a conceptual model for leadership transition

A Conceptual Model for LeadershipTransition

Steven V. Manderscheid and Alexandre Ardichvili

The accelerated rate of change in today’s globalbusiness environment has created significantchallenges for organizational leaders. One of

them is placing the right leaders in the right positions(Collins, 2001) and retaining them as they workthrough others to achieve organizational goals. Arapidly changing environment and a fiercely compe-titive landscape force many organizations tofrequently position and reposition leaders in newroles as the organization changes to stay competitive.In fact, according to Challenger, Gray, and Christmas(2006), more chief executive officers left their jobs in2006 than in any other year. To that end, LiberumResearch (2006) found that it is not CEOs alone whoare leaving their positions; turnover among topmanagement in general has been occurring at afurious pace since the middle of 2005. In addition,Watkins (2003) states that roughly 25 percent of themanagers in a typical company take a new job eachyear. Furthermore, Watkins (2003) estimated thatmore than half a million managers enter newpositions in Fortune 500 companies alone. Inaddition, Neff and Citrin’s work supports the workof Watkins by suggesting that ‘‘professionals with

113

P E R F O R M A N C E I M P R O V E M E N T Q U A R T E R L Y , 2 0 ( 3 – 4 ) P P . 1 1 3 – 1 2 9

& 2008 International Society for Performance Improvement

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/piq.20006

Note on PIQ’s goals and communities of practice: The authors believe that this integrated literaturereview on leadership transition is closely aligned with PIQ’s community of research and practicetitled Management of Organization Performance, with emphasis on leadership. In current dynamicbusiness environments, leader transitions are more prevalent than before, and successful or failedleader transitions have strategic implications for organizations. To that end, the following integratedliterature review and resulting model can inform practitioners by helping them plan interventionsfor increasing the likelihood of positive organization outcomes. Moreover, this review on leadershiptransition is an important contribution to the field of scholarly literature on leadership development.

The purpose of this study was todevelop a model of leadership transi-tion based on an integrative reviewof literature. The article establishes acompelling case for focusing onleadership transitions as an area forstudy and leadership developmentpractitioner intervention. The pro-posed model in this study identifiesimportant success factors leading toa successful leader transition intoan existing team. Specifically, thearticle discusses such success factorsas managing first impressions, align-ing expectations, recognizing stress,managing feedback seeking, build-ing relationships, and using structuredmethods for leadership development.It is anticipated that this study willhelp leadership and organization de-velopment practitioners who work todevelop leadership capacity better un-derstand the potential consequencesassociated with ignoring factors affect-ing leader transitions. Furthermore, thisstudy offers insights into success factorsthat practitioners can leverage in deve-loping interventions to help leaderstransition.

only ten years of work experience today have already worked for anaverage of four companies and are projected to etch another six on theirresume throughout the remaining course of their lives’’ (2005, p. 7). Neffand Citrin believe that this trend of frequent transition is likely to persistas companies continue the rigorous drive for cost management andefficiency. Moreover, these frequent transitions can be disruptive at best(Bear, Benson-Armer, & Mclaughlin, 2000) and at worst very costly forthe leader, the leader’s direct reports, and other internal stakeholders asthe leader works to adapt to the organization.

If new leaders have smooth transitions with minimal disruption, thecontinuity of the organization’s mission is maintained and the organiza-tion’s performance is left intact (Van Maanen & Schein, 1977). Moreover,Wasserman (2003) also states that CEO succession is a critical factor inthe organization’s direction and performance, and that changes in theCEO role are critical junctures for organizations. If new leaders areunsuccessful in adapting to the team and the organization, the results of atransition can be costly. In fact, the failure rate for new leaders is high.Studies conducted by the Center for Creative Leadership and ManchesterPartners International (as cited in Fisher, 1998) suggest that the failurerate for new leaders is 40 percent in their first 18 months. To that end, onecan only assume that many of those leaders either transitioned to yetanother role or exited the organization altogether.

If a leader exits the organization, it is estimated that the direct andindirect cost of turnover can be 24 times the leader’s annual salary. Forexample, Smart (1999) estimated that the direct and indirect costs to acompany of a failed executive-level hire can be as high as $2.7 million. Inaddition to the direct and indirect cost associated with turnover, leaders intransition are part of a network of people, and their success or failure hasbroad implications. The results of a survey of company presidents and CEOsconducted at Harvard Business School’s 2003 Presidents’ seminar indicatedthat the number of people affected by the arrival of a new midlevel managerwas 12.4 (Watkins, 2003). If these numbers can be generalized, and a leaderdoes not make a successful transition, one can foresee what anorganization’s direct and indirect financial implications might be.

