Some organisations think the job of hiring and onboarding a new leader stops when they’ve accepted the offer and turned up on day one. In my experience, that’s exactly when the real work should start, and exactly where some employers quietly stop trying.
Two hires, two outcomes
A few years ago, I completed a search for a Commercial Manager into a small business going through a lot of change. She was a good hire, capable, well-qualified, and (as much as we would hope) just what the role needed on paper, although this job was a step-up for her. She was also a little nervous and less confident about her abilities then we all were.
When I called her a month into her role, she told me that her induction had consisted of a laptop, a login, a staff handbook, a quick introduction to her new team, and a diary invite with the Managing Director for a “catch up” three weeks later.
Now, there was no HR function in this business – just a busy MD and senior team. But nobody had mapped out a schedule for her to meet the key people. Nobody had told her what the unwritten rules were or which decisions actually needed sign-off versus which just looked like they did. She was left to her own devices to figure out the culture, who to go to get things done, and to understand the way things got done in the business.
There is an expectation that a new leader will hit the ground running, and beyond the cursory induction, quietly leave them to sink or swim.
She’d made a few decisions and was doing what she could, but with limited feedback, and no support when she’d asked for help. She felt like she was floundering – her imposter syndrome and lack of confidence was shouting loudly – and she was considering leaving.
After my call with her, I spoke with the MD and he admitted he’d been busy. But he also said that he expected, because she was now a senior person, that “she could get on with the job.” We put together a structured plan and steadied the ship. But it cost a couple of months of time that nobody needed to lose – and it could have been worse.
I see the good sides too with some clients I work with. One created a proper structured plan for the new Financial Controller I hired. This consisted of deliberate introductions in the first week, a clear steer on what genuinely needed his attention versus what could wait, a check-in every week that wasn’t a performance review in disguise but an honest “how’s this actually going.” He was contributing meaningfully by month two. Not because he was more talented than the commercial manager. But because he’d actually been supported and given the tools to do his job.
I see it often in organisations, and not just in small businesses. There is an expectation that a new leader will hit the ground running, and beyond the cursory induction, quietly leave them to sink or swim. It’s easy to mistake early silence from the new person as someone “settling in fine,” when it’s just as often someone struggling without wanting to admit it.
Where employers can get this wrong
Expecting too much, too soon
There’s an unspoken assumption that seniority should mean self-sufficiency, and that asking too many questions signals weakness rather than good judgement. This is backwards. The leaders who ask the most questions in their first month are usually the ones who cause the fewest problems in their sixth.
Treating induction as an HR checklist, not a leadership responsibility
A laptop, a login, and a tour of the building isn’t induction, it’s logistics. Real induction means someone senior deliberately explaining the organisation’s real dynamics, not just its organisation chart: who actually holds influence, what’s politically sensitive, what’s already been tried and failed before.
Leaving them to work out relationships on their own
New leaders are routinely expected to build their own network of stakeholder relationships from a standing start, in a business they don’t yet understand, while also being expected to perform. Deliberately introducing them, and explaining why each relationship matters, saves months.
Confusing quiet with fine
A new leader who isn’t causing visible problems is assumed to be settling in well. Often, they’re just being cautious, or struggling silently, unsure whether asking for help this early will be held against them later. Silence isn’t the same as success.
Waiting too long for the first check-in
By the time most organisations get round to a proper review, a month – or even three months in, patterns are already set, for better or worse. An honest, low-stakes “how’s this actually going” conversation – as often as needed to start, but no longer than weekly – catches problems while they’re still easy to fix.
Assuming this is something HR handles, not the leader’s own manager or board
Support during this period is often quietly delegated to HR processes rather than owned by the people who actually understand the role and the politics around it. The people best placed to help a new leader succeed are usually the ones least involved in actually doing it.
What a comprehensive induction should include
Beyond the contractual, regulatory and health & safety basics every organisation already handles, a genuinely useful induction goes much further. Here are some of the key things that are on my checklist for new leaders.
Organisational context, not just structure
An organisation chart tells you nothing about how decisions really get made. A proper induction process covers the unwritten rules: who actually holds influence versus who has the title, what’s been tried before and failed, what’s politically sensitive, and the actual pace, culture, and style of the place – how decisions get made and things get done.
A genuine understanding of the team they’re inheriting
As above, this isn’t just names and job titles, but real insight into each direct report’s strengths, development needs, and the team’s recent history. A recent restructure, an unresolved conflict, even the departure of their last manager, all shape how that team will respond to the new leader. Information on the make up and the dynamics at play in the team is invaluable to its new manager.
