A Leader Without A Successor Quotes

When the person who personifies the WHY departs without clearly articulating WHY the company was founded in the first place, they leave no clear cause for their successor to lead.

Success without a successor is ultimately failure.

A leader is great, not because of his or her power, but because of his or her ability to empower others. Success without a successor is failure. A worker’s main responsibility is developing others to do the work.

leader is great, not because of his or her power, but because of his or her ability to empower others. Success without a successor is failure. A worker’s main responsibility is developing others to do the work (see

In its endeavour, science is communism. In science men have learned consciously to subordinate themselves to a common purpose without losing the individuality of their achievements. Each one knows that his work depends on that of his predecessors and colleagues and that it can only reach its fruition through the work of his successors. In science men collaborate not because they are forced to by superior authority or because they blindly follow some chosen leader, but because they realize that only in this willing collaboration can each man find his goal. Not orders, but advice, determine action. Each man knows that only by advice, honestly and disinterestedly given, can his work succeed, because such advice expresses as near as may be the inexorable logic of the material world, stubborn fact.

Show some courage—be the leader you want to be. Without legacy issues hanging over your head, you’ll be able to focus on building up your business to compete better and win, and you’ll channel the money you save by resolving issues proactively back into the business. You won’t reap all of the financial benefits—your successors will inherit them as well. What you will reap is a legacy; a reputation as a strong, transformational leader.

A leader without a SUCCESSOR is a COMPRESSOR

By bringing Nikkie to power, Yeroen had carved out an influential role for himself. With Luit’s death, however, his leverage evaporated. All of a sudden, Nikkie didn’t need the old male anymore. Finally he could be boss on his own, or so he must have thought. Soon after I had left for America, however, Yeroen began to cultivate a tie with Dandy, a younger male. This took several years, but eventually led to Dandy challenging Nikkie as leader. The ensuing tensions drove Nikkie to a desperate escape attempt. He actually drowned trying to make it across the moat around the island. The local newspaper dubbed it a suicide, but to me it seemed more likely a panic attack with a fatal outcome. Since this was the second death on Yeroen’s hands, I must admit that I’ve always had trouble looking at this scheming male without seeing a murderer. A year after this tragic incident, my successor decided to show the chimps a movie. The Family of Chimps was a documentary filmed at the zoo when Nikkie was still alive. With the apes ensconced in their winter hall, the movie was projected onto a white wall. Would they recognize their deceased leader? As soon as a life-sized Nikkie appeared on the wall, Dandy ran screaming to Yeroen, literally jumping into the old male’s lap! Yeroen had a nervous grin on his face. Nikkie’s miraculous “resurrection” had temporarily restored their old pact.

