, Mike, often humorously says, “No one in the organisation
even knows who I am anymore!” Mike has left barely a ripple, yet his legacy
lives on in a successful successor and succession sustained by his ongoing
input. What a great legacy to leave behind! The English saying “ripple effect” is
a continuing and spreading result of a former event or action. That is the
expected outcome of a Sacrificial Succession. Not as spectacular or immediate
as a breaking wave (nor as potentially damaging!) the effects of a ripple take
more time, yet ultimately the legacy of a ripple is more sustainable than a wave.
Two excellent examples of this ripple effect in a Sacrificial Succession come
from Mike and Pete mentioned earlier. Mike led a multinational company of
hundreds and Pete pastored a mega church of thousands. Both were great
leaders at their peak of power and performance mastery when they started
preparing much younger successors than themselves. Despite their respective
leaderships preferring that they remain as top leaders, in both cases their
trustees and boards supported them with their transition plans.
Both Mike and Pete personally prepared their protégés then handed over
leadership to their successors at a time that best suited the success of these
successors and successions, rather than themselves. Instead of leaving to lead
somewhere else or retire, they continue to lead from behind, committing for a
certain time period to helping their successors and successions in a supporting
rather than dominant role.
Today, Mike, remains executive chairman of the company, seldom involving
himself in the day-to-day operations and is almost never seen, yet he helps give
guidance and leadership behind the scenes to his successor and other leaders.
Mike continues to help his successor by meeting him regularly and is also
involved as an executive director involved in high-level legal and strategic
decisions.
As founding pastor, Pete continues to provide input and guidance, yet is
seldom seen or heard taking the lead. Because of this supporting role, Pete
97
continues to help his successor and succession and disciple future successors.
Reflecting on his role of leading from behind, Pete says, “In many ways, I am
more effective now that I am no longer top leader because I have more time to
spend investing in younger leaders and helping other churches with their
successions.” If Pete had been unwilling to sacrifice his leadership earlier than
most of his team wanted or expected him to, he would not have been able to
provide the sustaining role that he now plays so well. In this sustaining role, he
defers to his successor by jokingly saying, “I must ask the ‘boss’ first.”
All jokes aside, both these predecessors have proven the success of serving
by preparing sacrificial successors, sacrificing their leaderships at a time that
best suited their successors, then giving quality time to sustaining these
successors and their successions. Pete says, “We put these Sacrificial
Succession principles into practice and have seen growing strength in our
leadership team.” His Sacrificial Succession is the talk of pastors and church
leaders around the state because it is so counter-cultural—yet successful—with
a pool of current leaders and future successors that are the envy of other
churches.
Some of Mike’s sacrificial outlook was inspired by the Good to Great
leadership principles of Jim Collins, whose research finds the greatest leaders
are those who can successfully blend extreme personal humility with intense
professional will53. His leadership ripples continue to influence the company
and his successors in a positive way even though he is almost invisible. In fact,
many current staff members may not even know that the humble man who
occasionally comes to meet with his successors and board members and walks
around the office to greet and talk personally with everyone he meets, was once
the top leader of this large organisation.
Outwork Sacrificial Succession

Mike and Pete are leaving the ripples of a sacrificial legacy that will last well
beyond their leadership lifetimes. Having witnessed Sacrificial Successions
outworked in some of the most politically sensitive and repressive places in the
world, amongst people who have been persecuted and have poor educations, I
can confidently testify to their success. We often say to our teams, “Make a
98
great impact but do not leave big footprints.”

In other words, our aim is always to make as big an impact as possible on the
nation and people we work with, without leaving them a burden to carry
because of the impactful work that we did together. Anyone who says that a
Sacrificial Succession cannot work in their situation or circumstances, I would
humbly invite to come and see for themselves some of the difficult places where
these legacy principles are working well.
For example, in East Timor in less than seven years we had more than 50
national successors leading teams in more than 30 places, with more than 20
branch offices and training facilities. There, we have the most successful
privately-owned radio station and a government recognised and partially
government-funded ‘best practice’ school. Now, nationals are running
financially sustainable, complex companies and organisations, with little input
from us. Remember Junior’s testimony: “A Sacrificial Succession will work if
you just commit to doing it because it’s timeless principles work!”
Or consider Myanmar or Burma, a country coming out from decades of
conflict and oppression. At the time, we had one of the largest leadership
training networks and partner organisations in the history of this country.
Hundreds of leaders prepared, then handed over leadership to hundreds of
successors. Most successors were from an ethnic group that were previously
their enemies. They are continuing to multiply their good work through another
generation of successors. A team of national successors managed our training
company and over 200 trainers, with two main offices. They now administer a
complex company and non-government organisation (NGO), with no prior
experience in management or administration serving areas that continue to
suffer conflict and crisis.
In the case of Indonesia, our teams work in places where religious conflict is
a common cause of persecution and radicalism. We have seen hundreds of
peace makers hand over leadership to their successors who are now training
their successors to be peacemakers. They are impacting their nation by reducing
racial conflict and religious radicalism. Many of these successors have also been
helped by their predecessors to start and sustain small businesses that are
helping them support themselves and their communities legitimately rather than
99
through illegal or illegitimate activities. Former militants and jihadists are now
teaching their troops to earn legitimate incomes. What a great legacy,
predecessors, people like Junior, Davi, Pete and Mike—and many others, leave
behind through their Sacrificial Successions. These are legacies that will truly
last! Because of their success in Sacrificial Succession you can be confident in
yours.
Reflection
Think about the successes and failures of the successions and successors of
the great leaders (Schuller, Mandella, Maxwell) mentioned…
o What defined their successes and failures in succession?
o What could they have done better and why would this have helped?
Consider the rewards for sacrificial service and leadership that could be given
as incentives and as thanks for a job well done…
o How is sacrificial leadership rewarded now in your organisation,
compared to other forms of leadership?
o What would need to change in your organisations for Sacrificial
Succession to be given priority in an award system?
Provide some examples of rewards you could give for sacrifice in a
Sacrificial Succession…
o Financial, Positional
o Cultural, Professional
7
Succeed through Sacrifice
100
Now it is your turn! Each of us will leave a legacy behind by what we do

and don’t do about succession. I trust that you are now convinced that a
sacrificial legacy is the most successful one and that a Sacrificial Succession is
the best way to successfully transition leadership from one generation to the
next. There are some vital principles to reiterate and remember before closing
for those who want to leave a sacrificial legacy that truly lasts and passes the
test of time.
Failing to plan for a Sacrificial Succession will guarantee its failure, because
this sort of sacrifice is not intuitive nor is it reflexive. The unselfish sacrifice of
leadership does not happen naturally. Nor is it spontaneous, because it requires
an unnatural, unselfish, intentional response. A Sacrificial Succession is a
planned legacy from one generation of leader to the next that requires a deep
understanding and appreciation of the seven non-negotiable sacrificial
principles that underpin this paradigm along with a willingness and
determination to faithfully apply them. Each of these seven non-negotiables are
recapped and reapplied in the following sections.
Put the Last (Successors) First