Despite the importance of understanding and correctly managingleadership transitions, research into dynamics of such transitions, and intodevelopmental and training activities aimed at facilitating such transitions, isstill scarce. Furthermore, even though many large organizations haveestablished leadership development programs to ensure they are buildingthe capacity of their leaders to help grow and sustain their organizations, theyoften neglect to develop their leaders’ capacity to quickly adapt to newleadership roles and the teams they are chartered to lead. Watkins (2003)further suggests that organizations expend little effort on helping leaderstransition into new roles even though they are a crucible for leadershipdevelopment and organization success. Bear, Benson-Armer, and McLaughlinstate, in support of Watkins, that, ‘‘Leaders who are effective duringtransitions are more likely to be effective throughout their tenure’’ (2000, p. 8).

114 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

The purpose of this study, therefore, is to review literature relevant toleadership transition and develop a model of leadership transition that canbe used in planning, managing, and facilitating such transitions. Inaddition, the authors intend to recommend leadership developmentapproaches applicable in transition situations.

Methodology

The authors conducted an extensive review of the literature for thisstudy. The method of review was steeped in the positivistic epistemology.This means that the researchers were objective reviewers of the studies forthe purpose of capturing reality as it exists within the literature. This realitywas captured using several research databases: ABI/INFORM, AcademicSearch Premier, Business Source Premier, and Dissertations Abstracts. Inaddition, AHRD conference proceedings for the last four years werereviewed. To conduct their search, the researchers used the terms leader,manager, and supervisor in conjunction with transitions, adaptation,socialization, and assimilation. In addition to conducting databasessearches, the authors also conducted ancestral searches. Moreover, theycontacted two authors who are recognized authorities on leadershiptransitions, Ciampa and Watkins (1999), and two leadership developmentpractitioners who each have 20 years’ experience helping leaders workthrough transition. The researchers made these personal contacts toinquire about additional pieces of literature on leader transitions that mayhave been overlooked during the database search phase.

The criteria used to select or ignore literature were determined byconsidering whether or not literature gave the researchers insight intomanager or leader transitions from one leadership role to another.Moreover, it is important to note that the review of literature was focusedon leader transitions as they relate to a leader’s ability to adapt to theteam. The researchers did not select research that addressed a new (first-time) leader transition, nor did the researchers focus on transitionexperiences of those who are not in a management or leadership role. Inaddition, the researchers did not generalize literature on socialization to aleader’s role unless that literature spoke directly to leaders in transition.

A literature outline and key questions led the researchers to thedevelopment of an integrated literature review and model. Morespecifically, the literature on transitions, assimilations, and socializationwere synthesized into key themes that were then used to develop themodel for leadership transition.

Results of the Literature Review

Models of Transition and Change

The organization development literature makes a distinction betweenchange and transition. Bridges (2003) noted that change is situationalwhereas transition is psychological. Moreover, he suggested that

Volume 20, Number 3–4 / 2008 DOI: 10.1002/piq 115

transition is a three-phase process, with an ending, a neutral zone, and anew beginning. The ending is characterized as letting go of old realitiesand readying oneself for a new situation. The neutral zone is the core ofthe transition, characterized by replacement of old behaviors with new.Furthermore, Bridges suggested that the neutral zone is a difficult part of atransition because individuals experience uncertainty, anxiety, and afeeling of isolation. Bridges also stated that organizations make a mistakeby not paying sufficient attention to the neutral stage and encouragingindividuals to move through the stage quickly. The new beginningis just that: a new beginning with new skills and a new outlook on thetransition. Bridges also suggested that individuals need to go through allof the phases to make a successful transition. In addition, Bridgesemphasized that most organizations ignore the ending and pay littleattention to the neutral zone. This inattention is likely a reason manyorganization and individual change initiatives are prolonged and fraughtwith anxiety.

Bridges’s model (2003) is similar to Lewin’s model of organizationchange (1997), which highlights three phases of change: unfreeze,transition, and refreeze. Bridges’s model of transition speaks to peopleworking through transition; Lewin’s model attempts to describe whathappens when an organization as a whole works through transition(change). Lewin does not differentiate between change and transition asBridges does, even though the models are similar and could be applied toboth individuals and groups.

In yet another model of individual change, Kubler-Ross (1969) notedfive distinct phases dying cancer patients go through in experiencing thetransition from life to death: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, andacceptance. In addition to Kubler-Ross’s model, Fink, Beak, and Taddeo(1971) proposed a framework similar to Kubler-Ross’s but from anorganizational perspective. Their model acknowledges that peopleexperience shock, defensive retreat, acknowledgment, adaptation, andchange. All of the models seem to depict a letting go, a transition, and anacceptance of the new situation; moreover, all of the models of changeassume that the person or system strives to seek equilibrium. This meansthat individuals are placed into a temporary transition by a change event;they will eventually seek a new state of equilibrium or else an alternativetransition.

The preceding discussion focuses directly on transitions from a broadindividual or organizational perspective. There is also a stream ofliterature available on transitions from a management or leadershipperspective (Ciampa & Watkins, 1999; Gabarro, 1979, 1987; Gilmore,1988; Hill, 2003; Watkins, 2003). The literature on leader transitiontended to subscribe to Bridges’s definition of transition (2003). Theauthors noted here viewed a leader’s acceptance of a new role as atransition versus a change.

