JUSTIN LANGER: Adam Voges and the Scorchers’ is a lesson in getting leadership transition right

Adam Voges, stand up and take a bow.

Presently, he epitomizes excellence in the world of head coaching.

If he chooses, he will be the next Australian cricket coach. No one comes close in terms of current achievement.

Over the last eight years he has quietly built one of the most formidable coaching résumés in Australian domestic cricket. Since taking charge of Western Australia, he has overseen a golden era guiding WA to seven titles, three Sheffield Shields and four one-day cups.

On Sunday night he delivered his third BBL championship in front of a capacity crowd of adoring fans at Optus Stadium.

In Voges, I see a success story that hasn’t been loud or flashy. It has been methodical, modern and deeply effective. He is proof that great coaching is measured not by noise, but by silverware.

His calm authority ensures his success is built on depth, relationships, discipline and relentless standards. It makes me enormously proud to see how he has guided Western Australian cricket to the success it is enjoying.

When I was appointed coach of the Australian cricket team, it was my strong recommendation that Voges take over as head coach of WA. But, at the time, there were very fair and obvious questions asked of my opinion.

He has never been a head coach before? Doesn’t he need time away from the game, after just retiring from playing? How do you know he’s the right person? Has he got what it takes? Will he be too close to the current group having played with many of them? How do you know he will make the transition from player to coach?

As the questions flowed thick and fast, the answers became stronger and clearer from my end.

Fundamentally in leaders you look for consistent traits.

Do they have integrity? Will they walk the talk? Do they understand the business? Are they willing to grow and learn? Have they got the humility to listen? Have they earned respect? Can they maintain respect? Will others follow them? Can they be trusted? Do they respect the past and have the vision to pave a successful future?

In all these questions the answer was a resounding yes when it came to Voges.

At the time, Western Australian cricket had been moving in a strongly upward direction, and it was a credit to CEO Christina Matthews and high-performance manager Ben Oliver that they had the courage and foresight to appoint a rookie coach.

The blueprint was in place and here was an opportunity to hand over the reins to one of the people who had been a part of setting that blueprint. On the surface it was a risk, but in my mind, it was a no-brainer.

To Voges’ credit, being handed an opportunity is one thing, but taking that break and making a success of it is a far tougher assignment. Being a great player, doesn’t mean you will be a great coach, but he has proven that humility, curiosity, resilience and work ethic give you the best chance to achieve both.

Through him, I also see how one of the toughest tricks in sport and business can be accomplished successfully.

In the high-stakes world of sporting or corporate leadership, few decisions carry more weight than choosing a successor.

Stepping up is never easy. It takes a special type of person, with a specific set of skills and values to take charge of a team or business.

That is why succession plans don’t always go to plan.

For every smooth transition that preserves organisational momentum, there’s a cautionary tale of carefully laid plans gone wrong. The question isn’t whether succession planning matters, it’s why it works brilliantly in some cases and fails spectacularly in others.

In far-higher profile worlds, there are examples I have read about in the last few months, proving that transitions work.

Apple’s transition from Steve Jobs to Tim Cook stands as perhaps the most successful succession in modern business history. Cook wasn’t chosen on a whim. He’d spent more than a decade as Jobs’ right-hand man, running operations with precision while the visionary founder focused on product.

When Jobs stepped down in 2011, Cook inherited not just a title but years of institutional knowledge, board relationships, and a deep understanding of Apple’s culture. Under his leadership, Apple’s market value has soared.

Similarly, Satya Nadella’s ascension to Microsoft CEO in 2014 demonstrated succession planning at its finest. Groomed internally over 22 years, Nadella understood Microsoft’s strengths and weaknesses intimately.

Crucially, he brought fresh thinking, pivoting the company toward cloud computing and open-source software in ways that revitalized a stagnating giant. Microsoft’s market value has increased more than tenfold under his leadership.

Closer to home, Wesfarmers provides a masterclass in Australian succession planning. When Rob Scott succeeded Richard Goyder as managing director in 2017, it marked a carefully orchestrated transition.

Scott became only the eighth CEO in the company’s 103-year history, having been groomed across multiple divisions. The handover was transparent; Scott was appointed deputy CEO in February before taking the reins in November.

Family businesses often excel at succession when they take it seriously. When there is planning and vision, family members are often rotated through different roles, maintaining family governance structures, and instilling company values. This can allow for leadership to transfer smoothly while preserving the family and company’s culture and vision.

In the Australian sports world, footy coach Paul Roos has successfully handed over his keys twice for successful outcomes. Firstly, to John Longmire at Sydney and then to Simon Goodwin at Melbourne.

In Longmire’s case, he won a premiership and guided the Sydney Swans to four grand finals. When he stepped down in late 2024 and moved into a new role as executive director of club performance, Dean Cox his senior assistant coach was appointed as head coach.

This Sydney Swans tradition is an example of successful coaching succession in a club who have been one of the most consistently successful teams in the competition for decades.

Roos’ handover to Goodwin at Melbourne is also considered exemplary. After Roos’ departure in 2017, Goodwin had the Demons in a preliminary final by 2018 and delivered a premiership in 2021.

In contrast, Collingwood’s Mick Malthouse-to-Nathan Buckley transition couldn’t have had a starker outcome. Despite winning the 2010 flag, Malthouse left “with steam coming out of his ears” after the handover soured. Scars were cut into the fabric of a very proud club.

Hawthorn’s succession plan spectacularly imploded in 2021, just weeks after announcing Sam Mitchell would succeed Alastair Clarkson. People were hurt; the club took time to recover.

In the business and family world, the Murdoch family’s very public succession drama offers another cautionary tale.

From all accounts, Rupert Murdoch’s children allegedly disputed changes to their trust over control of an empire worth more than $30 billion. On the surface it looked ugly, showcasing that when family politics trump planning, even the most powerful dynasties can stumble.

The core challenge in succession planning, which inherently favours continuity, usually comes down to ego, transformation and timing. They only work when the incumbent is completely committed and relationships and politics are managed carefully from day one.

In terms of timing, someone groomed in the current system may be the wrong person to challenge, change or guide it through the existing environment. Deep organisational knowledge can become visionary blindness.

Succession plans often assume predictable transitions, but reality rarely cooperates. Leaders leave unexpectedly due to health issues, scandals, or sudden board decisions. The person groomed for 2028 may not be right for the crisis of 2026.

From what I have seen, the best organisations and teams thread this needle by developing strong internal candidates, while remaining genuinely open to external options based on what the moment demands.

They invest in leadership development not to anoint successors but to build capability. They recognise that having a name in the succession box may make boards feel more comfortable, but it doesn’t guarantee readiness. I often say that the best teams have a deep group of untitled leaders, all of whom could step up to the plate if required.

This is easier said than done, because frankly, leadership is tough.

In most cases, new leaders come in as change agents, rather than conductors in an already successful orchestra. That’s certainly the case in sport.

Ultimately, successful succession isn’t about following a plan, it’s about honest assessment of what the organization needs next and whether the prepared candidate can deliver it.

Sometimes they can, as Voges, Longmire, Goodwin, Cook, Nadella and Scott have proved.

Sometimes they can’t, and a change-agent, with a new set of eyes, is required.

The wisdom lies in knowing the difference.