Putting the best interests of the last (successors) first in everything that is
done in a transition is the practical starting point of a Sacrificial Succession. It
begins with defining who the ‘last’ are and committing to serving them by
putting them first. Sacrificial Succession is positively discriminating in favour
of successors. In our case, as foreigners working in multi-national projects and
companies, putting the last first unashamedly means that our successors must be
from the nations and ethnic groups that we are aiming to impact.
Practically putting the last first for the nationals who help start our projects
means handing over to indigenous successors who are now taking over from
them. Remember, there is nothing accidental or unintended about this
intentional process of identifying who should come first in the succession and
making sure that they do.
This commitment by the leadership and predecessors to putting successors
first starts the process of Sacrificial Succession by committing them to the
101
process. Recall my testimony in the introduction? The starting point for

Sacrificial Succession for me was agreeing with my leadership and our team to
enact it by putting the last, in our case indigenous successors, first in everything
that we did from that point on.
Practice True Succession

To personally prepare successors requires a direct relationship and close
friendship between predecessor and successor. This connection is like those that
occur between a parent and child, guru and disciple, master and apprentice.
These close friendships reflect a true succession that is relational rather than
transactional. Their purpose is for predecessors to directly influence successors
in a positive way through this relationship. Predecessors do this by modelling
Sacrificial Succession themselves and expecting it of their protégés. There is no
substitute for a true succession relationship between predecessor and successor
because it provides the best environment for serving successors and sacrificing
leadership for them.
Remember Junior’s succession story? Because of the close relationship
between predecessors and successors, despite ethnic and language differences,
there was no conflict, no competition and no crisis? The true succession
relationship of ongoing friendship and fellowship between predecessors and
successors is the glue that holds this transition together today despite
challenging politics and people. This willingness to practice true succession by
both predecessors and successors with the support of their leadership by putting
it into practice is vital to encourage the generational sacrifice of leadership.
Without this leadership support for the sacrificial people and processes of
Sacrificial Succession, it is unlikely that Junior would [or could] have served his
successors sacrificially nor sacrificed his leadership at a time that best suited
them. The ability of predecessors to practice true succession with their
successors is dependent on their leadership supporting them in these
endeavours. True succession takes time and will ultimately fail if predecessors
and successors are not given the time to develop these close relationships.
Practically, for predecessors to personally prepare successors requires each of
them to spend up to a quarter of their time together in formal and informal
102
discipling and learning sessions. We have consistently found where not enough
time is given for predecessors to personally prepare successors and develop this
true succession relationship sacrificially, most transitions fail. Because time and
people are a business cost-benefit, these true succession sessions must be
factored into budgets and recognised as a legitimate cost-benefit of a Sacrificial
Succession.
Sacrifice Leadership Mid-Term

The success of the sacrifice by a predecessor for successor is most dependent
on the quality of the sacrifice and its timing. In other words, whether it takes
place or not and, if it does, when it occurs. Proving that the sacrifice benefited
the successor more than predecessor and was timed to maximise successor
success must both be independently verified and confirmed to make a
succession genuinely sacrificial.
A sacrificial leader’s role is to serve successors, however without him or her
sacrificing by laying down their leadership mid-term and paying a greater price
than successors, their service remains incomplete. This role is only ever
genuinely fulfilled through the timely sacrifice of leadership by predecessor for
successor success.
The mutual humility required of a predecessor to sacrifice leadership and for
a successor to humbly receive it are the right terms or conditions for success in
a Sacrificial Succession. Remember, the success is in the sacrifice. However,
for the sacrifice to be successful and effective, its timing must be mid-term or
tenure so that a predecessor can stay on to hand on leadership to successors and
help them with their successions and successors. Therefore, both the terms and
timing of the sacrifice of leadership must be right for it to be successful.
Recall the very different circumstances and sacrifices defining the transitions
of Mike, Pete and Junior. None of them would have been able to sacrifice
leadership mid-term then continue in their work of sustaining successors
without them and their leaderships having planned and agreed, together, on
these terms and the timing, beforehand. Irrespective of its duration, a Sacrificial
Succession must always include three stages (serve, sacrifice and sustain) in
103
each transitional cycle. The mediatory sacrifice and handover of leadership by

predecessors for successors is the bridge between the former (serve) and the
latter (sustain).
Sustain Successors
Without the mediating sacrifice of predecessor, mid-term, the Sacrificial
Succession is severely weakened and is likely to fail, especially if not enough or
no time is given to sustaining successors. Committing to hand over leadership
mid-term with the explicit purpose of staying on to help sustain successors is a
commitment by a predecessor to not leave orphans. The sustaining role of a
sacrificial predecessor is a physical reminder of the bond between one
generation of leader and the next and the cultural glue that holds together such a
transition.
Predecessors are the ones best placed to remind successors and their disciples
of Sacrificial Succession by personally modelling its values. A predecessor who
has served successors and sacrificed leadership for them is the best advocate
because they have been through everything their successors are undergoing
now. Sustaining leaders know how it feels to serve and sacrifice because of
having been personally through the sacrificial process themselves. By choosing
to stay on and sustain their successors, predecessors are helping with the
continuity of a Sacrificial Succession from one generation of leader to the next.
We have seen the truth of this principle demonstrated time and time again in
countries with strong ethnic and cultural differences amongst teams and
especially between predecessors and successors. As previously mentioned, in
one project, leaders from one ethic group are helping to sustain successors from
another ethnic group who are their traditional enemies. The strongest Sacrificial
Successions are those where predecessors are staying on to sustain their
successors despite their tribal differences and traditional enmity. The
redemptive benefit to them and the communities impacted by them seeing first-
hand when former enemies become friends, is an incredible testament to the
success of sacrificial succession in these hard places.
A similar scenario applies in another project where there are strong religious
differences fuelled by animosity, conflict and radicalism. These successions are
104
sustainable because predecessors continue to lead successors from behind by