Discussing phases of transition, Ciampa and Watkins (1999) suggestedthere are three phases new leaders go through when they accept a new


role. The first is called a transition period, which lasts approximately sixmonths. The later stages are called transformation and succession.Gabarro (1987) proposed, as a result of his research, that the overalltransition model for leaders is depicted in five stages: taking hold,immersion, reshaping, consolidation, and refinement. Gabarro’s takinghold stage was similar to Ciampa and Watkins’s transition phase. To thatend, Gabarro suggested that the taking hold stage is a period oforientation, evaluative learning, and corrective action. In addition toCiampa and Watkins’s and Gabarro’s views of transition, Gilmore (1988)suggested that leadership transition involves eight stages, with the firstseven articulating the recruiting and selection process and the lastinvolving a transition period. This last stage fits with Ciampa andWatkins’s transition phase and Gabarro’s taking hold phase. In summary,the four authors all suggested there is a notable stage early in a leader’stransition, which lasts anywhere from one day to nine months.

In the literature specific to stages of transition, there was analternative view. This view was presented by Jean-Louis, Langley, andPineault (2000). They suggested that one of the central findings of theirstudy was not that a phase-type model is followed when a new leaderstarts, but new leader integration processes at one point in time canproduce intermediate outcomes that lead to different types of processesand outcomes later.

In support of the literature on stages of leader transition, the literatureon socialization suggested that newcomers experience stages during theirtransition into a new role (Buchanan, 1974; Feldman, 1976; Porter, Lawler,& Hackman, 1975; Wanous, 1980). Much of the literature on socializationand leader transitions supported the concept of newcomers workingthrough stages, but the authors of both streams of literature did little toacknowledge the work of the other. The stages that seemed most relevantto the research topic were either the first or second in the newcomer’s(leader’s) transition, which is often characterized as an information-seeking and learning period.

Ciampa and Watkins (1999) suggested that on entry into theorganization, leaders find themselves in a transition period that lasts sixmonths. In the literature on socialization, Louis (1980) calledthe aforementioned transition period the encounter stage, which beginson the first day of work and can last anywhere from six to nine months.

Internal Versus External Leader Transitions

According to Santora and Sarro (2001), an insider is classified as anindividual who is currently employed by the organization and is promotedinto a leadership position. On the other hand, an outsider is an individualwho has not had any direct experience with the organization. To that end,Neff and Citrin (2005) suggested that 20 years ago fewer than 15 percentof Fortune 500 companies brought in a CEO from the outside.


Wiersema’s study (2002) showed that the number brought in from theoutside is approximately 36 percent; this is more than twice the number ofoutside appointees in the 1970 s and 1980 s. Moreover, when it came toreplacing dismissed (as opposed to retiring) CEOs, companies choseoutsiders in an overwhelming 61 percent of cases. Boomer and Ellstrand’sresearch (1996) supports Wiersema’s findings and suggests that of the 219succession events they analyzed, 173 (79 percent) were insiders and 46 (21percent) were outsiders.

Furthermore, the literature on leader transitions gave compellingevidence that leaders from outside the organization have a more difficulttime transitioning into a new organization than leaders who transitioninternally (Charan, Drotter, & Noel, 2001; Ciampa & Watkins, 1999;Dowell, 2002; Gabarro, 1987; Neff & Citrin, 2005). Watkins (2003) alsosurveyed senior human resource practitioners, and they assessed thechallenge of coming in from the outside as ‘‘much harder’’ than beingpromoted from within. They attributed the high failure rate of outsiders tothree factors:

1. Outside executives are not as familiar with the organization’sstructure and the existence of informal networks of informa-tion and communication.

2. Outside hires are not familiar with the corporate culture andtherefore have greater difficulty assimilating.

3. New people are unknown to the organization and thereforedo not have the same credibility as someone who is promotedwithin (p. 8).

Moreover, Neff and Citrin explained that the knowledge gap is widerfor outsiders. Furthermore, they stated that ‘‘anyone coming into a newsituation is faced with the fact that they often have to do the most at thepoint [where] they know the least’’ (2005, p. 14).

Selection and Failed Transitions

Smart (1999) emphasized that 40–50 percent of senior leaders hiredfrom outside the organization are mis-hires. Moreover, Smart suggestedthat the cost associated with mis-hires is 24 times the person’s annual basesalary. Smart’s figures are on the high end of the cost estimates found inour review. Robinson and Dechant (1997) estimated the added recruiting,staffing, and training costs per person at $5,000–10,000 for an hourlyworker and between $75,000 and $211,000 for an executive at around the$100,000 salary level. Hubbard (1999) supported Robinson and Dechantby suggesting that recruiting and training a $100,000-a-year, full-timesales employee can cost as much as $112,000. The difference betweenSmart’s estimate and the estimates of Hubbard and possibly Robinson andDechant can be explained by noting that Smart considered the indirectcost of a mis-hire and the others focused on the direct costs associatedwith recruitment, selection, and training.


