❖ Managing difficult relationships with supervisors or key staff
(Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, Joseph and Pharaoh, David and
Absalom)
Leadership Development
209
❖ Playing for high stakes (Moses and the ten plagues, Esther risk-
ing her life to save her people)
❖ Facing extremely harsh business situations (Noah and the flood;
Joseph and the famine; Job, who lost seven thousand sheep,
three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen, and five
hundred donkeys yet who maintained his integrity and rose to
prosper once again)
❖ Struggling with complexity of scope or scale (Solomon build-
ing the temple)
❖ Having the wrong background or lacking a needed skill or cre-
dential (David, poor shepherd boy, defeating Goliath and then
becoming the king of Israel)
❖ Having to make a sudden, stark transition (Moses having to
leave Egypt with little notice and no clear map to his destina-
tion; the disciples giving up their nets and following Jesus)
Former chairman of British automaker Rover, Sir Graham Day, con-
curs that difficult experience is often the best teacher. His organization
had become too complacent in a turbulent market and was beginning
to lose ground. ‘‘Rover’s need to establish what we now term a learning
organization came from the imperative to secure the company’s sur-
vival. Executives reported significant learning experiences stemmed
from hardships and learning from other people, both the revered and
the hated.’’15 Moses learned a lot from his father-in-law, Jethro, but he
learned even more from his joustings with Pharaoh; without a Pharaoh,
there would never have been a need for a Moses.
Manfred Kets De Vries has referred to developmental assignments as
‘‘doing a Timbuktu’’—sending an executive in need of development to
a remote outpost with a number of difficult challenges.16 If De Vries
had been writing in biblical times, he probably would have referred to
‘‘doing a Crete,’’ ‘‘doing an Egypt,’’ or ‘‘doing a Babylon.’’ Most of the
Bible’s leaders were shaped not by theoretical learning but by challeng-
ing, often harrowing experiences in which they were forced to take
dramatic actions to preserve lives and achieve group goals. They and
their mentors intuitively knew that ‘‘the only real training for leadership is leadership.’’
210
THE BIBLE ON LEADERSHIP
ORDERLY SUCCESSION
The transition from Moses to Joshua was an orderly one. Moses hand-
picked Joshua, mentored him, and gave him challenging developmental
experiences. Apparently there was no rival for the leadership of the
organization, so there was none of the competition for the throne that
can result in dissension and internal weakness.
On the other hand, the transition from David to Solomon was disor-
derly and rancorous, definitely not the model for effective succession
planning. David, Solomon, and the nation were extremely fortunate
that Solomon was able to govern at all, and that the nation survived.
David had many sons by his many wives (which can make succession
planning in a ‘‘family business’’ very complicated). The first in line to
succeed David on the throne was Amnon. However, Amnon was not a
paragon of personal morality. Highly attracted to his half-sister, Tamar,
he feigned illness, asked her to tend to him, and raped her. King David
was furious, but failed to take any action in response.
Tamar’s brother, Absalom, fumed about this for two years. Finally,
he lured his half-brother Amnon to a sheep-shearing, where he had his
attendants kill him.
Where first we had an incestuous rapist about to ascend the throne,
we now have a murderer. But ruthless and ambitious executives some-
times make tactical errors. Absalom could not wait until his father David
had died, and so he challenged his authority. He gained the loyalty of a
group of tribal leaders, and he gathered them at Hebron to challenge
his father politically and militarily.
David was highly conflicted about the attempted early accession of
his own son, but he gathered his forces and put down the rebellion; in
the process he suffered the loss of a son whom he had loved. He next
designated Solomon (‘‘Shlomo’’ in Hebrew, derived from ‘‘Shalom,’’
the word for peace). He laid hands on Solomon, anointed him with oil,
and symbolically placed the cornerstone of the temple for him. He also
probably heaved a tremendous sigh of relief that after all the mayhem
he still had a few sons left and that this one seemed capable of ruling
with a kind and wise, yet firm, hand.
Leadership Development
211
It’s not always a ‘‘straight line,’’ but as the Bible progresses, the lead-
ership transitions generally become more planned and less random,
more peaceful and less violent, culminating in the orderly passage (de-
spite turbulent conditions) from Jesus to his disciples. Modern compa-
nies also need planned, peaceful leadership transitions if they are to last more than a generation or two.