Decision-making processes
I’ve heard it many times from newly appointed candidates when I catch up with them: “I’m not sure of my boundaries.” What can they decide alone, and what needs sign-off, and from whom? This can be one of the most common frustrations for new leaders – having to ask, or feel like they need permission to act in the early days.
The strategic and commercial context
Beyond what was said in the interview discussion, this is where it’s really important. It’s time to share where the business or function is actually heading, to be clear about the current priorities and budget realities. A few times I’ve seen this discussion be quite different from the what might have been said in the interview process, but anything that is coming up, or going on, that might impact the new person – or the business – needs to be covered early.
A sponsor or buddy who isn’t their manager
Whatever the level of the new person, it’s useful for a new person to have someone to ask the questions that feel too basic to ask their own boss. Having someone who knows how things are done, who to speak to for answers – and is neither overly positive, or cynical about things is of real help.
Explicit success criteria for the first 90 days
Setting – and agreeing – goals and expectations is crucial. These should be stated, not assumed, or something that was only discussed vaguely in the interview. What does the organisation actually expect to see in one, two, and three months? Leaving this implicit is exactly how you get a leader making sweeping changes because they assumed that’s what “impact” looked like, when the organisation actually wanted evolution, not revolution. Or, you find that nothing has happened in three months and are wondering why.
Early two-way feedback, not just assessment of them
The first check-ins shouldn’t only be “how’s it going for us,” it should genuinely ask what’s been confusing, missing, or harder than expected, and act on it. A new leader’s early confusion is often a fair signal that the induction itself has gaps. These check-ins should be regularly to begin – I suggest weekly for a month – then or as needed (monthly) or appropriate. But always keeping it a two-way discussion.
A written plan, even a brief one
Almost everything above tends to happen informally, accidentally, or not at all, if it isn’t written down somewhere. Even a simple one-page plan covering who to meet, what decisions need sign-off, and what the first 100 days should focus on makes a real difference. The core problem in most bad inductions isn’t malice, it’s ambiguity, and ambiguity mostly gets fixed by writing things down.
Experienced leaders need something different from newer ones
It’s tempting to assume a more experienced hire needs less support. In practice, they need a different kind, not less of it.
For a less experienced manager, the gaps are often genuinely skills-based: in addition to all the above, they may need support with delegation, running effective meetings, handling a difficult conversation for the first time. Structured induction paired with real coaching or mentoring support matters most here.
For an experienced manager, the risk is almost the opposite. They’ve got a way of working that worked elsewhere – and it’s likely what got them this job. But the danger is assuming it transfers directly, without anyone describing “how we do things here”, which might be very different.
Induction for an experienced hire should focus on deliberately surfacing those differences early. That’s exactly the Commercial Director’s problem: competent, experienced, and he still got it wrong, because nobody told him what was different here.
A structured assessment early on, even something light, gives both the new leader and the organisation a faster, more objective read on strengths and likely friction points than everyone quietly forming impressions over the first two months.
Why it’s important to get it right
None of this needs to be complicated or expensive. It means someone senior taking real ownership of the induction, not handing it to HR (if there is a HR team) and assuming it’s covered. None of it needs a formal programme. It requires someone to decide it matters enough to do things right – and do it.
What it produces, when done properly, is exactly what the Financial Controller’s induction gave him, and what the Commercial Manager never got: the confidence to ask questions early rather than guess, a genuine understanding of the business before being expected to change it, and a network of relationships built on introduction rather than left to chance.
The businesses that get this right rarely talk about it much, because it doesn’t look like a big intervention. It just looks like their new leaders taking hold of the role faster, with fewer of the early missteps that come from working in the dark.
This is exactly the gap our first 100 days coaching programme is built to close, structured, external support during the window where most organisations quietly stop paying attention, and where the cost of getting it wrong is highest.
If you’ve got a new leader starting soon, or one who’s already a few months in and you’re not entirely sure how it’s going ask how bfpeople can help. The difference between the Commercial Manager and the Financial Controller wasn’t talent. It was about the way they were introduced to the business and their new role.
Written by John Hamilton
John is Managing Director of bfpeople. He is an experienced recruiter, qualified to use a wide range of occupational psychometrics, and a trained executive coach and mentor.
Connect with John on LinkedIn
