A Team Isn’t Just Changing a Name
A single name is changing on the organizational chart. But for the team, much more is changing.
The team’s psychological safety has been largely established alongside the current leader. Who did that leader listen to, who did they exclude, how did they respond to mistakes, and how did they celebrate successes? All of these factors have shaped the team’s norms. When the leader changes, it becomes uncertain how much of that norm will remain.
And the nervous system interprets uncertainty as a threat. This is a biological response, not a character flaw.
Bridges’ Transition Model
William Bridges makes an important distinction between change and transition (Transitions, 1980). Change is an external event: a new leader has been appointed. Transition is an internal process: the team’s internalization of this change.
According to Bridges, transition goes through three stages:
Ending: The old must come to an end. This is not just practical; it’s emotional. It takes time to process the reality that “the way we worked with that leader is gone.”
The Neutral Zone: The old is gone, and the new hasn’t settled in yet. Uncertainty is high, and productivity typically drops. This stage must be navigated, not skipped.
New beginning: New norms begin to take shape. This phase cannot be rushed; however, it can be supported.
Team members move through these phases at different paces. While one person quickly adapts to the new leader, another may still be in the first phase. These differences create an invisible tension within the team.
The First 90 Days for a New Leader
In his book The First 90 Days (2003), Michael Watkins identifies the most common mistake new leaders make: acting too soon to implement what they know. Applying what worked in a previous role here as well. Even if this approach yields technically sound decisions, it erodes trust before it has a chance to be built.
Watkins’ recommendation: listen first, understand, then decide. This process may seem slow, but it yields faster results in the long run.
Here are the questions a new leader should ask during their first 90 days: What’s going well here, and why? What isn’t working, and is everyone aware of it? Who is being listened to in this team, and who is being overlooked? The answers to these questions come before any decisions are made.
It Feels Like the Former Leader Is Still There
Even after the former leader leaves, they leave a mark on the team. Sometimes it’s positive: “That’s how they did it, so let’s do it that way.” Sometimes it’s negative: “The former leader would have hated this”—these patterns unconsciously limit the new leader’s initiatives.
Recognizing this dynamic is the responsibility of both the new leader and the team. Team coaching is particularly helpful here: creating space for the team to consciously bridge the gap between old and new norms during the transition.
“People don’t resist change; they resist loss.” > William Bridges, Transitions, 1980
Cevvela’s Perspective
- A leadership change is not just a name change for the team; it involves re-examining the foundation of psychological safety and work norms.
- According to Bridges’ transition model, team members move through the stages of ending, the neutral zone, and the new beginning at different paces; these differences must be managed (Bridges, 1980).
- If the new leader moves from listening to decision-making too quickly, they erode trust before they have a chance to build it (Watkins, 2003).
- The former leader’s influence lingers over the team’s norms; it is difficult to build new norms without first making this influence visible.
- Team coaching can be used during a leadership transition to consciously manage the team’s transition process and establish a new foundation of trust.
{{contact}} To discuss this topic with Cevvela {{/contact}}