Stepping Out of Your Predecessor's Shadow
"Everyone keeps comparing me with Peter, and to be honest, it is starting to bother me. What would you do?" a friend asked me over coffee some time ago. He has been CEO of a well-established company for some time now, and he is very good at what he does. But in many conversations, he still feels measured against someone who is no longer there.
Peter was his predecessor. He had led the company for many years, people liked him, and he had left on good terms. And yet, long after his farewell, he is still present everywhere.
Peter is of course not his real name. I took it from the MERIT Austria report, which found that Peter is the most common first name among the Vorstand members of Austria's listed companies. I wrote about this in ...but Peter and Thomas Are Running the Show. For an article about predecessors, the name seemed a good fit.
In leadership meetings, someone would say, "When Peter was CEO, we did it this way." A member of the supervisory board had suggested, in a very friendly way, that he could call Peter about a difficult client situation. And large parts of the organisation still worked with processes that had been set up for Peter, although nobody could really say anymore why they existed.
In my experience, this is an often underestimated part of a CEO transition. We spend months on the search, the assessment, the contract negotiations and the onboarding plan. We spend very little time thinking about the person who leaves, and about how long their influence stays. It does not stop on their last day. Sometimes it even gets stronger, because people tend to remember the good times better than the difficult ones.
In this article, I want to look at where the predecessor's influence comes from, when it becomes a problem, and what a new CEO and the board can do about it.
Why the predecessor's influence lasts so long
I have worked with leaders for thirty years. Over this time I have seen that a CEO's influence goes much deeper into an organisation than most people think, and this includes the new CEO. I see it mainly in those areas:
Structures. Decision processes, reporting lines, informal communication and even the meeting rhythm were designed around your predecessor's style and priorities. They do not change by themselves when a new CEO arrives.
Leadership Team. A leader leaves a leadership team that was chosen, at least partly, because it worked well with them. This is quite normal, as we all tend to hire and promote people whose way of thinking we understand. For you, it means that your leadership team reflects your predecessor's view of people. The team may be exactly right for you, but you should check this rather than assume it.
Relationships. Some board members have worked with your predecessor for ten years or more. Important clients were won by them personally. Many of your senior managers were hired or promoted by them. These relationships continue after the handover.
Loyalty. If the predecessor was well liked, people are attached to them. When they talk about "how we used to do things", they usually do not mean it against you. They are still getting used to the change.
The company's story. Your predecessor left behind successes, crises and important decisions, and people keep telling these stories. If the predecessor was successful, expectations of you are high. If they failed, you are expected to repair things. In both cases, people see you through this story.
When the shadow becomes a problem
Not everything your predecessor left behind is a problem. It makes sense to learn from what worked well. It only becomes a problem when it limits your ability to lead.
Researchers have studied this for a long time. In 1995, Thomas Gilmore and Don Ronchi described it as the "shadow" of the predecessor: memories of the former leader continue to influence how people in the organisation behave, long after that leader has left. In some companies, this shadow fades as people get to know the new CEO. In others, it remains for years.
It does not stop on their last day. Sometimes it even gets stronger, because people tend to remember the good times better than the difficult ones.
There are a few typical signs. The board keeps comparing: you present a strategy, and someone says, "Interesting, but Peter had a different approach." So you are judged against someone who is no longer in the room. Or your predecessor is still present, on the board, "available for advice", or calling your managers "just to see how things are going". Every one of these contacts weakens your authority a little, even if nobody intends it. Or your team holds back. Nobody openly disagrees with you, but you hear that "Peter would have done it differently", and people wait to see whether your approach will work.
New CEOs sometimes describe another dilemma, often in very similar words. If they praise what came before, people ask why anything should change. If they criticise it, people defend it. Both seem wrong.
In family companies, the situation can be even more delicate. There it sometimes happens that the founder or owner moves from the Vorstand to the Aufsichtsrat. Then every strategic decision can turn into a long discussion, usually presented as helpful background: "I understand your idea, but let me explain why we set it up like this." It is meant as support, but it can easily slow down or stop change.