helping them. The mutual humility shown by predecessors and successors with
the former helping by sustaining and the latter humbly accepting this help
speaks much louder than mere words of their personal commitment to each
other and the succession’s sustainability. When these true succession
relationships are multiplied in their hundreds and thousands, there is a genuine
and lasting effect on these nations because of this Sacrificial Succession
legacy’s impact. We are truly blessed to have seen first-hand this evidence of
nations impacted and lives transformed through Sacrificial Succession.
Accept Authority
None of these non-negotiable steps taken in serving, sacrificing for and
sustaining successors in a Sacrificial Succession can be applied successfully and
effectively by practitioners without the authority from leadership to do so. Thus,
it is vital for practitioners or want-to-be practitioners of a Sacrificial Succession
to understand its triune hierarchy54. A predecessor is empowered by those in
authority (the leaders of the organisation) to practice true succession by
preparing sacrificial successors. Sacrificial predecessors do not do anything by
their own authority, rather they are empowered and supported to serve, sacrifice
and sustain by their leadership.
For example, Junior was empowered by us, his leadership, to enact a
Sacrificial Succession, based on a mutually agreed transition plan. This plan
included his strategies for serving successors by preparing them as leaders and
the terms and timing for sacrificing leadership mid-tenure then staying on to
sustain his successors for at least three years after handing over leadership. Each
of these steps required agreement, by us as leaders, to this plan and its practical
(including financial) implications for when he would move on and how long he
would spend in one place before moving to another.
Similarly, when it comes to choosing a successor, it is not the responsibility
or right of predecessor alone to make that choice. Instead, it is the job of the
leadership to confirm the choice of successor, then empower and entrust
leadership to this successor and their sustaining predecessor. Having a
leadership that supports both predecessor and successor in their new roles is
105
vital to leadership continuity from one generation to the next and helps guard
against these individuals becoming nepotistic or showing undue favouritism
towards each other.
Because of the need to accept this authority and hierarchy of leadership to
start and sustain a Sacrificial Succession, it is virtually impossible to do so
without this level of organisational support. Getting the support of leadership to
start a Sacrificial Succession requires, as Junior so rightly says, a paradigm shift
on the part of leadership, predecessors and successors. For predecessors and
successors, accepting this leadership authority and oversight is one of the most
difficult aspects of a Sacrificial Succession, because there is always a tendency
for them to want to go solo. This sort of independence risks the integrity of their
triune relationship and the transition.
Remember, a leader can faithfully practice servantship without the support of
their leadership, however for a Sacrificial Succession to work effectively, its
practitioners must have the blessing of those in authority over them for a
successful sacrificial transition to occur. Because of the practicalities of
outworking a Sacrificial Succession and its different approach to rewarding and
remunerating sacrificial leaders, accepting the authority of a leadership and its
responsibility over practitioners is vital. Due to this triune basis for, and
foundation of, Sacrificial Succession, not being leadership authorised is
unviable.
Understand Triune Transition

Other than accepting the authority and oversight required to successfully
outwork a Sacrificial Succession is the need to understand what a sacrificial
transition looks like, especially for its practitioners. Understanding the triune
structure of sacrificial people, characteristics and stages necessary for Sacrificial
Succession to function effectively, is especially important. Humanly speaking,
there must be at least three generations of people directly involved. They are: 1)
Predecessors who have personally prepared successors, and 2) Successors who
are entrusting what they have learned to 3) Disciples with potential as future
successors.
106
Unless there are at least three generations of leader involved in preparing and
being prepared for leadership: predecessor, successor and disciple, a Sacrificial
Succession will ultimately fail because it does not have enough people to be
viable or sustainable. It is vital to understand this triune principle of at least
three generations of leader being involved in a Sacrificial Succession. A rope of
three strands is not easily broken and neither is a succession with at least three
generations of servant, sacrificer and sustainer involved in the transition.
Consequently, predecessors who are supported by their leaderships to serve,
sacrifice for and sustain successors and their disciples throughout the
transitional three stages of serve, sacrifice and sustain, being outworked
consecutively, are the most likely to leave a successful legacy that lasts. Ideally,
every one of these leaders or candidates should have personally undergone each
of these sacrificial roles and stages. A triune succession starts with disciples
who willingly learn to serve and sacrifice for others. It continues with
successors who have been sacrificed for and are now preparing their own
successors. This triune cycle ends with a predecessor who has sacrificed their
leadership for a successor and is now sustaining them.
As mentioned earlier, we have found that the most successful and sustainable
successions we have witnessed so far are those that have more rather than less
of these triune elements and qualities. To be qualified for these sacrificial roles,
disciples, successors and predecessors should have been through the serve,
sacrifice and sustain cycles of a sacrificial transition at least once in their
leadership lifetimes. The more cycles each has been successfully through, the
better qualified they are to lead a Sacrificial Succession and the more likely they
are to succeed at it. Predecessors, successors and disciples going through these
triune, transitional experiences several times, prove their personal and corporate
ability to serve, sacrifice for and sustain successors and each other.
One of the sacrificial, true succession questions that we ask of a disciple is:
“Who is discipling you and who are you discipling? Outgoing leaders must be
able to identify the successors they are helping to sustain. Current leaders
should be able to clearly explain their preparation of preferred successors.
Disciples should be able to positively identify their disciplers. Being able to
explain how a leadership supports and authorises the activities of each of these
sacrificial generations in a Sacrificial Succession is practical proof that
107
everyone involved in the Sacrificial Succession understands how its triune

nature works in practice, because each is playing their part in it.
Honour Sacrificial Service

