If we haven’t been there ourselves, we’ve seen it happen: A well-respected team member, bursting with potential, is promoted into a new leadership role. There are congratulations and smiles all around, and the new chief digs in, scheduling meetings and even offering sneak peeks at their 90-day plan. But as the good vibes fade, and everyone sets their eyes on the work—KPIs, deliverables, an upcoming board meeting—it soon becomes apparent that something’s wrong.
The new leader may find their ideas and ways of working aren’t quite . . . landing. Have senior leaders moved the goalposts? Are peers expressing less enthusiasm? Is the team holding back? Whatever the disconnect, frustration builds. Anticipated quick wins become slow-rolling fails. Senior leadership begins to express concern, offering feedback that only increases the pressure. The new leader feels awkward and isolated, losing sleep and second-guessing every move. Soon, their job may even be at risk.
A widespread problem
This kind of failure would be tragic enough if it were uncommon. But it’s not. Some 46% of leadership transitions underperform, according to research and advisory firm CEB Inc. (Now owned by Gartner Inc.) The stats are even worse for the C-Suite. New CEOs have a failure rate as high as 50%, according to McKinsey, and 90% of them wish they had handled their transition differently.
According to McKinsey, a failed leadership transition can cost the company more than two times the executive’s annual compensation. But of course the cost of ripple effects from the failure—lower productivity, higher turnover across the team, and missed opportunities can cost even more.
All told, failed executive transitions are one of the most underrecognized systemic risks facing organizations today. So much of a company’s momentum depends on getting transitions right—promoting top performers, replicating success across departments, expanding the leadership bench. A leadership failure’s impact ripples outward, causing direct reports to hunker down, peers to pull back, and cultural damage to deepen. Leaders across the organization begin to doubt its ability to manage change. Growth itself can stall.
But organizations can inoculate themselves against this negative feedback loop—and accelerate the success of their new leaders—by rethinking how they support transitions. Here are four against the grain rules that can help a new leader take root and thrive.
1. QUICK WINS, YES; HERO MODE, NO
New leaders often arrive eager to prove themselves—scanning for early wins they can capture. But that motivation can come across as self-serving and raise a red flag for the rest of the team. Early moves should build trust: showing the leader is focused on enabling the team, not spotlighting their own capabilities. The organization can play a critical role here. The new exec’s own leader should define what success looks like—steering them away from hero moves and toward shared goals, with an emphasis on team visibility, engagement, and inclusion.
This matters even more when the new leader is promoted from within. Others may have wanted the role or expected a different outcome. The new leader must address that dynamic directly, affirming each team member’s value. But it’s the organization’s job to reinforce early and often that the team’s success is the leader’s success. That’s corporate culture at its best.
2. WHAT GOT YOU HERE WON’T GET YOU THERE
Most new leaders were promoted because they excelled in a previous role. But that success was likely built on different strengths: technical skill, individual output, or tactical problem-solving. These aren’t the skills needed to create and communicate a vision and strategy, lead across functions, and navigate complexity. Internal promotions must make a clean break from their old roles or risk blurring the focus on the most important thing—what’s next. Without this increased self-awareness, it’s natural to fall back on what’s familiar, especially as the pressure rises. Instead of stepping up to a broader mandate, newly elevated senior leaders tend to double down on execution. It may feel safe, but it stunts growth and signals a lack of readiness.
Even worse, the new leader may have blind spots about their own skills and inclinations. Getting 360-degree feedback, even if informal (and if possible, additional psychometric data) is critical to building self-awareness. This is where a neutral confidante, a coach, or even a practice of asking others for their candid feedback, can be invaluable.
3. THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE POLITICAL
There’s a taboo in most organizations about “gossiping” to a new boss or appearing to be highly political. But avoiding all such discussion can in fact be dangerous. New leaders—especially external hires—often walk in blind to personality landmines, power dynamics, and team history. Instead, they need unvarnished insight into who they’ll be working with: the stakeholders who are aligned and the ones who clash; the teams that collaborate and synergize; and those that don’t. They need clarity on how things get done.
Imagine how much more effective you could be in a new role if someone detailed all the team members and their relationships—almost like a pregame scouting report analyzing each player’s mental and physical strengths and vulnerabilities, and the plays they like to run when a game’s on the line. It would instantly improve your ability to collaborate and record successes. Even better if it will give you insight into how your own work style fits in.
Consider a product leader recruited from a fast-moving startup into a legacy organization. In one version of his story, his trademark urgency, focus, and accountability—including take-no-prisoners KPI reviews—alienates peers and they quietly sideline him. In another scenario, he’s warned that his “bulldog” style could backfire, thanks to a hiring manager who was transparent about personalities and fit.
It’s the organization’s job—ideally the new boss’s boss—to reveal this before Day One and keep the conversation going. Every workplace has its unique culture, comprising people, politics, and pressure points. If those aren’t surfaced early, the new leader struggles to find their way, which at best delays success and in too many instances derails it completely.
4. THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS MAGIC
New leaders are often handed a mandate—sometimes clear, more often vague. They’re expected to bring change and energy, and turn things around. But rarely do they get clarity on pacing and priorities, resourcing, and success measures. Who are their internal customers anyway, and what are their requirements?
Consider a COO, hired into a high-growth company with a mandate to increase operational efficiencies. In one version of the story, she immediately overhauls the supply chain strategy and upgrades technology—only to clash with a CEO who’s laser-focused on short-term KPIs. In another version, she seeks clarity on priorities up front, aligns her approach to what the CEO needs to make quarterly numbers, and executes a plan that builds lasting momentum.
Without early, specific alignment to stakeholder expectations, a new leader is left uncertain about the playbook, the true priorities, and how aggressively to move forward. Worse, they may act with confidence, but in the wrong direction—aiming all their energy at an objective no one else shares. Don’t assume talent plus title equals traction. Hiring or promoting the right person and “letting the magic happen” isn’t a strategy.
THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF GROWTH
Successful leadership transitions are essential to a company’s growth in the same way that new routers are essential to an expanding telecommunications network. Scaling up requires that each connection works. When they don’t, the existing structure becomes overburdened, everything slows down, and the limits to growth become painfully clear.
All leadership transitions bear risk. Most of the risks are identifiable and predictable, and afford opportunities to apply strategies that mitigate them. Taking deliberate steps to make transitions go well won’t eliminate that risk, but it will shift the odds in our favor. The only thing more risky than changes in leadership is leaving leaders to face them alone.
