Joining a New Organization as a Leader
Joining an organization as a leader is often seen from the outside as a status gain or a career leap. However, this transition can also be a significant trauma for the leader’s personal and professional identity. In the complex context of a new structure, an established network of relationships, hidden norms, and past experiences, the leader’s first steps are decisive. At this point, the basic posture of the leader must be not only strategic but also psychologically and culturally aware.
The first challenge for a new leader is to intuitively understand the invisible boundaries and power dynamics within the organization. The leader faces the dilemma of projecting his or her own unique style while at the same time over-adapting to the existing culture or completely excluding it. Here, as Manderscheid and Ardichvili (2008) suggest, the techniques of managing first impressions, building relational capital, and structured leadership transition play a critical role (Manderscheid & Ardichvili, 2008).
The leader’s attitude in this process should be proactive rather than reactive. The new leader should not only act as a ‘regulator’ trying to solve problems in the organization but also as an ‘architect’ to rebuild the culture. As Samuel and Tsapayi (2023) emphasize, psychological transition processes need to be taken into account at this stage. Stress factors such as internal crises, identity change, and transitions between roles should not be ignored (Samuel & Tsapayi, 2023).
The resistance faced by a new leader is often not personal but a product of the structural context from the past. It is, therefore, important for the leader to understand the organizational memory through an empathic listening process. This not only improves interpersonal relationships but also provides an opportunity to make sense of the gap left by the past leader. Siegl (2007) emphasizes that during these transitional periods, a planned and systematic framework can reduce uncertainty and increase success (Bachmann et al., 2015)
One of the cornerstones of sustainable leadership is for the leader to remain in the role of “observing and making sense” instead of trying to find solutions to every problem in the first period. Active use of coaching and feedback mechanisms in this process strengthens both personal development and organizational interaction (Bond & Naughton, 2011).
In conclusion, taking on a leadership role in a new organization is not only a change of role but also a transformative process in which personal identity is reconstructed and a symbiotic relationship with the cultural fabric of the organization is established. The stance in this process will determine the leader’s impact not only in the present but also in the future.
Understanding Your Brand New Subordinates
A leader’s entry into a new organization is not limited to implementing strategic goals; it also carries with it the responsibility of building effective and meaningful relationships with new subordinates. This process is not only one of mutual acquaintance but also one of mutual understanding. For the incoming leader, understanding the individual and collective dynamics of subordinates is the key to decoding the existing cultural codes of the organization.
The most critical stage in a new leader’s relationship building with subordinates is the transformation of listening into an active strategy. Samuel and Tsapayi (2023) argue that one of the biggest challenges leaders face during transition is psychological disconnect. Subordinates question the extent to which the new leader is different from the previous leadership, while the leader tries to gauge the resistance or cooperation of the individuals in front of him/her. This requires a two-way process of observation and interpretation (Samuel & Tsapayi, 2023).
In the first phase, the incoming leader should develop transparent communication strategies to reduce organizational uncertainties. Central to these strategies is understanding subordinates’ individual values and organizational roles. This understanding is shaped not only through performance data but also through informal relationships, group dynamics, and implicit norms. Manderscheid and Harrower (2016) emphasized that one of the main tensions leaders face in this process is balancing “action” with “observation”. Leaders should act with relational awareness instead of making sudden interventions with the desire for quick results (Manderscheid & Harrower, 2016).
Another factor that the leader should pay attention to in the process of getting to know subordinates is the “learned distrust” of employees due to their past experiences. In particular, traumatic leadership experiences in the organization’s past may cause subordinates to welcome the new leader cautiously. In this context, Goodyear and Golden (2008) argue that leaders’ early trust-building behaviors have a direct impact on employee engagement. One of the ways to build this trust is to ensure employee participation in decision-making processes (Goodyear & Golden, 2008).
The new leader should focus not only on “what subordinates do” but also on “why they do it”. Understanding the motives, value systems, and levels of belonging behind behaviors is the most effective way to prevent future conflicts. As Bond and Naughton (2011) emphasize in their study, the coaching approach is highly functional at this stage. Interactions through one-to-one meetings, feedback sessions, and development plans deepen the mutual perceptions of both the leader and subordinates (Bond & Naughton, 2011).
As a result, a new leader, getting to know his or her subordinates is a relational rather than a technical process. When this process is built on trust, understanding, and cultural sensitivity, the leader’s presence in the organization becomes not only authority but also respect and influence. This shows that leadership is not just a task but an art of interaction.
Previous Crisis, Future Disengagements
One of the biggest challenges a new leader faces is taking over an organization that bears the scars of past crises. Previous management mistakes, uncertainties, or challenging decisions made in times of crisis can leave lasting impressions on employees’ memories. These effects have a serious impact not only on organizational culture but also on employee engagement and performance. The steps the new leader takes in this context can have a direct impact on future employee motivation, cooperation, and sense of belonging.
Dealing with past crises is not just about solving the problems; it is also about understanding and healing the organizational trauma caused by these crises. Goodyear and Golden (2008) emphasize that leader transitions are not only a structural but also an emotional process. The new leader should recognize the feelings of insecurity, uncertainty, and hopelessness created by the crisis and adopt an emotional intelligence-based leadership approach (Goodyear & Golden, 2008).