As the data suggest, a failure to manage a leader’s transition into a newrole can be a costly endeavor. The cost can be calculated by estimating theturnover cost of a new leader if he or she is unsuccessful and decides toleave. It can also be calculated by estimating the loss of productivityrelated to a leader’s inability to effectively get up-to-speed and accomplishorganizational objectives through others. Lastly, the cost can be calculatedby attempting to measure the impact an ineffective leader has on directreports, peers, supervisors, and customers.

According to Wanous, ‘‘organizational entry is a two-sided process inwhich individuals choose organizations and organizations select indivi-duals’’ (1980, p. 18). Moreover, Wanous suggested that the entry processis a dual matching process where the individual’s needs are matched withthe organization’s capacity to meet them; the other match is between thenewcomer’s present and future abilities with the requirement of theiranticipated role. In addition, Wanous further suggested that a mismatchbetween an individual’s needs and skills with the organization’s need cancause a decrease in job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and itcan create voluntary turnover. Van Maanen and Schein (1977) suggestedthat all roles created, sustained, and transmitted by people include bothcontent and process characteristics. Content characteristics refer to whatit is people should do; process characteristics refer to how they should doit. In addition, Van Maanen and Schein explained that newcomers(leaders) who meet role expectations are granted certain organizationalrights and rewards. On the other hand, if they fail to meet the roleexpectations, remedial actions may be taken. These remedial actions arelikely to include interventions such as coaching, training, or termination.

Regarding a leader’s transition and his or her impact on organizationalperformance, studies have found that more than 40–50 percent of newsenior outside hires fail to achieve desired results (Center for CreativeLeadership and Manchester Partners International, as cited in Fisher,1998). In addition, Kotter stated, ‘‘The quality of the joining-up processwill effect two major outcomes: the cost of getting new people on boardand keeping them in the firm, and the level of productivity, commitment,innovativeness, and so on of people when they get on board’’ (1973, p. 98).

It has been noted in the literature on transitions that failed leadertransitions can be costly from an indirect perspective as well (Watkins,2003). Leaders are not only connected to and have direct influence ontheir direct reports; they also have interdependent relationships with theirbosses and peers. On the basis of a survey of company presidents andCEOs, Watkins (2003) estimated that the average number of peoplewhose performance was significantly affected by the arrival of a newmidlevel manager was 12.4.

Even though failure to help leaders through transition is potentiallyvery costly, many organizations do not acknowledge the importance ofhelping new leaders work through transitions (Hill, 2003; Watkins, 2003).In particular, Watkins (2003) asserted that little energy is expended onhelping leaders make a transition into a new role. Moreover, he


emphasized that there are many excellent resources for managingorganizational change, but very few of them directly address the transitioninto a new leadership role.

First Impressions

Ybarra expressed that ‘‘people, when encountering others, appear toreadily entertain the hypothesis ‘What kind of person is she or he?’ or ‘Isthis person good or bad?’’’ (2001, p. 498). To that end, Ciampa andWatkins stated, ‘‘The power of first impressions makes it important tomove deliberately and carefully [during transition]. At no other time will anew leader be under such intense scrutiny and have such limited influenceon employee perceptions’’ (1999, p. 96). Neff and Citrin (2005) supportedthis and suggested that every early move a leader makes is watched andanalyzed. Moreover, Ciampa and Watkins suggested that ‘‘the transitionperiod is a time when impressions carry more weight than deeds andwhen interpersonal skills and maturity matter greatly’’ (1999, p. 97).

When a leader transitions into a new role, early impressions areformed quickly, and these impressions can influence a leader’s credibility(Ciampa & Watkins, 1999) and ability to build relationships (Ciampa &Watkins, 1999; Gilmore, 1988). According to Ciampa and Watkins, atransition period is a crucial time for building credibility because earlyimpressions can be difficult to reverse. With regard to relationships,Gilmore talked about the symbolic importance of early actions, statingthat ‘‘the first impressions made by a new leader powerfully shape keyworking relationships both internally and externally’’ (1988, p. 133).Holton supported Gilmore: ‘‘If newcomers make positive impressionsquickly, they will be identified as high potential, enticing other employeesto want to develop relationships with them’’ (1996, p. 240). Neff and Citrin(2005) reinforced this when they emphasized that the initial impression aleader makes and the signals he or she sends will either motivate people topledge their loyalty or compel them to sit on the sidelines—or even worse,turn against the new leader.

During a transition, subordinates are particularly sensitive to a leader’sactions (Gabarro, 1979, 1987). They will form opinions of the leader based onlittle data (Watkins, 2003). Neff and Citrin (2005) also believed that peopledo not have a history with new leaders, and this creates a situation wheresmall actions taken by the leader are often magnified–for better or for worse.

Given the rate at which impressions are formed and the difficulty inchanging perceptions, Gilmore (1988) suggested that new leaders can saveconsiderable anguish by attending to first impressions with existing staff.Moreover, Ciampa and Watkins (1999) suggested that leaders shouldattend to building relationships with staff early for the sake of starting offon the right foot. Although there is strong support in the literature forattending to first impressions, Bear, Benson-Armer, and McLaughlin(2000) caution new leaders not to be overly focused on managingimpressions at the expense of focusing on business issues.


