What comes first, the successor or the succession?

At a recent conference of business executives and their advisors, the focus was on leadership. Can it be learned or is it innate? Is it serf or master to managing? Is it the product or result of innovation?

The arguments on each point revealed less about which path was correct than it did to confirm the essential role of leadership in creating economic value. The truth of that is seen most clearly at times of succession.

New leadership poses serious risks to the organization as much as to the man or woman stepping into the seat. For the person, there is the need to live up a legacy even as it needs to be put behind. For the company, there is the need to keep what works working well even as new ways are sought to fix what’s broken or improve what's not yet good enough.

The last guy – who retired or was recruited or left to spend time with the family – was, no matter what the economic circumstance, a “comfortable” option; they always are. It has something to do with the time-honored "devil you know."

Yet succession, whether forced or practiced, is an inevitable element of leadership. And it is not limited to change at the top. Within the hierarchy of any company, there are leaders at every level. And when they change, there is just as much a potential danger.

The line manager who knows and gets the best out of his or her teams, the regional sales lead whose merry band consistently beats the targets or the local office manager who keeps the vibe positive and the lights on are all on their way somewhere -- up, out, over -- and when they go, they leave behind an open spot. A leadership opportunity to be filled by succession.

And if every change is an opportunity to grow or recede, how do you know the best choice?

One way may be to look at the dynamic of a company in the way companies look at the dynamic of the markets they seek to serve. For those companies, it is taken as an article of faith that “new” is an essential element of market success. This might lead you to look far afield inside a company or outside for new leadership.

There is a smaller, smarter set of companies, thought, that know that “new” is not enough; in fact, “new” all by itself may never be accepted. What works best and most is to combine what’s new with what's familiar. In this way, what works for products and services also works with people.

This is not to say that openings should only be filled from within, but it does say new people need to carry or reinforce the culture of the company. They need to reflect the values of their colleagues and buy-in to the mission, even if they seek to change it. Familiar and new is an important one-two punch when leaders' seats need to be filled.

And the balance is very important. Baseball managers who seem to go from one team to the next without seeming to have to worry about winning benefit from owners who lean too much to the familiar. Companies that want to move into new markets often draw upon the new talent pool where they want to go, downplaying the value of a sense of where they've been. Still others continue to restructure the leader's role to keep him or her on the job -- long after a change would have done each some good.

With change always on the horizon the only way to keep that balance is to keep the possibility of new leadership on the daily agenda. Cultivating successors guarantees a chance to get the benefit of succession. Wait and the pressures of time and expectation may eat away at the strength of the balance sheet.

Sounds familiar; and not so new.