Some typical situations
How strong the predecessor's influence is depends a lot on how they left and what role they have now. Some typical situations could be:
Situation | What it looks like | The risk |
The respected predecessor | Your predecessor was well liked. They grew the company, shaped the culture and developed people. You are compared with someone people admire. | You try too hard to be like them and lose your own style, or you change everything at once to show that you are different. |
The predecessor who failed | Your predecessor was dismissed or left under pressure. The board hired you to turn things around, and many people are relieved. | You assume that everyone wants change. Some people defend the past, others expect faster change than is realistic. |
The founder or owner | Your predecessor founded or owns the company. In family companies, they sometimes move to the Aufsichtsrat, or still have a say through their shares or the family foundation. | They might find it hard to let go, decisions become personal, and some employees still see the founder or owner as the real leader. |
The predecessor as advisor | Your predecessor left but is still "available". The board recommends that you use their experience. | Every time you ask them, people see that the real authority is somewhere else, and your own confidence and credibility suffer. |
The internal successor | You were promoted from within. Your predecessor was your boss, and your former colleagues now report to you. | You were part of many past decisions. If you change course, you contradict yourself in front of people who remember. |
People often underestimate the last situation. Everyone expects that an internal candidate knows the organisation and will settle in quickly. That is true, but it is also the reason why it is so difficult for them to move away from the predecessor's way of doing things.
The comparison in your own head
So far we have talked about how other people compare you with your predecessor. But what about yourself?
Picture the following situations: You prepare a board presentation and wonder how Peter would have done it. You hesitate before a decision because you know he would have decided differently. Or, and this is even more common, you want to prove that you are different, and you start too many changes too quickly.
In these cases, the predecessor is still the reference point. A more helpful question is: what does the company need now, and what are my strengths? This sounds simple, but it is hard to keep in mind in daily business. It often helps to have someone outside the company who asks this question again and again, because people inside the company rarely do.
The team also needs time
When a long-serving and respected CEO leaves, many employees feel a real sense of loss. They lose someone they trusted, often the person who hired or promoted them. They also lose some certainty about how things work and where they stand.
People deal with this in different ways. Some are openly sad, some react with irritation towards the new CEO without really knowing why, and some idealise the past. When someone says "When Peter was here...", it is often less a criticism of you than a way of saying goodbye.
When someone says ‘When Peter was here...’, it is often less a criticism of you than a way of saying goodbye.
A good CHRO can help a lot here. They often sense the mood in the organisation earlier, see who is struggling, and help the new CEO understand whether someone is sad about the change or resisting it. From the outside, both can look similar, but they need different responses. People who are sad need time and recognition. People who resist need a clear conversation.
What helps in practice
So what can a new CEO do? Over our coffee, I told my friend more or less the following.
You cannot make your predecessor's influence disappear, and you should not try. But you can deal with it consciously.
Start by recognising what your predecessor built, and be specific. Public recognition costs you nothing and makes you more credible. For example: "Peter built a strong culture here. People are loyal, they support each other, and quality matters to everyone. We will build on this." Then explain what needs to change: "Our market and our customers have changed, so we also need to develop further. This is where I want to take the company." In this way, the past becomes the basis for your strategy.
If your predecessor still has a role in the company, talk openly about boundaries, and do it early. You could say: "I want to respect what you have built, and I also need to lead in my own way. Can we agree how we work together? I would like your view on X and Y, but on Z I need to decide on my own." Most people accept this. If your predecessor does not, the board needs to get involved.
Build your own relationships. Meet every board member individually, not to talk about the past, but to understand their priorities, concerns and expectations. Do the same with important clients and partners. Instead of asking how they worked with your predecessor, ask what they need from the company in the future.
Look at the processes you inherited. In the first months, ask your team: "What do we only do because we have always done it this way?" Often there are reports, meetings or approval steps that exist because one person once wanted them. Removing some of them is usually a welcome change, and nobody takes it as criticism.
Make a few visible changes early, and say clearly what stays. People need to see that something is different now, but the changes should not look petty. It could be the format of the executive meeting, the way decisions are prepared, or simply moving the weekly leadership meeting to another day. Small changes like these send a clear message. At the same time, tell people what you will keep, for example: "The quarterly all-hands meetings work very well, so we will continue them." This shows that you change things for good reasons and not just to be different.
Stay calm when people compare. If someone says, "We used to do this differently," do not react defensively. You can simply answer: "Yes, we are doing it differently now, and this is why." If the comparisons continue, address them in a team meeting: "I know that some of you are still getting used to a different leadership style, and that is normal. I am not Peter, and I will not try to be. I will lead the company in my own way. I will also make mistakes, and some of my decisions will be new to you. What I ask is that you engage with my approach instead of comparing it with the past."