Finally, for a Sacrificial Succession to be successful, leaders who have laid
down their leaderships for successors must, above all else, be honoured for the
service, sacrifices and sustaining work they have done or are doing. Honour the
sacrifices they have made by telling their succession stories and sharing
testimonies of their legacies, as we have done in this book. A practical way of
honouring sacrificial leaders is giving them financial incentives to stay on post-
succession to sustain their successors by giving ongoing input into their
Sacrificial Successions.
Laying down one’s leadership for successors and staying on to help him or
her or them sustain their leaderships is one of the greatest sacrifices a good
leader can make and one well worth the effort for the joy it gives. Therefore,
such sacrifices deserve the highest honour in an organisation, greater than the
financial bottom line and profitability. Besides, giving ambassadorial leaders
opportunities to advocate for their successors and the organisation is great for
business and good for them.
An example of this honour for sustaining sacrifice belongs to Pete. When I
shared Pete’s story of sacrificing his leadership early so he could stay on to help
his successor, a leadership team I was sharing these Sacrificial Succession
principles with responded positively. Despite them being from a different
organisation, all had heard about Pete’s sacrifice of leadership and humility as
he continued to lead from behind to help his successor. People instinctively
honour the sacrifice of leadership for the benefit of successors because such
vicarious sacrifices are some of the greatest sacrifices that anyone can make.
The act of laying down one’s life for someone else is the greatest sacrifice of
all and the act of laying down one’s leadership for a successor’s success is the
greatest legacy sacrificial leaders can endow because, as ‘living sacrifices’ they
can stay on to help sustain their successors and succession. The honour such
sacrificers should receive, including financial rewards, from their successors
and organisations is well deserved and must be an absolute priority for those
108
wanting to practically honour this sacrifice of leadership and sustain it

generationally.
Build Sacrificial Foundations

These seven Sacrificial Succession non-negotiables: Put the Last
(Successors) First, Practice True Succession, Sacrifice Leadership Mid-Term,
Sustain Successors, Accept Authority, Understand Triune Transition and
Honour Sacrifice are the foundations and infrastructure on which a successful
legacy can be built and handed on as a gift to the next generation for safe-
keeping.
They are also an integral part of the process of Sacrificial Succession,
because, being willing to put the last first, translates into predecessors preparing
successors through a true succession relationship. However, neither of these acts
of service are genuinely successional on their own, unless predecessors are
willing to sacrifice their leaderships mid-term, so they can continue to help
sustain their successors and disciples, post-succession.
Only once these three: serve, sacrifice and sustain stages of a Sacrificial
Succession have been completed by a leader, can a true grasp of this triune
relationship between these three generations and types of leader be understood
in a practical sense. Every Sacrificial Succession must have three generations of
leader: predecessors, successors and disciples and three types of leadership:
servant, sacrificer and sustainer, for it to be effective and sustainable. Yet, all
this personal knowledge and experience is of limited value organisationally if
predecessors are not empowered by those in authority (the leaders of the
organisations) to practice true succession by preparing sacrificial successors.
Those in authority, the leadership, must be intimately involved in a Sacrificial
Succession. Leadership must agree to a Sacrificial Succession’s timeline,
authorise its outworking and apply a reward system for its practitioners. Special
consideration must be given for those predecessors who serve successors by
sacrificing leadership for their success earlier, so that they can stay on to help
successors with their leaderships and successions. The best example is of
leadership supporting the success of sacrifice in practical ways, financially and
109
positionally, by honouring and rewarding most highly leaders who leave this
legacy for the next generations.
Transforming a house into a home is the most accurate analogy I can think of
to describe this process of building the sacrificial foundations required to
sustain a Sacrificial Succession. Houses are built for families to make into
homes. Empty houses are outlasted by lived in ones, because both the structure
and substance of the house are important. By wisdom a house is built and by
understanding a home is established and sustained55. Similarly, Sacrificial
Succession is founded and designed for leaders to produce successors.
These seven Sacrificial Succession non-negotiables are the foundations and
structure for turning your leadership house into a successional home. The
sacrificial relationships between your family members: predecessors, successors
and disciples who live in this successional house is its substance—what makes
it into a home. Build your Sacrificial Succession wisely, confident that its
building materials will stand the test of time, like a house and home built on
strong foundations of rock rather than sand.
If you faithfully apply Sacrificial Succession as we have described and
practiced it, I am confident that you will leave a leadership legacy that outlasts
you. In this case, being outlasted is a good thing! If you agree with the premise
and promise of Sacrificial Succession’s potential for leadership transition
success, join our movement by starting a Sacrificial Succession in your
organisation, home or business. We are here to help you leave a leadership
legacy that truly lasts—Sacrificial Succession. Start your own Sacrificial
Succession today and see its positive results!
Reflection
Think about each of the seven Sacrificial Succession non-negotiables and
their importance or lack of importance in your organisation…
o Which of these values are currently part of your organisational
culture?
o Which of these non-negotiables is the most difficult to apply and why?
o What Sacrificial Succession non-negotiable is the most important to
you?
110
o How do you go about making this non-negotiable part of your

practice?
111
Application
We started with the Purpose of Sacrificial Succession and end with its
Application. Everything in between is worthless without you practically
applying Sacrificial Succession to your life and leadership. This application
page helps you do that. Start by applying the Sacrificial Succession principles of
Serve, Sacrifice and Sustain to your personal relationships with others,
especially family members.
Following personal application, apply Sacrificial Succession in your
workplace or business by preparing successors of your own. Share these
timeless truths with your friends and colleagues Then, when you have both the
principles and practices of Sacrificial Succession applied in your own life and
leadership, share it with your friends. They, too, will benefit from this sacrificial
paradigm.
Having seen the positive changes in you that come from personally applying
Sacrificial Succession, they will want to know how you did it. Tell them your
Sacrificial Succession story. Give a copy of the companion mediational booklet,
The First will be Last, to a friend. Dedicate the booklet to him or her and write
an inspirational (sacrificial) message on its dedication page. As I shared on the
Purpose page, make time to study and meditate on its message together, with
your friend.
Like a family, share a meal and drink while you meditate on these Sacrificial
Succession principles together. Sharing a meal or drink together is a particularly
effective way of applying Sacrificial Succession and reflecting together about
its principles.
Do this routinely, say once a week, by studying the main principles of this
book that are shared in the companion meditational. If you do this humbly and
genuinely, you will be amazed by how effective your Sacrificial Succession
story will be and surprised at its positive impact on others. Thank you for taking
the time to read this book. You will not be disappointed in applying it and you
can be confident that you will leave a legacy that truly lasts!
112
Thank you,
Paul Rattray
113
Bio | Paul Rattray