Manderscheid and Ardichvili (2008) state that when leader change is not managed effectively, organizational loyalty is damaged, and employees become passive. This passivization is particularly pronounced among employees who were excluded or not adequately supported in previous crises. When the new leader creates special communication channels with these groups and reintegrates them into the organization, it not only erases the traces of the past but also builds hope for the future (Manderscheid & Ardichvili, 2008).
At this point, analyzing the past and establishing transparent communication is critical. Samuel and Tsapayi (2023) argue that a leader’s understanding of his/her internal crisis process enables him/her to project a more effective leadership style to the external world. This makes it easier for the leader to transform the reckoning with the past into a collective learning process (Samuel & Tsapayi, 2023).
Taking systematic measures to prevent the recurrence of past crises is also an important part of preventing future demotivation. These measures can include transparent decision-making mechanisms, inclusive communication, redefining performance evaluation criteria, and building an organizational learning culture. Bond and Naughton (2011) emphasize that such structured transition processes are one of the main pillars of a leader’s trust-building process (Bond & Naughton, 2011).
Otherwise, the impact of past crises may turn into a chronic “emotional burnout” within the organization. This situation seriously prevents future employees from contacting the leader, taking initiative, or participating in strategic decisions. Therefore, the leader needs to act with a vision that not only compensates for the past but also builds the future. Bachmann et al. (2015) emphasize that a planned leadership approach during transitional periods provides an opportunity for both learning from the past and forward-looking organizational development (Siegl, 2007).
Consequently, a healthy future cannot be built without confronting the effects of past crises. What the new leader needs to do is not only fix the problems but also revitalize the “capacity to hope again” that has been built up in the inner world of employees. This is only possible through empathy, openness, and a collective vision.
How to Reshape Trust
Trust is the cornerstone of both individual commitment and collective success in an organization. However, this foundation can be severely shaken with leadership changes. One of the primary responsibilities of a new leader is to rebuild this fragile trust structure and put organizational relationships on a firm footing. Reshaping trust requires not only a behavioral but also a cultural and systemic intervention.
The leader’s first step in the trust-building process is acceptance, not denial, of the past. Previous traumas, managerial mistakes, or perceptions of injustice in the organization should be addressed without drawing a veil over them. Samuel and Tsapayi (2023) argue that a fundamental step in building trust is for leaders to first try to understand themselves and then their environment during psychological transitions. The leader’s open-hearted approach to this process strengthens the perception of authenticity among employees (Samuel & Tsapayi, 2023).
One of the behaviors that the new leader should exhibit to rebuild trust is transparency. Manderscheid and Ardichvili (2008) emphasize that in effective leader transitions, the leader’s communication strategy should be clear and structured. In an environment of uncertainty, employees seek clarity, consistency, and direction from the leader. A transparent leadership style reinforces trust by meeting these expectations (Manderscheid & Ardichvili, 2008).
Another way to reshape trust is to invest in relationships at the micro level. One-on-one meetings, informal contacts, and empathy-oriented dialogues enable employees to connect with the leader. Manderscheid and Harrower (2016) found that such relational micro-interventions are more effective than major organizational transformations. Particularly in structures where trust crises occur, individual attention from the leader plays an important catalytic role in restoring organizational cohesion (Manderscheid & Harrower, 2016).
However, trust is built not only through interpersonal relationships but also through systemic justice. The objectivity of performance appraisal systems, transparency of reward and punishment mechanisms, and participation in decision-making processes form the institutional foundations of trust. Goodyear and Golden (2008) argue that the new leader must analyze and, if necessary, transform these systems as soon as he or she takes office (Goodyear & Golden, 2008).
Symbolic leadership behaviors are also important in rebuilding trust. Small but meaningful gestures have the power to renew the emotional bonds of employees. In particular, celebrations over common achievements, appreciation mechanisms, and turning achievements into a collective narrative strengthen the sense of “we” within the organization. This is the basis not only for trust but also for belonging and cooperation (Bachmann et al., 2015).
Consequently, rebuilding trust is not a short-term goal but a long-term strategy that determines leadership sustainability. How the new leader handles this process on a personal, relational, and organizational level will determine both his/her own success and the future integrity of the organization.
Author
Kagan CAVUSOGLU, Senior Advisor @ Gens Consulting, Academician @ Varna Free University Chernorizets Hrabar, Department of Psychology
Bibliography
- Bond, A., & Naughton, N. (2011). The role of coaching in managing leadership transitions. International Coaching Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsicpr.2011.6.2.165
- Goodyear, M., & Golden, C. (2008). Leadership transitions: Keys for success. Educause Quarterly, 31, 52–54. https://er.educause.edu/~/media/files/article-downloads/eqm0818.pdf
- Manderscheid, S. V., & Ardichvili, A. A. (2008). A conceptual model for leadership transition. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 20(3–4), 113–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/PIQ.20006
- Manderscheid, S. V., & Harrower, N. L. (2016). A qualitative study of leader transition and polarities. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18(3), 390–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422316645888
- Samuel, A. E., & Tsapayi, E. T. (2023). Navigating psychological crises in leadership transitions. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 11(3), 286–305. https://doi.org/10.2478/mdke-2023-0018
- Bachmann, R., Gillespie, N., & Priem, R. L. (2015). Repairing trust in organizations and institutions: Toward a conceptual framework. Organization Studies, 36(9), 1123–1142. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0170840615599334