And be patient, but within limits. People need time. As a rough guide, after six months your team should clearly be adjusting. If after twelve months people still constantly refer to the old ways, it is no longer a question of transition. Then you have a culture issue, or a leadership issue, or individual managers who have decided not to follow you.
The role of the board
Most advice on this topic is written for the new CEO. In my experience, however, the supervisory board has much more influence on how long the predecessor's shadow remains. The board chose the successor, and it also decides, explicitly or not, what role the predecessor plays afterwards.
If your predecessor creates confusion, whether intentionally or not, the board needs to know. Raise it as a transition topic and not as a complaint: "I would like to mention something. Peter is still very engaged, and I appreciate that. But it is creating some uncertainty about who decides what. Could we clarify our roles?" Most boards will support you if you raise it in this way.
Boards themselves should answer three questions before the new CEO starts:
What exactly is the outgoing CEO's role after the handover? "Available if needed" is not a role. There should either be a defined mandate with a clear end date, or a clear separation.
Whom does the organisation call when it is unsure? If people still call the predecessor, the handover is not complete.
Are some board members closer to the predecessor than to the company? Long personal relationships are normal, but the chair should be aware of them and discuss them openly.
Before the new CEO starts
This part is closest to my own work, and I would urge boards to pay special attention to it. Much of the predecessor's influence can be addressed before the new CEO starts. In my experience, there are three important moments.
The briefing. When we define the role, I ask the board directly how present the predecessor still is and what role they will have afterwards. If the answer is "we don't know yet", this should be clarified before the appointment.
The assessment. Some candidates find it easy to follow a strong predecessor, others find it difficult. So I look at this explicitly. Has the person followed a respected leader before? How did they create space for their own approach without damaging what worked? How do they react when someone says, "We have always done it differently"?
The agreement with the outgoing CEO. The predecessor's role after the handover, its scope and its end date should be agreed during the search, and the successor should know about it before signing. If a new CEO only learns about a consulting contract with the predecessor after starting, they will rightly feel that the board did not tell them everything.
This does not make the predecessor's influence disappear. But the board and the new CEO can prepare for it together, instead of being surprised by it.
When you are the one leaving
At some point, you will leave the company yourself. How you do it will influence how long your shadow remains for your successor.
If you are preparing your exit, whether you retire, move to another role or step down, you can make the start much easier for your successor. I wrote about the outgoing CEO in more detail in The New CEO Is Ready. What About The One Walking Out?, so here only briefly:
Leave clearly. Do not stay "available for advice" unless you are explicitly asked, and even then, be careful. Your successor needs room to succeed, and also to make mistakes, in their own way.
Support in public, advise in private. If you keep a role, for example on the board, make it clear to everyone that the new CEO is in charge. Send questions to them and respect their decisions, also when you would have decided differently.
Let go emotionally. This is the hardest part, especially if you built the company or led it for many years. What you achieved remains. Now it is your successor's turn.
Five questions after three months
If you are a new CEO, take ten minutes at the end of your third month and answer these five questions honestly.
When my team is unsure about a decision, do they turn to me, or to my predecessor's way of doing things?
Do I have my own relationship with every member of the supervisory board, independent of my predecessor?
Which inherited processes or meetings have I questioned, and what did I decide?
Have I said clearly, in public, what stays and what changes?
When I hesitate before a decision, is it because of the facts, or because I am thinking about how my predecessor would see it?
If you are not happy with some of your answers, that is completely normal. After three months, there is still enough time to change things. After twelve months, it becomes much harder.
A final thought
No CEO starts with a blank page. The predecessor's influence is simply part of the role. A good transition does not depend on whether this influence exists, but on how consciously the new CEO, the board and ideally also the predecessor deal with it.
Recognise what your predecessor achieved, build your own relationships and your own way of working, and give people time to adjust. At the same time, make it clear that you expect them to adjust.
This has nothing to do with ego or a lack of respect. You need this space to lead the company well.
No CEO starts with a blank page.
So if you find yourself, like my friend, a little annoyed by yet another comparison with your predecessor: this is normal, it does not last forever, and there is a lot you can do about it.
Your predecessor had their time as CEO, and now it is yours.
Photo credit: Content Pixie / Unsplash. A nautilus shell, cut open. Every chamber built on the one before. Each one new.
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.