During NASA’s first fifty years the agency’s accomplishments were admired globally. Democratic and Republican leaders were generally bipartisan on the future of American spaceflight. The blueprint for the twenty-first century called for sustaining the International Space Station and its fifteen-nation partnership until at least 2020, and for building the space shuttle’s heavy-lift rocket and deep spacecraft successor to enable astronauts to fly beyond the friendly confines of low earth orbit for the first time since Apollo. That deep space ship would fly them again around the moon, then farther out to our solar system’s LaGrange points, and then deeper into space for rendezvous with asteroids and comets, learning how to deal with radiation and other deep space hazards before reaching for Mars or landings on Saturn’s moons. It was the clearest, most reasonable and best cost-achievable goal that NASA had been given since President John F. Kennedy’s historic decision to land astronauts on the lunar surface. Then Barack Obama was elected president. The promising new chief executive gave NASA short shrift, turning the agency’s future over to middle-level bureaucrats with no dreams or vision, bent on slashing existing human spaceflight plans that had their genesis in the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush White Houses. From the starting gate, Mr. Obama’s uncaring space team rolled the dice. First they set up a presidential commission designed to find without question we couldn’t afford the already-established spaceflight plans. Thirty to sixty thousand highly skilled jobs went on the chopping block with space towns coast to coast facing 12 percent unemployment. $9.4 billion already spent on heavy-lift rockets and deep space ships was unashamedly flushed down America’s toilet. The fifty-year dream of new frontiers was replaced with the shortsighted obligations of party politics. As 2011 dawned, NASA, one of America’s great science agencies, was effectively defunct. While Congress has so far prohibited the total cancellation of the space agency’s plans to once again fly astronauts beyond low earth orbit, Obama space operatives have systematically used bureaucratic tricks to slow roll them to a crawl. Congress holds the purse strings and spent most of 2010 saying, “Wait just a minute.” Thousands of highly skilled jobs across the economic spectrum have been lost while hundreds of billions in “stimulus” have been spent. As of this writing only Congress can stop the NASA killing. Florida’s senior U.S. Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat, a former spaceflyer himself, is leading the fight to keep Obama space advisors from walking away from fifty years of national investment, from throwing the final spade of dirt on the memory of some of America’s most admired heroes. Congressional committees have heard from expert after expert that Mr. Obama’s proposal would be devastating. Placing America’s future in space in the hands of the Russians and inexperienced commercial operatives is foolhardy. Space legend John Glenn, a retired Democratic Senator from Ohio, told president Obama that “Retiring the space shuttles before the country has another space ship is folly. It could leave Americans stranded on the International Space Station with only a Russian spacecraft, if working, to get them off.” And Neil Armstrong testified before the Senate’s Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee that “With regard to President Obama’s 2010 plan, I have yet to find a person in NASA, the Defense Department, the Air Force, the National Academies, industry, or academia that had any knowledge of the plan prior to its announcement. Rumors abound that neither the NASA Administrator nor the President’s Science and Technology Advisor were knowledgeable about the plan. Lack of review normally guarantees that there will be overlooked requirements and unwelcome consequences. How could such a chain of events happen?

As the Family looked for Russia’s future leader, a series of meetings between Berezovsky and Putin commenced. By this time, Putin was the head of Russia’s secret police. Yeltsin had obliterated the top brass everywhere, repeatedly, and the FSB—the Federal Security Service, as the successor agency to the KGB was now called—was no exception. If Berezovsky is to be believed, he was the one who mentioned Putin to Valentin Yumashev, Yeltsin’s chief of staff. “I said, ‘We’ve got Putin, who used to be in the secret services, didn’t he?’ And Valya said, ‘Yes, he did,’ and I said, ‘Listen, I think it’s an option. Think about it: he is a friend, after all.’ And Valya said, ‘But he’s got pretty low rank.’ And I said, ‘Look, there is a revolution going on, everything is all mixed up, so there…’” As a description of the decision-making process for appointing the head of the main security agency of a nuclear power, this conversation sounds so absurd, I am actually inclined to believe it.

The split in Islam began with the death of the prophet Muhammad in 632 AD. The divide is more about politics than theology. Shiites believe Muhammad appointed his son-in-law, Ali, as his successor. Shiites hold that only blood relatives of Muhammad can lead the faith. Sunnis, on the other hand, believe Muhammad died without appointing a successor so any learned and righteous member can be appointed leader. A decisive battle was fought in 680 AD near the town of Karbala in present-day Iraq. The Shiite forces were massacred and the Shiite leader was killed.27 Despite their defeat, today in Iraq, about 65 percent of Muslims are Shiites, only 30 percent belong to the victorious Sunni sect.28 And therein lies the animosity. From the creation of modern-day Iraq, the minority Sunnis have held power.

I am the leader of a party. I have only two years more as President, and I cannot take an action without thinking what will be its effect upon the party’s future; otherwise I might throw away my six years’ work, and have the humiliation of seeing a successor undo the entire New Deal.

Ali—the Shi’a—had called for a caliph of Ali’s blood. Neither time had their voices been strong enough to triumph against the majority, known as the Sunni. So the party of Ali, rejecting the caliphs as illegitimate, had exalted its own series of leaders: not caliphs, but imams, religious leaders who refused to swear allegiance to the caliphate. The Shi’a (a relatively small group who lived within the Sunni majority, sometimes peacefully, sometimes in a state of minor war) were willing to obey their imams without question. They believed that the Prophet himself had designated his successor, and that each imam had the God-given, infallible knowledge that allowed him to designate the next successor. The imams could not make mistakes, because they were filled with the wisdom of the Divine.3