Leader Transitions and Relationships

‘‘It took me [as a new leader] three months to realize I had no effect onmany of my people. It was like I had been talking to myself’’ (Hill, 2003, p.91). Neff and Citrin (2005) suggested that new leaders from the outsidebear much of the onus of helping their direct reports get to know them.Moreover, they expressed that leaders need to reach out early in theirtenure to begin establishing relationships. To that end, leaders need tobuild healthy relationships with their subordinates and their supervisor ifthey would like a smooth transition into a new leadership role (Bear,Benson-Armer, & McLaughlin, 2000; Charan et al., 2001; Ciampa &Watkins, 1999; Gabarro, 1987; Gilmore, 1988; Hill, 2003; Watkins, 2003).Moreover, according to Neff and Citrin (2005),leaders need to spend as much time as possibleestablishing relationships, and they can’t afford towaste a minute. In addition, Schein (1997) suggestedthat groups must be able to develop and maintain aset of internal relationships if they are to accomplishtasks that enable them to adapt to their externalenvironment.

Mintzberg’s classic 1973 study demonstrated thatgeneral managers spend 78 percent of their workingtime interacting with others and as much as 50percent of that time with subordinates. The balance ofthe managers’ time was spent with peers, associates, and co-directors.Mintzberg did not specify how much time is spent with subordi-nates during a transition period (usually one day to nine months), orlater in their tenure, but Gabarro’s research indicated that developingeffective working relationships was a critical task during the takinghold and immersion stages. The taking hold stage was characterizedby Gabarro as a learning stage typically lasting from three to sixmonths.

With regard to building relationships early, Gabarro emphasized that‘‘if important differences between the new manager and key subordinateswere not addressed and explored by the immersion stage at the latest, theytypically led to further problems’’ (1987, p. 58). The research by Mintzbergsuggested that leaders spend a significant amount of time withsubordinates in general. Gabarro’s research also suggested that leadersshould leverage this time early in the relationship for the purpose ofbuilding healthy relationships with subordinates.

Gabarro (1987) stated that the most salient difference between asuccessful transition and a failed one is the quality of a new manager’sworking relationships at the end of his or her first year. Gabarro’s study of17 management successions of general managers and functional managersin four organizations (33 relationships), over a three-year period, foundthat three of four managers in failed successions had poor workingrelationships with two or more of their key subordinates by the end of 12months. Gabarro defined a poor working relationship as one where either

A leader’s ability tomanage impressions,seek feedback fromsubordinates, and alignexpectations earlywill help develop arelationship with theteam that in turn leadsto a successfultransition.


the new manager or the subordinate was seen as being dissatisfied orineffective. In contrast, only 3 of the 13 new managers in the successfultransitions had poor relationships with their boss at the end of that period,and none had poor relationships with as many as two of their directreports (Gabarro, 1987). Moreover, Gabarro found that the relationshipcategories highlighted in their research distinguished more salientlybetween the successful and unsuccessful cases than any other dimensionthey studied, including whether the leader and group were positioned in aturnaround or even whether the new manager was an industry outsiderversus an insider. Gabarro’s research did show that the combination ofbeing an industry outsider and failing to develop effective workingrelationships was a lethal pattern.

Gabarro stated: ‘‘The two most prevalent causes of failure to takecharge are lack of prior experience relevant to the new assignment andpoor working relationships with key people. Successful managers weremore effective at the interpersonal work of developing mutual expecta-tions, trust, and influence with both subordinates and superiors’’ (1987,p. 8). Gabarro (1979) found that the development of mutual expectations,trust, and influence were closely related. Moreover, the development of trustin a subordinate or superior was a function of how clearly mutualexpectations had been worked out with that person and of how well theperson had met those expectations. Similarly, the degree of influence oneperson had on another was in many cases dependent on how much he orshe was trusted by the other.

Aligning Expectations During Transition

Another factor critical to successful leader transitions was establishingand aligning expectations (Bear, Benson-Armer, & McLaughlin, 2000;Gabarro, 1987; Hill, 2003; Neff & Citrin, 2005; Watkins, 2003). Accordingto Hill, ‘‘One of the most important organizational tasks managers face isdeveloping and working through shared expectations about roles, goals,and priorities with their subordinates’’ (2003, p. 120). Moreover, Neff andCitrin expressed that individuals affected by the new leader’s arrival willhave an explicit or subconscious view about what the leader shouldachieve and how he or she should go about doing it. In addition, Neff andCitrin suggested that if ‘‘different perspectives do not align, you [theleader] will be setting off on a path marked by misunderstanding, anxiety,tension, and all too often failure’’ (2005, p. 48). Neff and Citrin also notedthat many leadership transitions are more negatively turbulent thannecessary because of misaligned expectations.

