Towards convergence It has long been customary to treat the corporate and political sectors as distant universes, and therefore business and political leadership as entirely different crafts. But today it is easy to overstate those differences. Small and medium-sized firms, large corporations, political parties and governments are all facing the same set of megatrends that challenge their common roots as modernist projects of instrumental rationality through order, design, control and hierarchy. These trends include: accelerating and disruptive technological change; globalization and connectivity of markets, social problems and governance structures; greater public demand for transparency and accountability from any type of entity, profession or authority figure whose actions affect their lives; mass media, social media and mobile devices permanently shaping people’s cognitive and emotional frames, creating web-empowered customers and citizens with ‘liquid’ tastes, preferences, values and life styles (‘t Hart, 2014). The world in which business and political leaders operate has become ‘flat’: demanding, changeable, boundary-less, fast-paced. They feel the pinch: their longevity in office has gone down while the percentage of forced departures has gone up. Business and political leaders thus face a similar paradox: satisfying a romantic longing for ‘charismatic’ leadership that provides protection, direction and order in a complex and volatile world where nothing can be taken for granted anymore, and at the same time being constrained in exercising that leadership by a thickening of governance structures and accountability requirements that enable their authorizing environment to contain them and get rid of them more effectively. There is appetite for transformational leadership, yet the dominant rules of the game governing both business and political leadership conduce towards transactional leadership (cf. Burns, 1978).
Given this unfolding institutional isomorphism, what might be some productive lines for comparative, cross-sectoral inquiry? We propose three theoretical points of departure that could inspire such work. Firstly, from a powerperspective on succession, the lens can be turned on the question of who controls whom. A power perspective on political succession invites us to analyze successions as products of strategic and tactical choices, as well signalling, impression management, and bargaining. It sees the rise, tenure, actions, impact and departure of leaders in terms of the ongoing pulling and hauling between leaders and those who can select, empower, de-authorize and remove them within the relevant governance structure. Political scientists should take note of the elite circulation versus institutionalisation of power models that have been used and refined in the study of CEO dismissals (Ocasio, 1994). Likewise, the ‘power game’ of incumbent-challenger(s) interaction as modelled by Bynander and ‘t Hart (2006, 2008) might inspire students of corporate successions to go beyond the penetrate the succession politics within firms more effectively . Likewise, Finkelstein et al’s (2009) synopsis of the big body of work on the politics of top management teams can be usefully fused with Dowding et al’s (2013) work on the politics of ministerial survival and cabinet reshuffles to provide an integrative perspective on the power dynamics that produce both corporate and political successions and influence their outcomes.
Secondly, an accountability perspective on succession generates a set of related, but analytically distinct set of questions (Mulgan, 2003; Uhr, 2005). Which mechanisms are in place to ensure that CEO’s and party leaders, who are put there to act as ‘agents’ on behalf of some constituency and/or set of values and interests, are induced to render account of their behaviour to the ‘principals’ who put them there? Who are in effect the relevant principals for, say, party leaders, cabinet ministers or departmental secretaries, and how are the accountability relationships between principals and agents constituted? The many instances of change to party rules of leadership selection and removal that we have seen across the democratic world in the last three decades have in large part been motivated by the idea of opening up these pivotal leadership processes up to broader scrutiny and indeed participation, even down to the level of ordinary party members. Likewise, the thickening of corporate governance structures has aimed to strengthen the checks and balances around corporate executives. A key question generated by the accountability perspective on succession is to what extent these aims have been realised, and succession episodes are good place to conduct such inquiry. What can the course and outcomes of succession episodes teach us about the real terms of the principal-agent relationships between owners, shareholders, boards and CEO’s within corporations, and between party members, parliamentarians and party leaders within political parties?