A married father of six children, I grew up in Indonesian Borneo amongst
Dayak tribal people. From a young age, I was exposed to many different
cultures and learned to fluently speak several local languages. After returning to
Australia, I earned three degrees in education and started a company focused on
providing Indonesian language and cultural training to business and government
executives. I was also convenor of graduate and post-graduate studies in
Indonesian language at Griffith University’s Faculty of Applied Linguistics for
a few years and did a stint as a researcher at Queensland University of
Technology.
Now I lead an international team managing nearly 1000 indigenous leaders
through more than 50 local organisations working in eight nations. Our focus is
to positively impact nations in crisis and conflict. We have learned that putting
the last, successors, first from the nations we are impacting helps bring about
sustainable transformation. Much of what I have learned about Sacrificial
Succession has come from working with local leaders and teams in these hard
places.
114
References
1
The positive influence of Robert Greenleaf, often termed the ‘father of servant leadership,’ and his
best known book “The Servant as Leader,” is gratefully acknowledged, however his assumption that
‘servantship’ is a natural inclination to serve does not fit the Sacrificial Succession evidence whereby
servantship is primarily a learned value that requires intentional sacrifice, which is unnatural, based
on a paradigm shift learned through being sacrificial.
2
John N. Williams (2008) Confucius, Mencius, and the Notion of True Succession, Philosophy East
and West, Vol. 38, No. 2, April, pages 157-171,
http://www.mysmu.edu/faculty/johnwilliams/LatestPublications/Confucius,%20Mencius%20and%20
the%20Notion%20of%20True%20Succession.pdf, accessed: 24 May 2017, page 158. For a true
succession to occur, predecessor must directly influence successor, like a master directly
influencing his or her apprentice or disciple. This is more parental or filial than transactional because
of the close emotional relationship or bond between the parent and son or daughter, predecessor
and successor.
3
This parable or story told by Jesus in the Bible (Matthew 20:1-16) illustrates how leadership norms
can be turned around through ‘positive discrimination’ from the first always coming first to the last
coming first through the unmerited, sacrificial favour of equal payment and opportunity.
4
This ‘last-first’ paradigm of Sacrificial Succession turns the normal order of leadership around from
current and top leaders coming first in terms of place or position, especially in a succession or
transition, to them coming last in these roles by sacrificing their leaderships for successor success
then leading from behind and willingly being the least so that their successors can come first.
5
As a legacy principle, Sacrificial Succession gifts successors with leadership through their
predecessors and is a practical outworking of the last-first principle whereby sacrificial leaders are
authorised by their leaderships to serve others without expectation by being last and least; they
sacrifice leadership for their successors and sustain them by staying on to help them with their
successions.
6
Claudio Fernández-Aráoz, Boris Groysberg and Nitin Nohria (2011) ‘How to hang on to your high
potentials,’ “Harvard Business Review”, find that only 15% of companies have enough successors to
fill key positions https://hbr.org/2011/10/how-to-hang-on-to-your-high-potentials, Accessed: 18 May
2017; Stanford University (2010) “Research: CEO Succession Planning Lags Badly,”
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/research-ceo-succession-planning-lags-badly, accessed: 24
May 2017, find that 39% of companies have no internal leadership candidates. A recent Christian
Management Australia report disturbingly finds that most Christian leaders, including pastors and
churches, have no succession plan in place. Christian Management Australia (2018) CMA’s Essential
Standards of Ministry Governance
115
https://www.cma.net.au/govsurvey/GovernanceSurveySample.pdf, accessed: 7 December 2018.

