The True Test of Leadership

A leader’s most important legacy may emerge only after he has left. Linus Okorie argues that every leader should ask what will happen to an organization once retirement, resignation or succession removes him from the center of decision-making.

Many leaders build institutions around their vision, relationships and personal authority. They become the public face, the final decision-maker and the person everyone turns to when something important must happen. That can look like strength, Okorie writes, but it can also create dependence. An organization that cannot function without its leader may have produced dependency rather than great leadership.

Singapore offers one of the clearest examples of the difference. When Lee Kuan Yew became the country’s first prime minister in 1959, Singapore was a small, newly self-governing island with limited natural resources and an uncertain future. Lee became closely identified with its transformation from a relatively poor trading port into one of the world’s most prosperous economies.

Yet Okorie says the crucial test came after Lee stepped down. In 1990, Lee voluntarily handed the premiership to Goh Chok Tong. He remained influential as senior minister and later minister mentor, but the government continued operating through institutions instead of requiring Lee to remain prime minister indefinitely.

The article contrasts organizations where every major decision needs a founder’s approval with those where leaders at different levels understand the principles, processes and purpose well enough to act independently. The first may move quickly while its founder is present. The second has a greater chance of enduring. Succession planning, Okorie concludes, should begin with leadership itself. The central question is not simply who will replace a leader, but what kind of organization that successor will inherit.