For centuries, Delphi stood at the center of the Greek world. Politically, spiritually, and symbolically, it functioned as a place of guidance and authority. Leaders traveled long distances to consult the Oracle, seeking clarity about the future.
At the heart of Delphi was Pythia, the priestess who delivered prophecies on behalf of the gods. While the individual Pythia changed over time, the role itself endured. Succession was not a disruption. It was expected.
In today’s economic system, “fortune” is measured differently. Value creation is tracked through markets, capital allocation, and long-term returns. And few figures have earned more credibility as a guide to the future than Warren Buffett.
With succession at Berkshire Hathaway now a very real topic, I found myself reflecting on what these two worlds, ancient and modern, share, and where they meaningfully diverge.
What they share
Succession from within
In Delphi, successors were typically selected from within the temple system, occasionally from outside, but only after a period of immersion and preparation. Legitimacy came from deep understanding of the institution’s purpose, rituals, and norms.
At Berkshire, the same pattern holds. Greg Abel has spent decades inside the system, taking on increasingly complex responsibilities while demonstrating judgment and values alignment. In both cases, succession is less about charisma and more about trust earned over time.
Optionality
Neither system relied on a single heir apparent. Multiple credible successors were cultivated, each capable of assuming the role, with different strengths suited to different futures. This optionality reduced fragility and allowed continuity without rigidity.
Where they differ
The exit of the predecessor
A Pythia served until death. There was no ambiguity about authority once succession occurred.
Modern successions are messier. Warren Buffett has stated he will step aside while still remaining available. This may reassure investors, but it introduces a familiar tension. In my experience, and supported by leadership research, the healthiest successions occur when the departing leader creates real distance.
Space is not abandonment.
It is a transfer of authority.
Succession rarely fails because successors are unprepared. It fails because predecessors struggle to let go.
Reflections for today’s CEOs
If you are a CEO thinking about succession, a few lessons stand out:
First, accept replaceability. Even the most iconic leaders are. The question is not whether you can be replaced, but whether you are increasing the odds that the organization will thrive after you. Act as if your legacy depends on the next generation’s success.
Second, build optionality early. Develop leaders inside your organization, but also cultivate relationships beyond it. Sometimes a successor needs an “externship” elsewhere to accelerate readiness. Keep those relationships alive. Closed doors reduce future choices.
Finally, work backward from the future. The world your successor will inherit will not resemble the one that shaped you. Shorter CEO tenures and accelerating change demand clarity about future scenarios and what they will require from the role, not just continuity with the past.
The Oracle of Delphi reminds us that institutions outlast individuals when succession is treated as a system, not an event.
That lesson remains surprisingly relevant. Both reinforce a simple but uncomfortable truth: succession succeeds when it is designed as a system, not managed as a moment.
Bonus: A few questions to assess succession readiness
If you are reflecting on succession, these questions can be a useful starting point:
- Could at least three people plausibly step into my role within the next 12–24 months?
- Have those individuals been tested in ambiguity, not just execution?
- If I stepped away tomorrow, would decision-making slow down, or clarify?
- What future scenarios would make my current strengths less relevant?
- Am I creating space for my successor’s authority, or preserving my own?
- Honest answers are often more valuable than formal plans.
Bonus: Further reading on CEO succession
If you would like to explore the research behind these reflections, two public resources are particularly helpful:
- From Harvard Business Review (HBR): Ending the CEO Succession Crisis
This article synthesizes research showing that CEO successions fail less often because of talent gaps and more often because succession is treated as an event rather than a system, and because outgoing leaders struggle to fully let go.
- From Center for Creative Leadership (CCL): CEO Transition and Succession Research
CCL’s work focuses on why leadership transitions derail, emphasizing identity shift, authority transfer, and the importance of preparation and distance by the departing leader.
Thiago Licias de Oliveira – Founder of Unmaze