This leads into a third area of comparative inquiry, guided by a normative perspective on succession. How do we know a ‘good’, ‘well-managed’ succession if we see it? The academic literature has bene largely silent on this, preoccupied as it has been with the when, how and why-questions that suit its empirical toolkit. But as a result, it has left the job of assessing and advising about successions to the largely theory-deprived and ‘fact-free’ world of self-help succession planning guides (e.g. Rothwell, 2010). There is no normative theory of succession, but there should be? What ought to be the values that parties and companies seek to maximize when they design their leadership succession rules, and when key actors within both consider replacing incumbent senior office-holders? How to institutionalize succession norms and practices that effectively navigate the tension between the need for continuity and predictability of corporate, party and government strategy with the need for responsiveness to electoral or market signals, new leaders’ need for distinctive political capital and indeed the need for periodic ‘creative destruction’ and course changes in the life of institutions? At a minimum, we would want key decisions about leader selection and removal to be taken in a transparent, inclusive fashion. More ambitiously, successions should select office-holders in such a manner as to have the authority necessary for not just surviving in the role but actually exercising leadership. These are just ruminations of course. What we need is a field of research that does not eschew but embraces the challenges of evaluating successions. This would provide it with the much needed impetus to transform itself from what to date have been largely two sets of uncoordinated academic parlour games into a more ambitious and more relevant endeavour that is both transdisciplinary and applied.
References Barron, J.M., Chulkov, D.V., Waddell, G.R. (2011), Top management team turnover, CEO succession type, and strategic change. Journal of Business Research 64(6): 904–910
Bennedsen, M., Nielsen, K.M., Perez-Gonzalez, F., Wolfenzon, D. (2007). Inside the Family Firm: The Role of Families in Succession Decisions and Performance. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 122 (2): 647-691
Bennett, A., George, A.L. (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, Cambridge: MIT Press
Bennister, M., ‘t Hart, P., Worthy, B. (2014) Assessing the authority of political office-holders: The Leadership Capital Index. West European Politics, published online 15 Oct, 2014. DOI: 10.1080/01402382.2014.954778
Bille, L. (2001) ‘Democratizing a democratic procedure: myth or reality? Candidate selection in Western European parties, 1960-1990’, Party Politics, 7(3), 363-80
Blatter, J., Haverland, M. (2013) Designing Case Studies: Explanatory Approaches in Small-N Research, Basingstoke: Palgrave
Boeker, W. (1992), Power and managerial dismissal: Scapegoating at the top. Administrative Science Quarterly 37 (3): 400-421
Boyne, G. and Dahya, J. (2002) ‘Executive succession and the performance of public organizations’, Public Administration, 80(1), 179-200
Boyne G. A., James O., John P. and Petrovsky N. (2011) Top management turnover and organizational performance: A test of a contingency model. Public Administration Review 71(4): 572–581
Bueno de Mesquita, B., Smith, A., Siverson, R. M., and Morrow, J. D. (2003) The Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
Bunce, V. (1981) Do New Leaders Make a Difference? Executive Succession and Public Policy Under Capitalism and Socialism. Princeton: Princeton University Press
Burns, J.M. (1978) Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
Bynander, F., ‘t Hart, P. (2006) When power changes hands: The political psychology of leadership succession in democracies, Political Psychology 27(5): 707-729
Bynander, F., ‘t Hart, P. (2008) The art of handing over: (Mis)managing party leader successions. Government and Opposition 43(2): 385-404
Calise, M. (2011) Personalization of politics. In: B. Badie (ed.) International Encyclopedia of Political Science. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Calvert, P. (ed.)(1978) The Process of Political Succession. Houndmills: Macmillan
Carroll, G.R. (1984) The dynamics of publisher succession in newspaper organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 16(3): 416-428
Ceron, A. (2014) Inter-factional conflicts and government formation: Do party leaders sort out ideological heterogeneity? Party Politics, published online on December 16, 2014.
