Succession
Issue 275: What you need to set up for true impact
Aside from Waystar RoyCo, there is no company people obsess over more when it comes to succession than Apple. With the news of Steve Lemay stepping into Alan Dye’s role as he departs for Meta, the natural question emerges: who is next at the very top? If Tim Cook retires, will the mantle go to John Ternus? And as rumors swirl—Tony Fadell’s name resurfaced this week—it’s clear why these stories pull attention. Apple has spent decades getting succession right.
Why succession matters
Most leaders think about succession only when a transition feels near, but the deeper truth is that succession defines how an organization understands time. Leadership is temporary; the work is not. Every company, team, or practice will outlive the person currently guiding it, and the quality of that continuity determines whether the organization grows, stalls, or fractures. Succession matters because it shapes what happens after your tenure, not during it. It’s the mechanism through which strategy persists, culture stabilizes, and unfinished work finds its next steward. The following sections look at why the effects of leadership extend far beyond the leader—and why waiting for the “right moment” to plan a transition almost always means you’re too late.
Impact occurs after you’ve left
Leadership has a long half-life. The things you set in motion don’t resolve when your tenure ends; they mature, distort, or accelerate years later. A leader’s real legacy is not the dashboards or quarterly numbers logged during their time in the seat—it’s the decisions whose consequences unfold when someone else is at the helm. Strategy choices compound slowly. Cultural norms settle into reflex. The people you promoted become the ones who define the next generation of decisions.
This is why succession matters so much. You’re not only choosing who runs the company tomorrow; you’re shaping the conditions under which your own work survives contact with reality. Steve Jobs didn’t simply hand Apple to Tim Cook—he handed him years of architectural decisions, product philosophies, and organizational patterns. Cook’s stewardship revealed the depth of Jobs’s impact because the company continued to scale and evolve without the founder present. Nadella’s transformation of Microsoft follows the same pattern: his achievements rest on structures built across the Gates and Ballmer eras, even as he redirected the culture.
A leader rarely sees the full arc of their decisions. You see the opening chapters; your successor sees the consequences. That’s the responsibility in succession planning: choosing someone who can carry the unfinished parts of your work with clarity and adapt them without losing their intent.
“There is no success without a successor.” —Peter Drucker
You cannot predict succession timelines
Succession timelines are never as orderly as leaders hope. Health issues surface without warning. A company’s shape shifts faster than anyone expects. Markets change direction. Or a leader quietly discovers that the job no longer fits the season of life they’re in. Succession isn’t something you schedule; it’s something you prepare for because the trigger points rarely announce themselves.
Even stable organizations move underfoot. A division becomes strategically essential and creates different demands on leadership. A product line matures and requires a new cadence. A founder realizes the work of scale bears little resemblance to the work of invention. None of these transitions follows predictable intervals.
This is why succession can’t wait for a neat moment. Cook stepping in for Jobs wasn’t ceremonial; it was recognition that Jobs’s health could change at any time. Microsoft’s transitions happened during architectural upheaval—cloud, mobile, enterprise sales—faster than any traditional succession chart could reflect. Nike’s seemingly smooth handoffs are the product of decades of giving future leaders exposure to the company’s shifting priorities long before a transition appeared on the calendar.
Leaders often postpone thinking about succession until the work feels stable. But transitions don’t honor that logic. They arrive in the middle of product cycles, organizational rewrites, or personal strain. The only durable approach is to put succession in motion early—to give emerging leaders proximity to the center so that if the timeline shifts suddenly, the organization doesn’t lose altitude.
Key attributes to successful torch passing
Disney’s failed succession is a case study in what happens when a leader steps in without spending enough time inside the decisions that define the company. Bob Chapek had long tenure and operational skill, but he’d never lived in the creative and relational center that shaped Bob Iger’s leadership. Without that apprenticeship, the title couldn’t confer trust. Creative leaders resisted, Iger’s influence lingered, and authority was split between the two in practice if not on paper. Disney reverted to its familiar center of gravity because the successor had not already been doing the most important parts of the job.
Succession only looks sudden from the outside. Internally, it is a long process of exposure and calibration. The leaders who step in smoothly are those the organization has watched operate in pieces of the job for years.
Long shadowing beats abrupt elevation
Cook joined Apple in 1998, long before the company’s resurgence was guaranteed. Over the next thirteen years, he rebuilt operations, managed supply chain crises, and stepped in during Jobs’s medical leaves. Each episode was a stress test. By the time he became CEO, the organization already understood he could run the company under pressure.
