How New Leaders Categorize You

It’s a pretty common phenomenon for new leaders to turnover most, if not all, of their team when they take over.  It happens all the time!  It’s a primary reason while you’ll see senior leadership take way too long to change out an ineffective leader – the fallout sucks.  Let’s take a look at how most leaders take a position.  It usually happens one of two ways: Promotion or Termination- old leader gets promoted up or gets canned – organization finds new leader (internally or externally) to come in and takeover.   Either way, the team has a new leader.  Now, 99.9% of the time, this next thing happens: Change!  New leader comes in and feels pressure to make a difference, to do better – so they make change.  Then, this happens – Crappy Communication!  Most leaders are not equipped or trained at how to communicate as a new leader, and don’t negotiate with their team on how the team likes communication – so they fail at this part.

Change + Crappy Communication = Employees leaving and having bad attitudes about the new leader.

Here’s how a new leader categorizes employees of a new group they take over:

The Converts – These are the people who are going to forget about the old leader as soon as the person leaves the parking lot and fall into the ‘new’ line of thinking.  What’s funny about these folks is many times their thought process switches 180 degrees depending on what the new leader likes, thinks, prefers, etc.  These folks will be the ones who stay around and thrive – they are corporate survivors in the truest form – some will see 10+ leaders come and go in their careers.

The Zombies – These are your victims.  They only support themselves and how bad their life is because bad things only happen to them.  They are just waiting around for the next bad thing to happen to them.  These will be the first people get to get terminated – which perpetuates their Eeyore belief that everything in life is against them.

The Militia –  Are the employees who are going to fight blindly to keep the vision of their old leader alive.  These folks are passionate, so the new leader will try and convert them over to the new vision, because if you can get them on your side – they make great soldiers. But some will leave and/or get fired because they just refuse to give up the rebel flag!

The Double Agents – DA employees fall in the middle between converts and the militia – they really don’t want to be on one side or the other – they want to find another job, but don’t want the new leader to know.  They want to watch the new leader fail, but at the same time need that person to think highly of them to ensure their next position and possible recommendation down the road.  These folks are the ones who surprise the new leaders – they think they’re on board, then get a two week notice dropped on their desk.

The Insider – This is the most dangerous employee to a new leader. The Insider is an employee who has connections and influence and will funnel information on how the new leader is doing to higher level folks in the organization.  Successful new leaders find this person quickly, and convert them quickly – it’s key to survival!

How does a new leader stop a mass turnover of their team?  I like to see new leaders do three things:

1. Communicate the new reality quickly.  I like to see new leaders do this within the first week of taking on the new position.

2. Team transition meeting.  Third party facilitated, this meeting allows employees to share their fears of a new leader, share the history of the collective group and allows the team and new leader to negotiate how they will communicate with each other.

3. Individual meetings. New leaders should set up a meeting schedule to meet with all of their direct reports weekly in the first 90 days.  Making sure everyone is on the same page is critical.





2 thoughts on “How New Leaders Categorize You

  1. Timely reading for me as a new HR VP is starting next week. The last one restructured, terminated a Zombie and a double agent, and the people she brought in terminated a few more people downstream. She started five major global initiatives and resigned after just 18 months. Do you think it should be a different approach when a new leader knows that the group is still recovering from the last VP? (I do.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.