Collins, J. (2001) Good to Great. New York: Harper
Costa Lobo, M. (2008) Parties and leader effects: Impact of leaders in the vote for different types of parties. Party Politics 14(3): 281-298
Cross, W., & Blais, A. (2012a) Who selects the party leader? Party Politics 18(2): 127-150
Cross, W., Blais, A. (2012b) Politics at the Centre. The Selection and Removal of Party Leaders in the Anglo Parliamentary Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press Dalpiaz, E., Tracey, P., Phillips, N. (2014), Succession narratives in family business: The case of Alessi, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38: 1375-93
Davis, J. W. (1998) Leadership Selection in Six Western Democracies. Westport: Greenwood Press
Denham, A., O'Hara, K. (2008) Demcratising Conservative Leadership Selection: From Grey Suits to Grass Roots. Manchester: Manchester University Press
Dowding, K. (2013) Prime-ministerial power: Institutional and personal factors. In: P. Strangio, P.’t Hart, and J. Walter (eds) Understanding Prime Ministerial Performance: Comparative Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dowding, K., Berlinski, S. Dewan, T. (2012) Accounting for Ministers: Scandal and Survival in British Government, 1945-2007. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D.C., Cannella, A.A. (2009) Strategic Leadership: Theory and Research on Executives, Top Management Teams, and Boards. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Foley, M. (2013) Political Leadership: Themes, Contexts, and Critiques. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Frederickson, J.W., Hambrick, D.C., Baumrin, S. (1988) A model of CEO dismissal. The Academy of Management Review 13(2): 255-270.
Froelich, K., McKee, G., Rathge, R. (2011) Succession planning in non profit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 22(1): 3-20
Gamson, W.A., Scotch, N.A. (1964) Scapegoating in baseball. American Journal of Sociology 70(1): 69-72
Giambatista, R.C., Rowe, W.G., Riaz, S. (2005), Nothing succeeds like succession: A critical review of leader succession literature since 1994. The Leadership Quarterly 16(5): 963-991
Grunberg, J. (2002) Problematic Departures: CEO Exits in Large Swedish Publicly Traded Corporations. Doctoral Thesis no. 93. Uppsala: Department of Business Studies
Grusky, O. (1963) Managerial succession and organizational effectiveness. American Journal of Sociology 69(1): 21-31
Grusky, O. (1964) Reply to scapegoating in baseball. American Journal of Sociology 70(1): 72-76
Haddadj, S. (2006) Paradoxical process in the organizational change of the CEO succession. Journal of Organizational Change Management 19(4): 447 – 456
Hajer, M. (2009) Authoritative Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Haveman, H.A., Russo, M.V., Meyer, A.D. (2001) Organizational environments in flux: The impact of regulatory punctuations on organizational domains, CEO succession and performance. Organization Science 12(3): 253-73
Heppell, T. (2008) Choosing the Tory Leader: Conservative Party Leadership Elections from Heath to Cameron. London: Taurus
Heppell, T. (2010) Choosing the Labour Leader: Labour Party Leadership elections from Wilson to Brown. London: Taurus
Hutzschenreuter, T., Kleindienst, I., Greger, C. (2012), How new leaders affect strategic change following a succession event: A critical review of the literature. The Leadership Quarterly 23(4): 729-755
Jung, J. (2014) Political contestation at the top: Politics of outsider succession at U.S. corporations. Organization Studies 35(5): 727–764
Karaevli, A. (2007) Performance Consequences of New CEO 'Outsiderness': Moderating Effects of Pre- and Post-Succession Contexts. Strategic Management Journal 28(7): 681-706
Karvonen, L. (2010) The Personalisation of Politics: A Study of Parliamentary Democracies. Colchester: ECPR Press.
Kenig, O. (2009) Democratization of party leadership selection: Do wider selectorates produce more competitive contests? Electoral Studies 28(2): 240-47
Kesner, I. F., & Sebora, T. C. (1994) Executive succession: Past, present and future. Journal of Management (20)2: 327–372
Khurana, R. (2002) Searching for a Corporate Savior: The Irrational Quest for Charismatic CEO’s. Princeton: Princeton University Press
Konrad, K. A., & Skaperdas, S. (2007) Succession rules and leadership rents. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 51(4): 622-645.
Laing, M., ‘t Hart, P. (2011) Seeking and keeping the hot seat: A comparative analysis of party leader succession. In: P. ‘t Hart and J. Uhr (eds) How Power Changes Hands. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 111-132
Leduc, L. (2001) Democratizing party leadership selection. Party Politics, 7(2): 323–41
Lees-Marshment, J. (2012) Political marketing and opinion leadership. In L. Helms (ed.) Comparative Political Leadership. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 165-185.
