Latest news with #BrookeStruck
Globe and Mail
3 days ago
- Business
- Globe and Mail
The problem with new leaders using an ‘out-with-the-old' approach
Brooke Struck is the founder and principal facilitator at Converge, which supports organizations through strategic and cultural transformation. Mike James Ross is the co-author of 'Intention: The Surprising Psychology of High Performers', former CHRO at La Maison Simons and current board member and executive advisor. A promise of light in the dark… The year 2024 set a record for CEO turnover, according to leadership advisory firm Russell Reynolds Associates, and 2025 looks like it'll be even worse. Often, a replacement executive is brought in as organizations move through natural phases. To draw an analogy to mountain climbing, reaching base camp and reaching the summit are two different phases, each with a separate skillset and each necessary to reach the ultimate goal. However, when there's a leadership change, it is all too easy for the incoming executive to lean into a convenient narrative: 'The old way of doing things doesn't cut it and that's why we need to change.' The logic of this is as attractive as it is simple – and dangerous. The urgency to adopt the new is driven by the inadequacy of the old. An executive stepping into a new role might initially have the intention to 'spend the first 45 days listening,' but once they arrive on the job and begin feeling the pressure to quickly demonstrate value, the idea of 'out with the old and in with the new' can be appealing as a lever to drive better results now. … which turns out to be a trap In vilifying the past, you run two important risks: First, while some part of how we've operated surely needs to change, this narrative completely ignores many other parts actually work well. Consider a 185-year-old company like La Maison Simons. Companies simply don't thrive and flourish for two centuries (or even two decades) without getting a lot of things right. By vilifying the past wholesale, we're casting shade too widely. Second, in criticizing processes it's perilously easy to disparage people as well. Our intention as leaders is to motivate our teams to change, but we can easily demotivate them if our words sound to them like, 'You were incompetent and doing it all wrong.' The longer way 'round is the shorter way home. While not as simple, a more effective storyline around change is one that demonstrates the continuity of past, present and future. This is especially true in older organizations with rich histories. By celebrating what came before and recognizing that it was necessary to get us where we are now, we can focus our attention with enthusiasm and excitement on the potential of what is to come. There are three elements that we've seen work in practice. Finally, here are three questions we've found helpful to keep leaders aligned during this process. By combining these approaches and mindsets, we've seen stronger commitment to change, better continuity and greater opportunities for leadership to shine across many organizations. Given that we're all living in a world that requires constant change, being anchored in what worked well can make all the difference. This column is part of Globe Careers' Leadership Lab series, where executives and experts share their views and advice about the world of work. Find all Leadership Lab stories at and guidelines for how to contribute to the column here.
Globe and Mail
04-06-2025
- Business
- Globe and Mail
When it comes to talent, companies are usually better off with the internal candidate they know
Brooke Struck is the founder and principal facilitator at Converge, which supports organizations through strategic and cultural transformation. David Knechtel is the managing director at Client Counsel. The next five years will be a critical time for talent management because by 2030 even the youngest Baby Boomers will turn 65. But there's a persistent challenge to making the most of your people's potential: when it's time for change, we too often reach outside the organization, dreaming of that superstar who is just waiting to arrive – if only we can find them. When external talent is brought in, they usually command about 18 per cent higher compensation than an internal candidate, according to a report in Administrative Science Quarterly. That pay increase wouldn't be so bad, except that they perform worse than internal promotions over the first 24 months. Bad goes to worse when you consider that external hires are 20 per cent more likely to leave the organization – during their first year alone, according to an article from Deloitte Insights. Perhaps you've seen this inside your own organization. We have. David was working with a team who needed a leader for a national team. The previous hire had been brought in from the outside, through a previous collaboration with an executive. Her start on the job hadn't been a resounding thunderclap of success. Early stumbles were chalked up to 'settling in,' early wins were all celebrated as evidence of her stardom (and of the even more impactful outcomes expected down the road). But those eye-popping results never materialized. After some months, things still weren't working out, and by this time the honeymoon period was over. Both sides realized that a change was needed. Nevertheless, the leadership team still believed (in the face of this recent negative experience) that the external route was the way to go when replacing their previous 'superstar.' They weren't moved by the reality that 75 per cent of internal hires succeed in their new roles or that among internal hires nearly half stay a further 3 years with the company, according to HRForecast. Rather, internal candidates were discounted as 'just not ready' or 'not strategic enough.' The reality though is that, unsexy as it is, we're usually better off with the candidate we know well – warts and all – even if they lack any of the outsider's mystique. After many discussions among the team David was working with, senior leadership finally agreed to 'take the chance' on an internal candidate. For the team, it was a huge win to see a trusted manager advance and there were a number of unexpected benefits: faster decision-making, better understanding of the evolving marketplace and a wider number of existing relationships that could be leveraged. And the team achieved their best performance ever as a result. These dimensions start to tell the story behind the numbers. Internal candidates bring a depth of organizational know-how and relationships with them to their new roles, starting from Day 1. This helps them to be more effective in the early going. Relationships also keep people in jobs, which can help to explain why internal hires stay longer. They understand their colleagues and can be more effective by driving greater performance of those around them. Finally, when a close-knit team sees the leadership team valuing their work and trusting them to deliver more, they're encouraged to rise to the challenge. They see that there really are opportunities worth seizing, improving employee loyalty. This will be especially important in the coming years, as nine in 10 Millennials prioritize career growth potential as an essential consideration when deciding to take a job, according to Robert Walters. With the turnover to come, organizations that demonstrate that advancement opportunities are real will have an advantage in the competition for talent. So how do we decide when an internal or external hire might be a better choice? Here are some practical tips to consider, given your situation: It's very du jour these days to encourage team members to take a growth mindset. What we're advocating here is that – if we want our team members to succeed and our organizations along with them – it's not enough for employees to take a growth mindset about themselves. We as leaders need to have a growth mindset about them as well. This column is part of Globe Careers' Leadership Lab series, where executives and experts share their views and advice about the world of work. Find all Leadership Lab stories at and guidelines for how to contribute to the column here.