7
Christina Haxton (2013) ‘Professional Intimacy: The Key to Being a Sustainable Leader’ in
“Leadership & Teambuilding”, http://www.managingamericans.com/BlogFeed/Leadership-
Teambuilding/Professional-Intimacy-The-Key-to-Being-a-Sustainable-Leader.htm, accessed 26 July
2019, talks about professional intimacy being made up of connection, curiosity and communication
as the key elements that help make leadership sustainable and leaders grow.
8
Jeanne Meister (2012) ‘The Future of Work: Job Hopping Is the ‘New Normal’ for Millennials,’
“Forbes Magazine,” note that more than 90% of Millennials expect to stay in a job for less than three
years, https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeannemeister/2012/08/14/the-future-of-work-job-hopping-is-
the-new-normal-for-millennials/#3684f77513b8, Accessed: 17 October 2017. This researcher finds
that the two best ways to retain potential successors is to effectively share the vision and values of
the organisation and give opportunities for advancement to those who show the greatest potential.
9
Barna Group (2017) ‘The Aging of America’s Pastors,’ “Research Releases in Leaders & Pastors,”
March 1, 2017. There are now more pastors over 65 than there are church leaders younger than 40,
https://www.barna.com/research/aging-americas-pastors/, accessed, 18 May 2017; Chapman
Eastway (2016) “Australian Farming Families - Succession & Inheritance,” find that over half of
Australia’s farm owners are over 55 years old with the majority expecting to retire in the next 15
years; few have prepared successors,
https://www.chapmaneastway.com.au/sites/default/files/CE_Succession%20Report.pdf, accessed,
18 September 2017. These sobering statistics demonstrate the need for leaders to be preparing
successors and handing over leadership to them.
10
Being predictive in a Sacrificial Succession is about predecessors personally telling potential
successors in advance about their transition plans. It is less about knowing all the details in advance
as it is about being well informed of the process and the role of leadership, predecessors and
successors in the succession
11
Robert F. Russell and A. Gregory Stone (2002) in ‘A Review of Servant Leadership Attributes:
Developing a Practical Model,’ “Leadership & Organisation Development Journal,”, 23/3, 145-157,
provide a comprehensive overview of both the functional roles and accompanying attributes of a
servant leader, especially in terms of how leaders serve by nurturing and caring for their followers,
http://strandtheory.org/images/Russell_Stone_-_SL_Attributes.pdf, accessed 24 October 2017.
12
To truly appreciate Va’s change of heart towards this people group, who were literally his enemies,
having dominated his country’s government and military for decades by brutally persecuting his
people group (and many others), helps us understand better what Sacrificial Succession can mean in
practical terms for leaders handing over leadership to successors.
13
‘For my successor to increase I must decrease,’ is the operative principle. Practically, he or she
must become more important, and I, the current leader must become less important for a Sacrificial
Succession to work effectively.
14
Giving potential successors advanced notice of an impending succession is about predecessors
gathering them together as a group and speaking to them confidentially about its timing.
Predecessors personally explaining to successors how the transition is going to happen is an
opportunity to build relationships and remind them about key upcoming milestone events.
116
15
Three years is the recommended minimum time needed to prepare successors, then handover
leadership to them. Giving time post-succession to help successors in their successions means that
a minimum of three-years is recommended during the pre-succession preparatory phase, followed
Between these two phases, time must be given to smoothly transfer management authority.
(Spiritually, Jesus prepared his disciples over a three-and-a-half-year period. Each of Paul the
Apostle’s missionary journeys also lasted around three years, which was the time he spent preparing
successors followed by a period of sustenance. Both Jesus [by his Holy Spirit] and Paul through his
Epistles and personal visits continued to sustain their successors after handing over leadership.)
16
There is an underlying order in even complex, apparently chaotic situations, provided there is a
strong relationship between the elements. In human systems these elements are people and their
relationships. An underlying social order or system is made robust by these strong inter-
relationships, see James K. Hazy, Jeffrey A. Goldstein and Benyamin B. Lichtenstein, 2007 ‘Complex
Systems Leadership Theory’ in “New Perspectives from Complexity Science on Social and
Organizational Effectiveness - A Volume in the Exploring Organizational Complexity Series, Volume
1” page 5, ISCE Publishing. Sacrificial Succession may appear chaotic, however its underlying
system of leadership allowing predecessors to make this mediatory sacrifice of their leaderships for
successors is a robust legacy that lasts because of the strong sacrificial relationship between
elements. Sacrificial Succession is modelled on this strength of relationships between practitioners.
See also, Mark Rennaker (2005) Servant Leadership: A Chaotic Leadership Theory,
http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/2005/rennaker_servant.pdf,
accessed, 18 May 2017, which notes the sacrificial ties that bind people together who serve each
other.
17
Francis Bacon’s (1625) famous line, “by indignities, men come to dignities” in ‘Essays, Civil and
Moral’, The Harvard Classics. 1909–14. XI, Of Great Place, http://www.bartleby.com/3/1/11.html,
accessed, 20 May 2017, especially applies to Sacrificial Succession because the indignity of
sacrifice is what qualifies leaders for true dignity and greatness.
18
The main philosophical point made by John N. Williams about a true succession relationship for
Sacrificial Succession is its intentional and explicit preparation of disciples to be successors by their
predecessors. Obviously, this activity of personally preparing successors is intensely practical, not
just philosophical, but someone who sacrifices leadership must philosophically approve of sacrifice
to act sacrificially. In other words, people who agree with loving your neighbour as yourself are more
likely to act sacrificially towards their neighbour than those who don’t.
19
Thomas J. Kuhn (1970) “The structure of Scientific Revolutions,”
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/tract/projects/complexity-theory/kuhn-the-structure-of-scien.pdf,
accessed 23 December 2019, explains that “Crisis simultaneously loosens the stereotypes and
provides the incremental data necessary for a fundamental paradigm shift,” page 89. “Equally, it is
why, before they can hope to communicate fully, one group or the other must experience the
conversion that we have been calling a paradigm shift. Just because it is a transition between
incommensurables, the transition between competing paradigms cannot be made a step at a time,
forced by logic and neutral experience,” page 150. Similarly, Sacrificial Succession was borne out of
the challenges and crisis we faced in our country projects and developed as an extension of servant
leadership because we applied it as the means to an end: sacrificial leadership transitions, rather
than having servantship as the end itself. As Junior explains, Sacrificial Succession requires a leap of
faith in its principles and we prove this paradigm shift by applying it.
20
117
The “truth” of this new paradigm of Sacrificial Succession is found in the unselfish sacrifice that is
made by one for another rather than for oneself. Belief in the superiority of this unselfish sacrifice
over all other forms of selfish sacrifice is the leap of faith or paradigm shift, primarily by acting out
this truth personally, that is required to outwork a Sacrificial Succession.
21
This more egalitarian friendship or ‘mateship’, as Australians put it, between predecessors and
successors is a fundamental change from the norms of superior-subordinate or master-slave
relationships of transactional leadership. It is more of a paternal relationship such as between a
master and apprentice, father and son or daughter, rather than that of a teacher providing
information. Successors can learn just about everything they need to know from virtual and actual
instructors however sacrificial [true] succession can only be learned through personal relationships
with their predecessors.
22
By washing the disciples’ feet, Jesus redefined the meaning of leadership from predecessors
having power over successors to leaders empowering them to be great by choosing to serve others
rather than themselves, Sen Sendjaya and James C Sarros (2002) ‘Servant leadership: Its origin,
development, and application in organizations,’ “Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies (9),
2,” http://www.lead.fju.edu.tw/teacher/Lucia/course/Servant%20Leadership/2002-09-
Servant%20leadership%20%20It's%20origin,%20development,%20and%20application%20in%20
organizations.pdf, accessed: 16 October 2017, page 59.
23
Most of us know when rulers or leaders are projecting their power by being self-important or
condescending. We just know it—and despise it—when managers or supervisors love to use all the
authority they have over their followers or staff by being overly pedantic about rules or policies or
condescending in their responses and replies. Any protégés that display these selfish characteristics
should be disqualified as sacrificial successor candidates.
24
Despite the extreme political and social pressures many of our projects bring, we have always had
many ‘friends’ supporting us who gave us good business and community intelligence about who is
against us and for us. As entrepreneurs, we intentionally use our resources to make friends for
ourselves as an investment for support later. In everything that we do we aim to be wise in our
dealings with our enemies without hurting them, confident that through our generosity and good
conduct we will always have many [secret] supporters.
25
To successfully choose sacrificial successors, all-important leadership selection norms that put
personal appearance and power, physical prowess and psychological capabilities, skills and
competencies first, must come last. In fact, these competencies are to be rejected, and a
candidate’s moral character and conduct must come first. While all the previously mentioned outer,
mental and physical attributes are important, the most vital values for a Sacrificial Succession are the
inner qualities of a successor such as their character, courage and willingness to act sacrificially.
26
This “Judas Principle” that someone close to you will betray you sometime in life, especially in
leadership is self-evident, so being prepared for it rather than paranoid about it is the key. Identify
the perpetrator and, instead of trying to fix them, it is best to leave them in the position they are in so
you can observe them based on the tactic of ‘keeping your friends close and your enemies even
closer’.
27
While in no way meant to criticise these great leaders, the following commentaries: 1) Jewish,
especially Davidic (the Old Testament books of Joshua, Judges, Kings and Chronicles in the Bible),