Mair, P. (2013) Ruling the Void: The Hollowing of Western Democracy. London: Verso.
McCauley, M., Carter, S. (eds)(1986) Leadership and Succession in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and China. London: MacMillan.
Minkin, Lewis (2014) The Blair Supremacy: A Study in the Politics of Labour's Party Management. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Mughan, A. (2015) Parties, conditionality and leader effects in parliamentary elections. Party Politics 21(1): 28-39.
Ocasio, W. (1994) Political dynamics and the circulation of power: CEO successions in U.S. industrial corporations, 1960-1990. Administrative Science Quarterly 39(2): 285-212
Ocasio, W. (1999) Institutionalised action and and corporate governance: The reliance on rules of CEO succession. Administrative Science Quarterly 44(2): 384-416
Ocasio, W., Kim, H. (1999) The circulation of corporate control. Administrative Science Quarterly 44(3): 532-562
Pilet, J-B., Cross, W. (eds)(2014), The Selection of Political Party Leaders in Contemporary Democracies. London: Routledge
Poulin, B.J., Hackman, M.Z., Barbarasa-Mihai, C. (2007) Leadership succession: The challenge to succeed and the vortex of failure. Leadership 3(3): 301-324
Punnett, R. M. (1992) Selecting the Party Leader: Britain in Comparative Perspective. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf
Quinn, T. (2005) ‘Leasehold or freehold? Leader eviction rules in the British Conservative and Labour parties’, Political Studies, 53(4), 793-815.
Rahat, G., Hazan, R. Y. (2001) Candidate selection methods: An analytical framework. Party Politics 7(3): 297-322.
Renshon, S. (2000) Political leadership as social capital: Governing in a divided national culture. Political Psychology 21(1): 199–226.
Renshon, S. (2012) The contributions of political psychology to comparative political leadership analysis. In: L. Helms (ed.) Comparative Political Leadership. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 186-206.
Rothwell, W.J. (2010) Effective Succession Planning: Ensuring Leadership Continuity and Building Talent From Within. New York: Amacom
Rowe, W. G., Cannella Jr., A. A., Rankin, D. and Gorman, D. (2005) Leader succession and organizational performance: Integrating the common-sense, ritual scapegoating, and vicious-circle succession theories. The Leadership Quarterly 16(2): 197-219
Russell, M. (2005) Building New Labour: The Politics of Party Organisation. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Stark, L. (1996) Choosing a Leader: Party Leadership Contests in Britain from Macmillan to Blair. London: Macmillan
‘t Hart, P. (2014) Understanding Public Leadership. Houndmills: Palgrave
‘t Hart, P. and Uhr, J. (eds)(2011) How Power Changes Hands: Transition and Succession in Government. Houndmills: Palgrave
Teodoro, M. (2013) Moving in, managing up: Executive job formation and political behaviour. Journal of Public Policy 33(2): 137–164
Theakston, K., De Vries, J. (eds)(2012) Former Leaders in Modern Democracries: Political Sunsets. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Tiffen, R. (2015), Thinking of dumping a prime minister? History isn’t encouraging. Inside Story 8 February 2015. http://insidestory.org.au/thinking-of-dumping-a-prime-minister-history-isnt-encouraging, consulted 10 February 2015
Turner, J. C., Haslam, S. A. (2001) Social identity, organizations, and leadership. In M.E. Turner (ed.) Groups at work: Theory and research. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 25-65.
Tushman, M.L., Rosenkopf, L. (1996) Executive succession, strategic reorientation and performance growth. Management Science 42(7): 939-953
Weller, P. (1983) The vulnerability of prime ministers: A comparative perspective. Parliamentary Affairs, 36(1): 96-117
Weller, P. (1994) Party rules and the dismissal of prime ministers: Comparative perspectives from Britain, Canada and Australia. Parliamentary Affairs, 47(2): 133-43