1. Define the overarching purpose of the organization. If it's just a vehicle for the founder, then it should be mothballed or cremated when the founder passes. Does it have a compelling reason to exist beyond the lifetime of the founding personality?

2. Monarchy along with its offspring such as the Divine Right of Kings (which includes the Right of Succession) should be relegated to Medieval Times.

3. Collective wisdom must be valued. Too often we humans "anoint" someone beyond their callings or abilities assuming they must have some special wisdom above our own. Boards and advisers wilt under the trump cards of "God told me" or "touch not My anointed."

4. People must be valued. There is one standard of respect and it should be uniform from the most menial to the boardroom. There is not a select ruling class and an army of serfs. This thinking also belongs in the Dark Ages.

5. There must be a cause that becomes bigger than the personality. Donors have to be redirected to giving to a cause and purpose rather than to a person. This is a key "branding" change in the whole area of communications flowing from the organization.

6. Fear must be vanquished. To survive and thrive organizations must be incubators of innovation. Fear is an iceberg that thwarts the hatching of ideas and stifles the power of the human imagination.

7. Talent and performance within the organization should be more important than loyalty. Help people succeed and they will be loyal… most of the time. Emphasis on loyalty shows insecurity in leadership – which leads to fear, control, etc.

Seven is a good place to stop.

That'd make an interesting project for someone! 

I believe ORU tried in the mid-80's to lay some groundwork for the type of changes that could have been made with Oral Roberts moving to a less active role of leadership.  They did a lot of the right things in attempting to come up with how to make that transition, at least as far as I could see at that time.

In the end, the two things that I think made the difference were:

1.  The huge emphasis and push on the City of Faith which in the end failed and drained a tremendous amount of resources and focus from the university.

2.  Continued reliance of ORU upon ORM for fund raising which made it difficult to make a change for fear (there's that word) that the money would dry up.

What would hindsight suggest be done differently in making that type of transition?

The focus on making the University independent of ORM financially was a stated goal, but it never happened.  I remember Phil commenting on transition from a founder to the second generation of leadership and how downsizing should be considered a legitimate option rather than debt to attempt to maintain the historical mission as experienced under the founder.

The planning for transition should be done years before it is needed.

Success without a successor is failure in the end (it's cliche but true.)  If a public ministry relies primarily upon the name recognition and personal gifts of the founder then either a successor with those same gifts groomed by the leader,  who likely is not a family member is an option, or the work to make the organization independent of those gifts should be done BEFORE that person retires or dies and the organization is faced with the transition at the same time that financial support is presumably reducing.

I think ORU made some steps in that direction and talked about the right things to do but in the end just couldn't or didn't follow through with the plan or chose to put their faith in Richard as a successor for a task that in the end he wasn't suited to do.  I have some sympathy for him in that regard.  I hope once things have settled down and if his reputation comes intact through the current accusations, that he is able to move out of the shadow of his father and experience who God intends for him to be.

http://www.kswo.com/Global/story.asp?S=7856731

Better link, I hope

The Billion Dollar claim is pretty ridiculous.  It looks to me like he's seeking to gain attention by making the claims outrageous.  I saw another article a short while ago regarding the remaining law suit against ORU from the Former Faculty Member and his Wife and it looks to me like ORU had reasonable responses for many of the allegations and Richardson, the attorney is throwing a lot of things against the wall and seeing if they're going to stick.

I have concerns based on what is known so far, but the type of approach being evidenced by this attorney isn't particularly effective or indicative of a strong case.

I'll continue to suspend judgment on many of these issues until more is known.