2) Buddhist, specifically Buddha (Piyasilo, 1995, “Charisma in Buddhism,” p. 115,
www.buddhanet.net, Accessed 20 August 2017) and 3) Muslim, primarily Muhammad (Robert A.
Campbella 2008, “Leadership succession in early Islam: Exploring the nature and role of historical
precedents”, The Leadership Quarterly 19/4, August 2008, pages 426-438), of their leadership
118 leaders struggle with succession, especially
transitions, demonstrate that even the world’s greatest
Sacrificial Succession.
28
Jefferey Sonnenfeld (2002) ‘What Makes Great Boards Great,’ “Harvard Business Review,”
the positive presence of past CEOs can be invaluable as a mentor and sounding board for current
leaders and link to critical outside parties.
29
John Bagot Glubb (1978) “The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival,”
http://www.rexresearch.com/glubb/glubb-empire.pdf, Accessed 22 June 2017, page 12. In his
conclusion, he notes that however varied, confusing and contradictory the religious history of the
world may appear, the noblest and most spiritual of the devotees of all religions seem to reach the
conclusion that love for others is the key to human life. (Sir John, himself a Christian, confirms, along
with Paul the Apostle and Christ, that of these three: faith, hope and love, the greatest is love, 1
Corinthians 13:13. For God so loved the world that He gave his only Son to the sacrifice for our sins.
John 3:16, confirms that great love requires great sacrifice.)
30
In a Sacrificial Succession, successors do not win or achieve their leadership position through their
own efforts or by competition with other contenders. Because they become leaders through the
sacrifice of leadership by predecessors, there are no grounds for successors to feel proud of their
own personal achievements in winning the role, only thankfulness for this vicarious sacrifice on their
behalf.
31
Cheryl Forbes (1983), “The Religion of Power”, Zondervan, page 183, explains mutual humility as
the antithesis of power leadership. She uses the example of people providing mutual hospitality to
one another as a pertinent example of the mutual humility required of leaders.
32
While it is difficult to explain naturalistically why someone more important would lay down their life
for someone less so, there is universal agreement that this unselfish sacrifice is the most perfect
form of altruism and a virtue that ultimately builds the strongest organisations and societies. See
Charles Darwin’s insightful commentary about sacrifice in his book “The Descent of Man and
Selection in Relation to Sex (1871),” www.munseys.com/diskone/darwindescent.pdf, page 289,
which notes that a tribe who sacrifices themselves for the common good are more likely to be
victorious over tribes who don’t do so, accessed 20 January, 2013.
33
Evidence that a paradigm shift or transformation of the mind has occurred in the life of a sacrificial
leader is their willingness to be a “living sacrifice” by handing over leadership sacrificially to
successors through Sacrificial Succession.
34
This story about the “last-first” principle of Sacrificial Succession shared earlier, challenges two
sacrosanct leadership norms. First, is the expectation that those who start first should be first
positionally and, second, that they should get more benefits. Length and breadth of service are both
challenged by this story, because the last and least are neither, yet they are put first.
35
The point of these analogies about freeing a slave or a victim of a kidnapping is that even if the
enslaved person has the means to free themselves, the ransom payment must be acceptable to the
one holding them captive and usually must be brokered by someone else other than the slave or
victim. With a Sacrificial Succession, the similarity is that those in authority over the predecessor and
successor must accept the ransom price being paid.
36 119in a Sacrificial Succession, especially between
Having both a testament and a covenant are vital
leadership, predecessors and successors. The distinction in a Sacrificial Succession between a
testament and covenant is that a testament is a formal mutually binding agreement between the
parties to honour the agreement whereas a covenant is a personal agreement especially between
to each other.
37
Jeffrey Sonnenfeld (1991) in “The Hero’s Farewell: What Happens When CEOs Retire,” Oxford
University Press, explains the departure style of senior leaders as being predominantly self-serving,
with ambassador-like leaders the prototype of sacrificial leaders in a Sacrificial Succession.
38
Jeffrey Sonnenfeld (2004) “Good governance and the misleading myths of bad metrics,” Academy
of Management Executive, 2004, Vol. 18, No. 1, notes that rather than intimidate or collude with their
successors, ambassador-like former CEOs, such as Microsoft’s Bill Gates, serve as invaluable public
spokespersons and private advisors to the new CEO.
39
Dynastic relationships through marriage and family ties are complicated and often compromised
by the strong potential for favouritism due to this kinship. Therefore, we cannot endorse this model
of leadership for Sacrificial Succession, despite recognising that there are and can be exceptions to
this rule, especially in family owned businesses.
40
Paola Bressan, Stephen M. Colarelli and Mary Beth Cavalieri (2009) “Biologically Costly Altruism
Depends on Emotional Closeness among Step but Not Half or Full Siblings”,
http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP07118132.pdf, p 128 accessed 20 January, 2013,
confirms that altruistic sacrifice depends more on emotional rather than biological closeness. In
other words, emotional bonds are ultimately stronger than family ties when it comes to sacrificial
acts.
41
Tribal societies like the Dayak of Borneo that I grew up with, have shared rituals that are passed
down from one generation to the next through story-telling and liminal experiences such as hunting
and fishing rites that reinforce the bonds of community, see Victor Turner, 1969 “The Ritual Process:
Structure and Anti-Structure,” Aldine de Gruyter: New York. Similarly, in a Sacrificial Succession,
having these shared ritual [liminal] experiences of serving, sacrificing for and sustaining each other,
reinforces the relationships between servants, sacrificers and sustainers and is their rite of passage
qualifying them for the next stage of the succession.
42
The minimum criteria for ongoing success in a Sacrificial Succession is three generations of leader:
1) predecessors, 2) successors and their 3) disciples, working together in relationship and
partnership of serve, sacrifice and sustain.
43
The role of predecessors as sustainers is vital, because by them being there to help, successors
are less inclined to do everything in their own strength, which can lead to pride if successful or a loss
of self-confidence if there is failure. This predecessor role of intercessor, mediator and advocate,
especially with leadership, saves successors from trying to sustain themselves. Akin to the
“sacrifice” principle in a Sacrificial Succession, having predecessors act on behalf of successors by
sacrificing leadership for, then sustaining them, helps keep both parties humble.
44
With Sacrificial Succession, it is vital for predecessors and successors to understand that they are
under authority when it comes to the selection of successors. It is the choice of leadership, those in
authority over them, that confirm who the successors should be rather than their predecessors
alone. To prove they have served without expectation, disciples must not expect that their
servantship guarantees them a place or position of successorship.
45
The three-generation leadership structure, including a headship authorising a predecessor to start
120successors and disciples throughout the process
a Sacrificial Succession and supporting them, their
is what makes a Sacrificial Succession successful. Without this triune relationship being put into
place and maintained, a Sacrificial Succession will fail.
every stage of a Sacrificial Succession. Without the authority from leadership to enact a Sacrificial
Succession, it will most likely fail at some point even if individuals act sacrificially.
47
Ken Favaro, Per Ola Karlsson and Gary L. Neilson (2011), “CEO Succession 2010: The Four Types
of CEO”, http://www.strategybusiness.com/media/file/sb63_11207.pdf,p. 47, accessed 06.05.2011
and Page Hull Teegarden (2004), “Nonprofit Executive Leadership and Transitions Survey 2004”, The
Annie E. Casey Foundation, http://www.aecf.org/, accessed 06.05.2011 all note that senior
leadership tenures last for about a decade.
48
The importance of sacrificial leaders having undergone at least one Sacrificial Succession is
emphasised here because when they have personal experience of serving, sacrificing for and
sustaining successors, they are much better equipped to identify and prepare sacrificial
successors—then support them in their Sacrificial Successions, because they have been through at
least one themselves.
49
Here the pride is in seeing successors succeed and knowing that we played a part in their success
through our sacrifice. As a universal language, self-sacrifice, similar to nature and art, speaks to all
peoples at all times, no matter their language or location, with the greatest of these vicarious self-
sacrifices being in place of someone else.
50
Robert Schuller, “Dispute Over Succession Clouds Megachurch,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/us/24cathedral.html?mcubz=1; “A tale of two churches: Why
the Lakewood/Osteen succession worked and the Crystal Cathedral/Schuller transition didn’t,”
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/faithmediaandculture/2015/06/a-tale-of-two-churches-why-
the-lakewoodosteen-succession-worked-and-the-crystal-cathedralschuller-transition-didnt.html,
accessed 4 September 2017.
51
Peter Limb (2008), “Nelson Mandela: A Biography”, Greenwood Press, page 50. F. W. De Klerk
(2011), “The Role of Leadership during South Africa’s Transition”:
http://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/files/F_W_de_Klerk_speech_to_Rhodes_Scholars.pdf, p 7,
accessed 3 September 2015.
52
“Maxwell Relinquishes Rights to $5.5 Million Final Retirement Payment; Fannie Mae Will Give
Money to Low-Income Housing”: http://www.thefreelibrary.com, accessed 4 September 2017.
53
James C. Collins (2001) “Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap...and Others
Don’t,” HarperCollins, found that the type of leadership required for turning a good company into a
great one was not high-profile leaders with big personalities who make headlines and become
celebrities. Rather, the good-to-great leaders were the opposite: self-effacing, quiet, reserved, even
shy—these leaders are a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will, pages 12-13.
54
A triune hierarchy must consist of those in authority such as a leadership or board, endorsing a
Sacrificial Succession by authorising and supporting a predecessor to serve, sacrifice and sustain a
successor and disciples approved by this leadership. This is the model and basis on which a
Sacrificial Succession practically works. 121
55
Using the house and home analogy is helpful in describing the right conditions for a Sacrificial
Succession in terms of both its structure and substance. Both the building’s parts (the house) and
122

