- Since time immemorial, one of the most common phenomena experienced by humanity is the way the internecine connections are played out between the predecessor and the successor on matters of relevance, covering all aspects of our existence, especially economic. You name it, one might see this phenomenon playing out much to the amusement of all concerned. It could be a prince succeeding the king/emperor, a business protégé succeeding the well-established entrepreneur, a family patriarch handing over the legacy to progeny, and the list goes on. In every such transformational occurrence, what is most palpable is the newbie assuming the charge, wishing to introduce measures that are suitable for the present times.
PC: Financial Times
- Nothing wrong with this premise. As the popular saying goes, the old water must pave way for the fresh water to occupy the space created. Likewise, an incumbent replacing the predecessor is expected to usher in new ideas, policies, a blueprint, and a roadmap to carry forward the business conglomerate to even higher heights. However, the usual expectations from all concerned are to assess the new appointees to helm the affairs at any great business houses is to view as true legatees to carry forward the established norms. Presently, such a dynamic is at play vis-à-vis contestation around Ratan Tata’s legacy at Tatas. Hardly surprising. This always happens upon the passing of those very few people who can be credited with creating something special.
PC: Times of India
- Of course, remember that debates and worries about legacies and legatees rest on the assumption that the key remit of a successor is to be true to the vision of his great predecessor. This is a problematic assumption. It assigns less value to the core remit of the successor: grow the business. Mind you, Tim Cook didn’t constantly worry whether he was being true to Jobs’s vision. But he’s turned Apple from a premium device-maker to a massive, multifaceted company, with businesses ranging from payment services to an Oscar-nominated TV and film production studio. He’s acquired more than 100 companies. Cook will never be a Jobs. But he’s more than done his job. The legacy question will matter less if exceptionally talented leaders were indifferent to it.
PC: Dreamstime.com
- Indeed, acquiring such indifference isn’t easy. But it’s not impossible. Once we worry about legacy, our core team will amplify it, and the successor will have even more to worry about. That’s surely not good news for the great thing you created. Worries about legacies can produce seriously negative outcomes. Even for countries. There’s something called Founder’s Syndrome, which happens when talented creators refuse to see that the world has changed. The legacy question is a variation of this. If successors are evaluated as true legatees, they will try to protect what’s old, while new things keep happening around them. New beginnings require definitive endings. Fostering new ideas to take root is a win-win situation for all concerned. Period.
