Leadership Transitions: A Psychological Perspective

Every four to eight years, we witness a familiar ritual unfold: a new president takes the oath of office, signaling the end of one administration and the start of another. With this transition comes the promise and anticipation of change. 2024 is no exception. During the campaign, and even more so after victory was declared, plans were set in motion to dismantle the work of the predecessor. Promises to repeal policies, restructure systems, and redefine priorities are being made, and critical cabinet positions are being filled with the intent to build a winning team. It seems that each new leader feels compelled to start with a blank slate, implicitly communicating: "Before me, there was nothing!”

This tendency isn’t unique to politics. It plays out in business almost every time a new leader, be it a CEO, president, functional manager or department head, join a new company. The incoming leader often feels the urge to put their mark on the organization by discarding past practices, initiatives, and systems, even if they were working well.? Time the set the house in order! ?Just as in politics, verifiable past performance becomes moot.

This is a topic that has intrigued me for years, as I have observed many new leaders in transition, some managing the change with finesse, but most succumbing to the illusion that everything that came before them was flawed, misguided, or outright wrong. Sunk cost fallacy aside, it’s hard to believe that this pattern, while common, is the most effective approach to transitioning leadership.

The “before me, there was nothing” attitude is way too common. The vast majority of leaders that take on higher responsibilities are qualified and successful individuals, so there must be a plausible explanation.? I decided to explore the psychology behind the “clean slate mentality”, its impact on organizations, and what can be done to minimize the disruption it creates.

The "clean slate mentality” seems to be driven by a mix of psychological and practical factors, some of which are easier to justify than others. On the one hand, leaders often face pressure to deliver quick and visible results. On the other, their own ego and desire to establish a legacy can lead them to reject anything not tied to their name, even if in reality, it could benefit them.? While the need to deliver quick results is understandable, the tendency to discard the past can be counterproductive, especially when it overlooks valuable systems, initiatives, people or insights that could accelerate success.?? So why do we still resist what unarguably makes sense?

The answer lies deep in human psychology

Confirmation bias leads people to favor their own ideas, often dismissing proven ones. Leaders often tie their authority to the act of transformation, so by erasing the past, the change is unquestionable. Additionally, there is a fear of irrelevance when one continues along paths previously laid out. Leaders may feel redundant, which drives the need to create highly visible change.? These psychological tendencies translate into the unfortunate behaviors we observe. The need for control makes them feel compelled to assert their authority early, often overhauling everything, even at the cost of stability. Legacy-building and the desire to leave a personal mark drives them to dismiss previous efforts, previous people, previous system and even previous performance. The focus shifts to initiatives that carry their own name, and a team of their choice with unquestionable loyalty. Many leaders instinctively equate novelty with improvement and progress, leading them to undervalue existing, proven methods while prioritizing new, untested ones. Perhaps the biggest threat to their ego is the insecurity of being compared to their predecessors. The influence of a successful and respected predecessor can drive leaders to erase all association with the past in an attempt to stand out, even when doing so disrupts organizational momentum.

These drivers are compounded by the expectations of their supervisors (Board, CEO, VP…) who, naturally, also equate visible, loud and quick changes with progress.? Unfortunately, transitions that are focused on visible, loud and quick changes can come at a cost, the cost of starting over.

Impact on organizations

Starting with a clean slate impacts more than just systems and processes; it also affects the people who rely on them. Years of learning and optimization can be wiped out without their value being properly assessed, resulting in a loss of institutional knowledge that may take years to rebuild. Moreover, when employees’ contributions are disregarded, dismissed, or in some cases equated with failure, they feel devalued and disengaged, leading to a decline in morale and productivity. Rapid improvised changes disrupt operations, creating confusion and delays that result in inefficiencies. This is particularly true when changes are untested and poorly communicated. By ignoring what worked, even if it wasn’t perfect, organizations lose the opportunity to build on existing strengths and instead waste time reinventing the wheel.

The impact of disregarding the past in favor of untested changes doesn’t just waste time and resources. Employees begin to question the leadership’s ability to make sound decisions and people may lose confidence in the direction the business is taking. ?A natural consequence is higher employee turnover, reduced collaboration and a collapse of the existing company culture.

What can be done to minimize the disruption it creates

I mentioned earlier that some of the leadership I have encountered throughout my career managed transitions with finesse. So, it is possible ?!?!

It is possible when leaders take the time to recognize and build upon the value of existing systems, processes, and contributions. This approach not only preserves institutional knowledge but also creates a foundation for meaningful and sustainable progress. ?These leaders recognize that honoring what worked doesn’t diminish their authority; instead, it enhances their credibility and fosters trust. They demonstrate that transitions don’t have to be disruptive. They can be opportunities for evolution and growth. I cannot think of a better and more successful example than (one of) my favorite place in the world.

Originally constructed as a fortress in the 9th century and modified to become a palace in the 13th century, the Alhambra evolved over hundreds of years under various rulers. Each new leader added their own contributions, blending Islamic, Christian, and Renaissance influences. Instead of demolishing what came before, they preserved and enhanced the structure, building on what worked and creating a masterpiece of history. Today, Alhambra serves as a reminder of what’s possible when leaders build on the past while creating their vision for the future.

Imagine if each Alhambra’s new ruler had chosen to tear it down entirely, claiming that the legacy of their predecessors held no value. The world would have lost a unique cultural and historical treasure, one that speaks to the power of continuity over deletion.

In leadership transitions, the same principle applies. Successful leaders build on the foundation they inherit, respecting the contributions of those who came before while creating something that reflects their vision and values. They still make changes.

Leaders don’t have to choose between one approach or the other. Before making drastic changes, they should take the time to evaluate the effectiveness of existing systems, processes, and people. The saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” is particularly relevant here. Often, things may simply need refinement rather than replacement. Engaging employees in the transition process fosters a sense of ownership and trust. Rather than resisting change, employees are more likely to support and help drive it.

Framing change as an evolution, rather than a revolution, reassures employees that leadership is building on a solid foundation instead of erasing their identity. Equally, if not more importantly, is the need for leaders to clearly communicate and articulate the reasons for the changes, the expected benefits, and how these changes align with the organization’s vision. This, however, can be the most challenging aspect for leaders who fail to recognize or value the current state and performance of the business and the people who are responsible for it.

While it may seem counterintuitive, continuity is not an impediment to progress or change. In fact, etymologically, progress means "a step forward," suggesting movement with direction and purpose rather than a chaotic break from what came before. Progress may but doesn’t always require a clean slate. Like an evolutionary process, it can refine and adapt existing elements to meet new challenges. It can build upon the momentum created by continuity.

As a gearhead, I’ll leave you with this visual:

Imagine if your car had to reset speed each time it shifted gears, instead of building on the momentum from the previous gear. Believe it or not, second gear doesn’t diminish the role of first gear. It complements it, ensuring smooth acceleration and continued progress.

I am passionate about this topic, so I sometimes get carried away. Let me clarify that I am not opposing or discouraging change, including clean slates when they are necessary. On the contrary, change is necessary and inevitable, and without it, growth and progress would not be possible. It is like the engine gear example. If you stay in 1st and never shift gears, not only will you be stuck at a slower speed, but your gas mileage will suffer, and you will not get as far as you could. What I am advocating for is a thoughtful approach, one that starts with properly assessing what is and who is already in place before diving into change for the sake of change.

I hope these thoughts help leaders and employees undergoing leadership changes successfully manage through all of it.