The Last Will Be First

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Last Will Be First

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Last will

The Last will be

“It is a great pleasure to share something that

Copyright © Paul Rattray, 2019.

Serve to Sacrifice ................................................................................................ 46

Serve to Sustain .................................................................................................. 59

Apply Sacrificial Succession .............................................................................. 70

Sacrifice at the Right Time ........................................................................................ 79

Reward Sacrifice ................................................................................................. 91

Succeed through Sacrifice .............................................................................. 100

To those great pioneers who have inspired me

Dedicate this book to

May yours be a legacy that truly lasts!

As a companion book, The Last will be First Meditations is a more concise

leaders [predecessors] and future leaders [successors] in a leadership

Last First Succession

This act of predecessors putting the last first by personally preparing

the founding fathers. There is a synergy of forces.” He went on to say, “Thank

More About Succession

Less about Leadership

Here, in unpacking this problem, it must be emphasised: leaving a legacy that

characteristics of servantship required of leaders, such as putting others,

All About Sacrifice

succession is about the transitional handover of leadership from one leader to

o Who do you know is leaving a sacrificially successful legacy and why

Put the Last First

service to successors is the means to an end: Sacrificial Succession. Here is

Decrease so Successors can Increase

potential, indigenous successors. Davi’s concerns were perfectly justifiable and

Prepare Successors in Advance

In other places, it is simply the challenge of handing over leadership from

professional backgrounds, each transition started in a similar way. We

Disciple Successors Personally

Applied to a leadership transition, such a close relationship requires

Make Everything Known

successors. Understanding this close connection between predecessor and

Change the Paradigm

Talk about Transition

Entrust the Work to Successors

Communicate the Plan

avoid miscommunications and misunderstandings.

o Are you intentionally discipling someone?

Handover at the Right Time

Make a Mutual Sacrifice

Weight in Favour of Successors

seem counterproductive and counterintuitive for current leaders to sacrifice

Lay Down Leadership

Pay the Greater Price

farm and home he established, sacrificing his leadership by staying on to help

Understand the Purpose

leadership?” In answering such an important question, it is imperative to

Remain to Sustain Successors

Parent rather than Teach

Indeed, leaders who serve successors sacrificially post-succession have

Be Proactive rather than Reactive

no successors mean no success or legacy.

Teach and Remind Successors

and mentoring techniques do not apply. These structural factors contribute to

(pro)actively supporting successors, is such a vital role.

Advocate for and Guide Successors

Serve, Sacrifice and Sustain

required of them in each of these roles.

Servant: Willing to Serve and Be Served

Then, if selected as leaders, disciples, as potential successors prove