Gabarro (1979) emphasized that the initial encounter stage is typifiedby a great deal of curiosity for both parties. All the subordinatesinterviewed in his research were interested in learning the expectationsand motives of the new leader. Gabarro’s research further demonstratedthat successful leaders laid a general foundation of expectations during theorientation stage and then worked to make expectations more specific andconcrete as the relationship developed.


Stress and Anxiety

The literature on leader transitions and socialization suggested thatthere is a formal stage where a newcomer (leader) is in transition (Ciampa& Watkins, 1999; Gabarro, 1987). Moreover, the literature suggested thatthese transitions or the process of socialization (transition) can bestressful (Bear, Benson-Armer, & McLaughlin, 2000; Gilmore, 1988; Neff& Citrin, 2005; Nelson, 1987; Van Maanen & Schein, 1977), andunderstanding that this is occurring can act as a buffer or antidote tostress (Sutton & Kahn, 1987). Van Maanen and Schein believed that‘‘individuals undergoing any organizational transition are in an anxiety-producing situation. In the main, they are more or less motivated toreduce this anxiety by learning the functional and social requirements oftheir newly assumed role as quickly as possible’’ (1977, p. 8). Moreover,the psychological tensions (anxieties) are associated with loneliness andisolation that are brought on by an uncertain environment andperformance anxieties (Van Maanen & Schein, 1977).

Feedback Seeking During a Leader Transition

Ashford (1986) found feedback to be a useful resource for individualswhen being socialized into a new environment. Moreover, many leaderswho were interviewed by Ciampa and Watkins (1999) stated that a failureto encourage an open flow of information impedes the leader’s ability tolearn about important problems and build supportive relationships.

Feedback seeking is defined as conscious devotion of effort towarddetermining the correctness and adequacy of behaviors for attaining valuedend states (Ashford & Cummings, 1983). Securing adequate information isa central consideration in successful adaptation (White, 1974). Ashford(1986) further noted that individuals must also develop an ability to readfeedback during transitions for the purpose of seeing themselves as otherssee them, and to understand how others evaluate their behavior. With thisadditional information, they can make corrections in behavior and increasethe likelihood of attaining their goals. Ashford (1986) found thatrespondents in his study who highly valued the end state (the goal to beachieved) tended to also value the resource of feedback. Moreover, Ashfordfound that feedback seems to be a resource useful in adapting to a newenvironment defined by a particular job. Ashford’s data further suggestedthat individuals see feedback as valuable in mastering subenvironmentsdefined by particular jobs, regardless of whether those jobs are their first orare later in their organizational tenure. In addition, Kuchinke (2001) hasalso found that feedback seeking was an important aspect of managers’successful participation in management training.

On the other hand, literature suggests that a lack of feedback seekingcould be associated with negative outcomes. Thus Abraham, Burnett, andMorrison (2006), in their study involving 189 newly hired supervisors whocompleted a developmental assessment center, found that those whoperformed poorly in the assessment center, particularly on interpersonaldimensions, were less likely to seek feedback on their performance.


Although feedback is important, the popular literature on leadertransitions suggested that leaders do not actively seek it. According toCharan et al. (2001), leaders do not actively seek unsolicited feedbackabout themselves. Moreover, Charan and colleagues believed leaders arenot interested in hearing how they’re leading or how they should do thingsdifferently. In addition, Nicholson and West (1988) also suggested thatleaders rarely receive structured and informal feedback.

The literature on feedback seeking seemed to speak to the importanceof seeking feedback to help leaders adjust to new roles, but the literaturewas focused on individuals seeking feedback from peers and supervisors,rather than from subordinates (E. Morrison, personal communication,July 21, 2005). Given the scarcity of literature on feedback seeking fromsubordinates, there appears to be a need for more research on new leaderseliciting information from subordinates early in their transition.

Training and Development Interventions Aimed at Accelerating

Leadership Transition

One way to accelerate a leader’s transition into a new role is todevelop a learning plan and use structured methods of leadershipdevelopment to promote actionable insights (Watkins, 2003). In addition,Major, Kozlowski, Chao, and Gardner explained that ‘‘successful new-comer [leader] socialization occurs through a process of mutualinteraction between newcomers and organization insiders’’ (1995,p. 421). Moreover, Reichers (1987) suggested that more frequentinteraction is likely to result in faster socialization. Gilmore posited that‘‘given the complexities of the relationship of a leader to existing staff andthe triangles that crop up in the early months, a critical task for the newleader is to connect authentically with existing staff’’ (1988, p. 130).

In addition to the literature on frequent interaction and authenticconnections, experts on transition suggested that a structured learningintervention (called a leader assimilation, where the leader interacts withsubordinates for the purpose of sharing information and learning) canhelp accelerate relationship building and lay a foundation for teameffectiveness (Gilmore, 1988; Neff & Citrin, 2005; Petrock, 1990;Schiavoni, 1984; Watkins, 2003). The structured learning interventionshighlighted by Martini, Forbes, and Davis (1988); Petrock (1990);Schiavoni (1984); and Watkins (2003) all emphasized that a leader shouldarrange to have a facilitator solicit feedback from the leader’s workgroup, share that feedback with the leader, and then have the leader meetwith the team to corroborate the data and establish a plan for movingforward.

