New leader: How much should you publicly distance yourself from the old leader?

One of the first decisions every new leader faces...

How much should you publicly distance yourself from your predecessor?

I've been reflecting on this question and my own experience in leadership.

There are times when creating clear separation from the past is exactly the right thing to do.

For example, if you're:

• Joining from outside the organisation,

• Inheriting a team or business in crisis,

• Dealing with significant reputational damage,

• Rebuilding trust, or

• Signalling that a fundamentally different direction is required.

In those circumstances, creating distance can give people confidence that the organisation is turning a corner.

But there's another scenario that interests me even more. What if you've been promoted from within?

Imagine you've spent the last five years as part of the executive team before becoming CEO or leading the business. Can you really distance yourself from your predecessors?

Should you?

My view is that this is where many leaders risk losing credibility.

If you've been part of the leadership team for years, it's difficult to suddenly position yourself as though the past had nothing to do with you.

People know better. They know you were part of the decisions that shaped today's organisation.

I think the more credible approach is to own the past, recognise what worked, acknowledge what didn't, and explain why the organisation now needs to evolve.

Leadership isn't about pretending you arrived with all the answers.

It's about demonstrating the judgement to preserve what still creates value while having the courage to change what no longer does.

What do you think? Should an internally promoted leader deliberately distance themselves from previous leadership, or does that risk undermining their credibility?