Samuel Curtis Johnson of S. C. Johnson arranged a smoother transi-
tion than David’s by ‘‘dividing up the kingdom’’ among his three off-
spring according to their desires and abilities. Helen Leopold-Johnson
now heads the recreational goods business, Curt Johnson the industrial
unit, and Herbert Fisk Johnson the largest unit, consumer products,
which includes such brands as Drano, Windex, and Raid.
How did Johnson accomplish this without the wholesale succession
mayhem of ‘‘David and Sons’’? There was a tradition of peaceful execu-
tive continuity and cooperation. As Helen Leopold-Johnson notes,
‘‘My grandfather set the tone in the 1920s, and my father came with
international growth and technology. Each generation brings something
different.’’
The offspring were given appropriate developmental assignments,
such as Johnson Bank, considered a ‘‘good farm team’’ for the children.
The family also set up a council of advisers, which helped them divide
up the responsibilities (similar to the Twelve Tribes of Israel) and pro-
vided a systematic mechanism for resolving disputes (no fratricide
here!). ‘‘We all came with slightly different strengths,’’ notes Helen
Leopold-Johnson. ‘‘You’re not in it for yourself, and it doesn’t matter
which piece is bigger than the other . . . If one of us goes berserk,
there’s a plan to remove that person.’’17
Jack Welch’s ‘‘obsession’’ with a smooth transition came from the
firsthand knowledge that a contentious process often resulted in organi-
zational damage. When he himself had been chosen, the candidates
were subjected to a four-year head-to-head competition, and the com-
pany had become too internally focused. ‘‘Things were . . . becoming
very political . . . camps were being formed in the company. Pray to
God that doesn’t happen again.’’18
Welch didn’t just ‘‘pray,’’ he planned. He made a list of the top can-
212
THE BIBLE ON LEADERSHIP
didates best prepared to succeed him, and every May and November
the directors reviewed the files of the top fifteen managers for strengths, weaknesses, and future assignments. He was trying to avoid a succession
process that became ‘‘a bloody dustup’’ of ‘‘poor preparation, out-of-
control egos, and bad choices.’’
When Bill Taylor became CEO of CIGNA at age 44, the selection
of his successor may not have appeared to be a priority. But Taylor
realized that the age of a CEO is irrelevant in succession planning, since
emergencies and unplanned events can, and frequently do, arise. He
made succession planning and management development two of his
top priorities, discussing the qualifications of two to three replacements
regularly at board meetings and in-depth once a year. He also wrote a
letter ‘‘to be opened in the event of my death or disability,’’ which
recorded what had actually been said at these meetings; he realized that
in the scramble for power, the data might be subjectively interpreted or
distorted. Taylor made sure that succession planning extended down
several layers of the organization, to include business heads and high
potentials, with a particular emphasis on young managers who would
be the lifeblood of the organization and who would be the most likely
to become the next CEO.19
David Packard of Hewlett-Packard also realized the importance of
systematic succession planning, particularly in a company closely identi-
fied with the personalities and policies of its current leaders. ‘‘The ob-
ject is to build sufficient strength into the organization so that the future of Hewlett-Packard Company is not dependent upon any one or two
or three people, including Bill [Hewlett] and myself.’’20 These two lead-
ers were not about to fall into the trap of France’s Louis the XIV, who
proclaimed, ‘‘Apres moi, le deluge,’’ which roughly translates into,
‘‘After me, the company’s up for grabs.’’ Nor did they want to use as
their credo King David’s initial succession philosophy: ‘‘After me, who-
ever is still standing.’’
Becton Dickinson realized the need for a more formal succession
process when Ray Gilmartin suddenly left to become CEO of Merck
(whose succession plan for the internal candidates also went awry, since
Gilmartin was an outsider). Becton Dickinson was left with a difficult
Leadership Development
213
transition problem because Clateo Castellini, the heir apparent, had an-
nounced his intention to retire and return to his native Italy. Moreover,
Castellini had little board experience. Becton Dickinson learned from