Model of Leadership Transition

The literature review helped us formulate a model of the dynamicsand factors of leaders in transition within the context of an organization(see Figure 1). The model offers a visual for helping new leaders


understand the important success factors that need to be influenced toincrease the likelihood of a successful transition.

The transition period for new leaders and their teams typically spansone day to nine months. The model shows that a leader’s ability tomanage impressions, seek feedback from subordinates, and alignexpectations early will help develop a relationship with the team that inturn leads to a successful transition. In addition, alignment of expectationsearly in a transition helps reduce stress and increases the likelihood of asuccessful transition. Moreover, it is anticipated that the development ofrelationships further influences stress, which helps increase the likelihoodof a successful transition. Leaders can attempt to influence these successfactors on their own, or they can resort to structured methods such asleader assimilation or formal coaching to help themmake a successful transition.

Finally, the model shows that the outcomes of afailed transition include direct and indirect costsrelated to turnover. Moreover, it includes lost oppor-tunity cost when a leader remains in a current role butdoes not make a successful transition. Anticipatedoutcomes of a successful transition include healthyrelationships, a reduction in leader stress, and produc-tivity.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This study presents only preliminary suggestions for helping leadersand their teams make successful transitions. To make more definitive

New Leader and TeamTransition Period

New Leader

Manage Impressions

Seek Feedback

Align Expectations

DevelopRelationships

Successful TransitionTeam Productivity Healthy Relationships Reduce Leader Stress

Decrease Stress Unsuccessful TransitionTurnover (Indirect and Direct Costs)Productivity (Lost Opportunity)

FIGURE 1.

Transition

Model.

Many organizations donot structure formalinterventions to helpleaders build strongrelationships with theirteams for the purposeof achieving theoverarching goals ofthe business unit ororganization.


statements and validate the model, more research needs to be conductedon the relationship between the success factors and outcomes noted in themodel. In particular, it would be valuable to study the impact of aligned ormisaligned expectations during transition on productivity. Moreover, itwould be valuable to understand how feedback seeking during transitioninfluences a leader’s level of stress and how this may have an impact onrelationships and productivity. Furthermore, it would be advantageousto understand which success factors, if ignored, are most likely to lead tounhealthy relationships or leader turnover.

More research should be conducted on the impact of structuredmethods for development (coaching and assimilation) on the domainsrelated to successful and failed transition. In addition to exploringdomains within the model, further research on individual leadercharacteristics (industry experience, leadership style, and so on)and organization dynamics (culture, structure, strategic priority) duringa leader’s transition could inform the body of research on leadertransitions.

Implication for Practice

From personal experiences working with organizational leaders andorganization development/human resource development professionals,the authors believe that many leaders and leadership developmentpractitioners do not understand the dynamics of leader transition. Theyare therefore not equipped to recognize the consequences of transitionfailure and the possibilities for successful intervention. Furthermore,many organizations do not structure formal interventions to help leadersbuild strong relationships with their teams for the purpose of achievingthe overarching goals of the business unit or organization. This study willhelp leadership and organization development practitioners who work todevelop leadership capacity better understand the potential consequencesassociated with ignoring factors affecting leader transitions. Furthermore,this study offers insights into success factors that practitioners canleverage in developing interventions to help leaders transition.

References

Abraham, J., Burnett, D., & Morrison, J. (2006). Feedback seeking among developmental

assessment center participants. Journal of Business & Psychology, 20(3),

383–394.

Ashford, S. J. (1986). Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation: A resource

perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 29(3), 465–487.

Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal

strategies of creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-

mance 32, 370–398.

Bear, S., Benson-Armer, R., & McLaughlin, K. (2000, May/June). Leadership transitions:

An agenda for success. Ivey Business Journal, 8–13.


Boomer, W. H., & Ellstrand, A. E. (1996). CEO successor choice, its antecedents and

influence on subsequent firm performance. Group and Organization Management.

21(1), 105–114.

Bridges, W. (2003). Managing transitions (2nd ed.). New York: Perseus Books.

Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization

of managers in work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19,

533–546.

Challenger, Gray, & Christmas. (2006). Monthly CEO report. (Available from

Challenger, Gray, and Christmas, 150 South Wacker Drive, 27th Floor, Chicago,

IL, 60606.)

Charan, R., Drotter, S., & Noel, J. (2001). The leadership pipeline: How to build the

leadership-powered company. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ciampa, D., & Watkins, M. (1999). Right from the start. Boston: Harvard Business School

Press.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don’t.

New York: HarperBusiness.

Dowell, B. E. (2002). Succession planning. In J. W. Hedge & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.),

Implementing organizational interventions (pp. 78–109). San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Feldman, D. C. (1976). A contingency theory of socialization. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 21, 433–452.

Fink, S. L., Beak, J., & Taddeo, K. (1971). Organizational crisis and change. Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science, 7, 15–37.

Fisher, A. (1998). Don’t blow your new job. Fortune, 137(12), 159–162.

