"Should I Give It More Time?"
Aktualisiert: vor 1 Stunde
Why new leaders often wait too long with team decisions, and how to know when to act
“I’m not sure about my team. One of my direct reports is not really on board. Whatever I bring to the table, I run into a wall. And I can see that others are starting to notice. So what should I do? Give it more time, or trust my gut and act now?”
A CEO said this to me last week. He took over the role a few months ago, and many things are going well. Most of my work is executive search, where my part usually ends when the contract is signed. In the sparring sessions I do with a few CEOs, I see what happens afterwards, and this question comes up almost every time.
It is one of the most difficult decisions in a CEO transition, and in the moment the answer is rarely obvious. In all my years in consulting and executive search, I have seen many more CEOs act too late than too early. But that alone does not tell you whether you are waiting too long with this one person. So here is how I look at it.
Why CEOs wait
The reasons are understandable, and most of them are good ones. You are new and you want to be fair. You inherited these people, and they deserve a real chance. Maybe the previous CEO was the problem, not them. You do not want to be seen as the new CEO who replaces half the team in the first months, and you do not want to openly question decisions your predecessor made. You hope that with a clear direction, they will grow into what you need. And every departure means recruiting, a handover and possibly losing knowledge you still need. Working with the existing team seems easier.
Then there is the conversation itself. It is hard to tell someone that they are not right for the role, especially if they have not done anything wrong. They are simply not the leader you need for the next phase.
All of this is very human. But in most cases it leads to the same regret, and research points in the same direction. Most new CEOs, when asked about their biggest regret, say they should have moved faster on their team.
What waiting costs
The first cost is speed. You have set the direction, but someone who should carry an important part of it cannot deliver. So you work around them and compensate. More and more topics land on your desk that should have been solved one level below, and your strategy only moves as fast as its slowest part.
The second cost is credibility. Your team is watching, and as my CEO had already noticed, they see what you see. Some will think you have not noticed. Others will think you have noticed but do not act. Both damage your authority.
Very few CEOs say afterwards that they moved too fast on necessary changes in their team. Many say they waited too long.
Then there are your best people. They fill the gap out of loyalty, for some time. Sooner or later, some of them start looking elsewhere. If you accept weak performance at the top, you risk losing strong performers below (and sometimes beside) it. Standards also drop. When people see that low performance has no consequences, the culture you want to build will have a hard time taking root.
Finally, the separation gets harder the longer you wait. By the time you act, the person has failed more visibly, their team has suffered longer, and the exit is more painful for everyone, including them. And you have lost months of your first year, the time when you have the most momentum and goodwill.
How to tell the difference
The real question is: does this person need time to adjust to my leadership, or are they fundamentally wrong for the role?
A wall is not always resistance.
Before you look at them, take an honest look at yourself. A wall is not always resistance. Sometimes it is justified criticism from people who still know the business better than you do. And sometimes your direction is clearer in your own head than in what you have actually communicated. So ask yourself: Have I made clear what I expect and why? Have I really listened to their objections, or did I just wait for them to agree? If you can answer both questions with yes and nothing has changed, the problem is probably not on your side.
Some signals then point clearly to a deeper problem:
They defend the status quo. Instead of engaging with your direction, they explain why things cannot change.
They manage upwards instead of leading. What they tell you and what their team experiences are two different things.
They cannot grow with the business. Someone who was excellent in a EUR 50M company may not be the right person for EUR 200M, especially if they are not developing.
Their values are different. Not their personality, but how they lead, treat people and make decisions.
They do not take feedback. They agree with you, and nothing changes. Or they explain why you are wrong.
The team works around them. Nobody criticizes them openly, but decisions are made without them.
And then there is your gut feeling. If you dread the meetings with them, or if you check everything they deliver before it goes any further, take it seriously. Your gut is often right, but it is not proof. See it as something to test, not as the final answer.
There are also clear reasons to give someone more time:
They ask good questions and are visibly learning
They change their approach based on your feedback
They have knowledge of the organization that you really need
Your predecessor held them back in ways you are now removing
The friction is about style, not about capability or values
Your other leaders believe in them
They take ownership, even if they have not solved everything yet
In my experience, a decision like this is usually ripe after about 90 days. Sometimes it needs 180 days. But if you are still finding excuses for someone after six months, you have probably let it hang too long.
If you are still finding excuses for someone after six months, you have probably let it hang too long.
Moving fast without acting rashly
Moving fast does not mean acting in a rush. It means deciding clearly once you are reasonably sure.
I would not make major people decisions in the first month, because you simply do not know enough yet. But use the first 90 days actively: in-depth one-on-ones, real problems to solve, seeing people with their own teams, listening to others. After 90 days, you should have a well-founded view.
Before you act, test this view honestly:
Do other executives see what you see?
Have you given clear feedback and a real chance to respond?
Is this about fit with your strategy, or only about a different style?
Could this person be successful in a different role? Sometimes the right answer is not an exit, but a new position that fits the person better.
If you are sure, act before the six-month mark. Some advisors recommend an even faster rhythm, with the changes made by month three. I am a bit more patient than that, but not much. Up to six months, changes are seen as part of building your team, which they are. Later, they look like a reaction to failure. That is harder for the people involved and creates more uncertainty in the organization. And if you keep the inherited team beyond that point, you have more or less confirmed it.
Before you act, also inform the chair of your board. Even if the person is not a board member, a change at this level should never come as a surprise to the board, especially if the person is well connected there. A short conversation in advance protects you and avoids unnecessary questions later.
Whatever you decide, treat people with respect. Often the person already feels that it is not working. An open conversation sometimes leads them to suggest a departure themselves, and that is usually the best way for everyone. In any case, be honest about why it is not working, offer good support for the transition, help them find their next role if you can, and do not speak badly about them afterwards. People in the organization will watch closely how you handle this, and they will remember it.
Building the team you need
Moving people out is only half of the work. If you do make a change, the next question is who comes next. Where possible, promote from within. It shows that you value the talent in the organization, it is faster, and internal candidates know the business. But promote people because they can do the job, not because it is their turn.
Bring in external people where they add something, but do not bring your entire former team with you. That quickly creates a divide between insiders and outsiders. And do not leave key roles open for months while you wait for the perfect candidate. A very good candidate who can start next month is often better than an excellent one who can only start in half a year. Whoever joins, be clear from the first day about what success looks like and what you will not accept.
Back to my CEO
“More time, or trust my gut?” is a fair question, but not quite the right one. The better question is: What do I really know, and what else do I need to know to be sure?
That is also where we ended up. He gives himself one more month, with a clear structure. He will look at this executive systematically, against what the role really requires. He will get external feedback, so that his view does not only rely on his own impressions. And he will have an open conversation with them about what he sees and what he needs. After that, he will decide. The decision will be based on more than a feeling, and he has set himself a clear date for it.
Being decisive here has nothing to do with being hard. It has to do with being honest, with yourself and with the people involved. In my experience, very few CEOs say afterwards that they moved too fast on necessary changes in their team. But many say they waited too long.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Marion Heil is founder and managing partner of Board+CEO Advisors, a Vienna-based high-end executive search and board advisory boutique. She advises listed companies, family businesses and investors on C-suite, leaders and supervisory board appointments and succession mandates across DACH and EMEA.
