Rethinking Leadership Succession for the Next Generation
Last week, we welcomed two new team members to Arrow. Ally and Sharon will be stepping into roles I used to carry, and I find myself caught in a question I didn’t see coming.
What do I actually need to hand over?
It sounds straightforward. But it’s not. I keep making mental lists. This is essential Arrow DNA. That’s just how I did it. This matters for our culture. That’s probably negotiable and the more I think about it, the less certain I am about where those lines actually sit.
There’s a deeper discomfort underneath the logistics. I’ve spent years building rhythms, relationships, and ways of working that feel right to me and they’ve served Arrow well. But Ally and Sharon are stepping into a different context than the one I stepped into. They see things I don’t see. They’ll ask questions I didn’t think to ask.
And here’s what unsettles me: what if the models and structures I want to pass on aren’t actually what they need to lead well in the years ahead?
I don’t think it’s resistance when the next generation questions what we’ve built. I think they’re reading the landscape differently than we did. They’re asking questions about sustainability, power, and relevance that feel urgent to them in ways they didn’t to us.
Maybe that’s not a problem to solve. Maybe that’s wisdom to receive.
So I’m learning to hold my lists more lightly, and I’m starting to wonder whether succession is less about transfer and more about trust.
You can prepare the next generation for their context without abandoning everything you’ve learned in yours. Here are three questions that are reshaping how I’m thinking about succession.
Question #1: What’s essential, and what’s just familiar?
One of the hardest parts of succession is distinguishing between what must be preserved and what we’re simply used to.
I’ve been asking myself this question about Arrow constantly. What’s genuinely core to who we are? Formation over function. Christ-centredness in leadership. Long obedience rather than quick results. These aren’t negotiable, they’re woven into the fabric of everything we do.
But how I’ve expressed those values? The specific structures I’ve used? The rhythms I’ve built? Those are methods, not mission. Methods can, and probably should, change.
The trouble is that distinguishing between the two requires a level of honesty that can feel uncomfortable. We have to admit that some of what we’re holding onto isn’t essential. It’s just familiar. It worked for us, in our season, with our challenges but the landscape has shifted.
Research on succession planning shows that values and beliefs form the pillar of an organisation, but they must be protected without becoming rigid.[^1] The question isn’t whether the next generation honours what we’ve built. It’s whether we’ve clearly articulated what actually matters, so they can carry it forward in ways that fit their context.
This is uncomfortable work. It asks us to let go of control while holding fast to calling. To release methods while protecting mission. To trust that what God is building through the next generation might look different from what we’ve known.
That needs to be ok and it might even be necessary.
Question #2: What questions are they asking that I didn’t have to ask?
The next generation isn’t being difficult when they question inherited structures. They’re reading their world in new contexts.
I didn’t have to ask some of the questions my own kids are asking as they step into church leadership. Questions about sustainability in ministry. About whether traditional leadership structures still connect with the people they’re trying to reach. About how to lead with authenticity in an age of profound scepticism about institutions.
These aren’t bad questions, they’re essential ones but if I’m dismissive of them, I’m not protecting what’s good, I’m refusing to learn.
Research on generational differences in leadership shows that emerging leaders value different things than their predecessors, not because they’re less committed, but because the contexts they’re leading in demand different approaches.[^2] Millennials and Gen Z leaders place a higher value on collaborative decision-making, flexibility, and transparency than on hierarchical authority.
The most effective leaders don’t treat generational differences as obstacles to overcome. They treat them as opportunities to learn.[^3] They watch for what emerging leaders are seeing that they’re not. They take seriously the reality that different contexts require different approaches.
This doesn’t mean abandoning wisdom. It means recognising that wisdom includes listening well. If Ally and Sharon ask why we do something a certain way, that’s not a threat. It’s an invitation to think more clearly about what we’re actually trying to accomplish.
Question #3: What would it look like to lead them rather than direct them?
There’s a fundamental difference between handing someone a model to replicate and forming them as a leader.
Leadership succession that works isn’t about creating copies of ourselves. It’s about helping the next generation become the leaders their context needs them to be. That requires trust, not control. It requires asking good questions, not providing all the answers. It requires walking alongside, not directing from above.
Research on succession planning consistently emphasises that mentoring, rather than managing, is the key to effective leadership transitions.[^4] When organisations focus solely on transferring knowledge and responsibilities, they often miss the deeper work of developing judgment, character, and adaptive capacity.
I’m reminded of Moses and Joshua. Moses didn’t just hand Joshua a map. He walked with him. He gave him meaningful responsibility while he was still leading. He let him fail, learn, and grow in real conditions. By the time Joshua was officially commissioned, he’d been formed, not just informed.
That’s the kind of succession I want to practise. Not, “Here’s how I did it, now do it this way.” But, “Here’s what I’ve learned. Here’s the context you’re stepping into. How do you sense God calling you to lead?”
That’s leadership fixed in formation, not just function. And I believe that’s the kind of leadership that lasts.
Succession as Release
Succession is one of the most significant leadership challenges we face. Not because it’s technically difficult, but because it requires us to hold our work lightly. It asks us to trust that what God is building through the next generation might look different from what we’ve known.
That’s not a problem, it’s the point.
Imagine what could be possible if we prepared the next generation not by handing them our models, but by empowering them to discern well, lead faithfully, and adapt wisely. Imagine if succession became less about preserving structures and more about releasing people.
That’s the kind of leadership that changes the world. One generation at a time.
As Ally steps into the Executive Leaders program Director role, and Sharon in the Leadership Development role, I’m excited for what these areas of Arrow will become.
What are you holding onto that might be familiar rather than essential? And what would it take to let it go?
[^1]: “Explaining the Role of Organizational Culture on Succession-Planning at the Ministry of Health and Medical Education: A Qualitative Study,” BMC Health Services Research 18 (2018).
[^2]: Valeria I. Sessa et al., “Adapting Leadership Styles to Reflect Generational Differences in the Academy,” American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 82, no. 6 (2018).
[^3]: Center for Creative Leadership, “Tactics for Leading Across Generations,” October 9, 2025.
[^4]: Lynn Strangway, “Mentoring and Coaching as Tools for Leadership Development and Succession Planning,” Higher Education Digest, January 9, 2025.
This content was developed with the assistance of an AI writing tool trained on the public style and frameworks commonly associated with Michael Hyatt.
Recent Comments