Gabarro, J. J. (1979). Socialization at the top: How CEOs and subordinates evolve

interpersonal contracts. Organizational Dynamics, 7(3), 3–23.

Gabarro, J. J. (1987). The dynamics of taking charge. Boston: Harvard Business School

Press.

Gilmore, T. N. (1988). Making a leadership change: How organizations and leaders can

handle leadership transition successfully. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hill, L. A. (2003). Becoming a manager: How new managers master the challenges of

leadership. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Holton, E. F. (1996). New employee development: A review and reconceptualization.

Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7(3), 233–252.

Hubbard, E. E. (1999, Summer). Diversity and the bottom line: Facts, figures, and

financials. Diversity Factor, 7(4), 29–34.

Jean-Louis, D., Langley, A., & Pineault, M. (2000). Becoming a leader in a complex

organization. Journal of Management Studies, 37(8), 1063–1099.

Kotter, J. P. (1973). The psychological contract: Managing the joining-up process.

California Management Review, 4(3), 91–99.

Kubler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying: What the dying have to teach doctors, nurses,

clergy, and their own families. New York: Scribner.

Kuchinke, P. (2001). The role of feedback in management training settings. Human

Resource Development Quarterly, 11(4), 381–40.

Lewin, K. (1997). Resolving social conflict and field theory in social science. Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association.

Liberum Research. (2006). Management changes—January 2005 through May 2006.

(Available from Liberum Research, 48 West 37th Street, 8th floor, New York,

NY 10018.)

Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in

entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25,

226–251.

Major, D. A., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., & Gardner, P. D. (1995). A longitudinal

investigation of newcomer expectations, early socialization outcomes, and the

moderating effects of role development factors. Journal of Applied Psychology,

80(3), 418–431.


Martini, G., Forbes, R., & Davis, B. (1998). De-mystify OD (organization development): A

workshop designed for trainers and HR personnel. American Society for Training

Development (ASTD) chapter presentation, Louisville, KY.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: HarperCollins.

Neff, T. J., & Citrin, J. M. (2005). You’re in charge: Now what? New York: Crown Business.

Nelson, D. (1987). Organization socialization: A stress perspective. Journal of

Occupational Behavior, 8(4), 311–324.

Nicholson, N., & West, M. (1988). Managerial job change: Men and women in transition.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Petrock, F. (1990). Planning the leadership transition. Journal of Business Strategy, 11(6),

14–16.

Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E., & Hackman, J. R. (1975). Behavior in organizations. New York:

McGraw Hill.

Reichers, A. E. (1987). An interactionist perspective on newcomer socialization rates.

Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 278–287.

Robinson, G., & Dechant, K. (1997). Building a business case for diversity. Academy of

Management Executive, 11(3), 21–32.

Santora, J. C., & Sarro, J. C. (2001). CEO succession in nonprofit community-based

organizations: Is there room for insiders at the top? Career Development

International, 6(2), 107–111.

Schein, E. H. (1997). Organization culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Schiavoni, M. R. (1984, February 6). Assimilating the new manager. Chemical

Engineering, 117–119.

Smart, B. D. (1999). Topgrading: How leading companies win by hiring, coaching, and

keeping the best people. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sutton, R. I., & Kahn, R. L. (1987). Prediction, understanding, and control as antidotes to

organizational stress. In J. Lorsch (Eds.), Handbook of organizational behavior.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1977). Toward a theory of organizational socialization.

Greenwich: JAI Press.

Wanous, J. P. (1980). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, and socialization of

newcomers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Wasserman, N. (2003). Founder-CEO succession and the paradox of entrepreneurial

success. Organization Science, 2(14), 149–172.

Watkins, M. (2003). The first 90 days: Critical success strategies for new leaders at all

levels. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

White, R. W. (1974). Strategies of adaptation: An attempt at systematic description. In

G. V. Coelho, D. A. Hamburg & J. E. Adams (Eds.), Coping and adaptation

(pp. 47–68). New York: Basic Books.

Wiersema, M. F. (2002). Holes at the Top: Why CEO Firings Backfire. Harvard Business

Review, 80(12), 70–77.

Ybarra, O. (2001). When first impressions don’t last: The role of isolation and adaptation

processes in the revision of evaluative impressions. Social Cognition, 19(5),

491–520.

STEVEN V. MANDERSCHEID

Steven V. Manderscheid, Ed.D., is the chair of the master of artsprogram in organization management at Concordia University. Hisresearch interests are in organization development with an emphasis onleadership development. Mailing address: Concordia University, 275N. Syndicate St., St. Paul, MN 55104. E-mail: [email protected]


ALEXANDRE ARDICHVILI

Alexandre Ardichvili, Ph.D., is associate professor at the Departmentof Work and Human Resource Education at the University of Minnesota.His research interests are in the areas of human resource development,leadership, and entrepreneurship. Mailing address: University ofMinnesota, WHRE, 425L, 1954 Buford Ave., St. Paul, MN 55108.E-mail: [email protected]


a conceptual model for leadership transition

Documents