Nadella had the same long runway at Microsoft. Decades inside the company, years running Azure and the server business—the areas that would define the company’s future. His appointment wasn’t reinvention; it was amplification.
Nike’s Mark Parker is another example. Nearly three decades inside the product, marketing, and innovation engines created continuity rather than rupture when he took over.
Successors have already done the job in pieces
A clean transition requires that the successor has already touched enough of the company’s complexity that nothing feels unfamiliar. Cook, Nadella, and Parker all ran essential parts of their companies before taking over. None needed a “first 100 days” plan. They had already spent years practicing the job in fragments.
Successors develop their own style
Expecting a successor to resemble the incumbent is a common mistake. Cook’s Apple has a steadier cadence than Jobs’s. Nadella brought a temperament distinct from both Gates and Ballmer. Parker continued Nike’s innovation engine without Knight’s entrepreneurial bravado. Continuity is not sameness—it’s coherence. Organizations hold steady when successors are allowed to grow into their own style.
The handoff is smooth only if the organization sees it coming
When Apple announced Cook, no one wondered who he was. The same was true for Nadella and Parker. Visibility made the transitions feel inevitable. Succession works best when the narrative is already embedded long before the title changes.
Succession planning
Succession isn’t only for CEOs. It applies to anyone leading a function, a product area, or a small practice. Leadership is always temporary; the work continues. Thinking about your successor isn’t an admission that you’re leaving—it’s an acknowledgment that the team deserves continuity. Organizations perform better when the next layer of leadership is being developed, not improvised.
The successor is on the roster
Successors aren’t chosen at the moment of transition—they’re developed long before it. When I hired Kevin Wong at Webflow as Director of Design for Core Product, it wasn’t framed as succession planning, but I knew he would be the person to take over. Even though at one point I’d be at Webflow forever, circumstances change. Kevin was already trusted by the team and shaping the work; the transition was not only possible, but it was also seamless and enduring.
Delegate, but don’t abdicate
A successor needs real responsibility: projects with stakes, decisions that carry weight, exposure to conflict and ambiguity. Delegation gives them room to develop judgment, but it doesn’t mean disappearing. Abdication creates confusion; thoughtful distribution of responsibility creates readiness.
Remove linchpins
Linchpins create fragility. When too much knowledge or influence sits with one person—especially the leader—the organization can’t absorb shocks. Succession planning requires distributing knowledge, documenting systems, and ensuring that no one, including you, is the single point of failure.
Know the industry
A successor must understand the terrain they’re inheriting. Chapek’s tenure at Disney showed how tenure alone doesn’t prepare someone for the creative and economic logic of the next decade. A successor who doesn’t understand the industry’s direction can’t guide the organization into it. Part of your role is giving them that exposure early.
Adapt the plan
Succession is a living structure. The person you thought would take over may grow into a different role. The organization may evolve. External forces may speed or slow down the timeline. The goal isn’t precision. It’s resilience—ensuring multiple leaders could step in with clarity and credibility when it matters.
The responsibility of leaving well
Every leader eventually reaches a moment when their contribution shifts from the work they are doing to the conditions they are leaving behind. Succession planning is the craft of that transition. It is the recognition that leadership is custodial—you are holding a set of decisions, relationships, and long-term bets on behalf of the people who will inherit them. Good leaders treat continuity with the same seriousness as strategy. They build systems that outlast their presence, develop people who can reinterpret the work for the next chapter, and design an organization that can keep moving when they step aside.
The real measure isn’t how impressive things look while you are in the seat. It’s how steady the organization feels after you’re gone. Succession, at its core, is an act of stewardship. It is how you ensure the work remains possible long after your signature disappears from the bottom of the memo.
Hyperlinks + notes
a rare mind: remembering the greatest works of frank gehry following his passing at 96
Opus 4.5 Collapsed Six Months of Development Work Into One Week
How to Start Building Apps — Even If You’re Not a Developer by
OpenAI’s ‘Code Red’ Shows the Power of Perceptions in the AI Race
I’m making an RSS Reader → John O’Nolan, founder of Ghost is making an RSS Reader; very exciting
Another great example of corporate succession planning is Intuit. They have the next person do a tour as GM of each business unit. They’ve had a lot of success with their handoffs.