You take over a new division. But instead of a functioning unit, you find: demotivated employees, missed targets, disgruntled clients, technical debt, and political baggage. Your predecessor left behind chaos or was let go because of it.
Taking over a mess requires different strategies than managing a healthy division. The advice for normal takeovers—arriving slowly, listening, not rushing into things—can be exactly the wrong approach here.
This is the crux of the matter: what is right in a normal takeover can be fatal in a turnaround. Too much patience where quick action is needed. Too much understanding for conditions that are unacceptable. Too much consideration for people who are part of the problem. At the same time, those who only clean up without understanding will make new mistakes. Finding the balance is the true art.
A division head I supported in this situation took over a department of 40 employees that had been missing its targets for two years. In the first few weeks, she saw what everyone saw: poor numbers, disgruntled clients, and a demotivated team. After six weeks, she discovered what no one had mentioned: the predecessor had made verbal promises to three major clients that were technically impossible to implement. A key employee had already checked out mentally. And two team leads had been blocking each other since a conflict that no one had addressed.
In the first few weeks, you might see 30% of the problems. The visible problems—missed figures, client complaints, obvious quality defects—are unpleasant but at least known. Beneath them lie the hidden problems: technical debt that no one documented, promises that only exist verbally, and conflicts that smolder without being openly resolved. Deeper still are the cultural patterns: avoidance behavior, blame-shifting, silo thinking, and learned helplessness. And finally, the political level: stakeholders who have written off your division, colleagues who have siphoned off resources, and superiors who are impatient. The other 70% only reveal themselves later. Plan accordingly.
| Problem Level | Examples | Visibility |
|---|---|---|
| Visible | Missed targets, complaints | Immediately recognizable |
| Hidden | Technical debt, verbal promises | Appears after weeks |
| Cultural | Avoidance, blame-shifting | Appears in patterns |
| Political | Lost trust, impatience | Felt in interactions |
Before you act, you must understand. But unlike a normal takeover, you have less time. Give yourself 30 days for a targeted diagnosis—not perfect, but clear enough to act. Speak with all levels, not just your direct team, but also clients, stakeholders, and the level below. The truth rarely lies with one group alone. Ask: What is working? What isn’t? What has already been tried? What would you change?
The temptation to blame the predecessor is great. Resist it. Blame poisons the atmosphere and changes nothing. Your task is not to find the guilty parties, but to find solutions. Document what you find, not for self-protection, but for clarity. In the complexity of a mess, it is easy to lose perspective. And understanding does not mean delaying: a fast, targeted diagnosis is better than a slow, complete one.
A managing director I advised took over a business unit that had been in the red for 18 months. The board expected it to be profitable within six months. After his diagnosis, it was clear: that was unrealistic. Instead of keeping quiet and failing after six months, he presented his analysis to the board with a realistic 14-month plan. The board was not thrilled, but they accepted it. Had the managing director remained silent, he would have failed after six months—not because of the problems, but because of the wrong expectations.
Calibrating expectations is one of the most important tasks in a turnaround, both upwards and downwards. Your superior wants to see results, preferably quickly. But unrealistic expectations lead to disappointment, even if you are doing good work. “The situation is more serious than expected” is an important message, better delivered early than late. Define together what is realistic in 90 days, in 6 months, and in a year. And clarify the resource question: a turnaround without resources is doomed to fail. Do you need more budget, more time, or different people? Clarify this before you fail, not after.
Regarding your team: be honest, but not defeatist. Some hope that everything will get better with you. Others expect you to fail just like your predecessor. “It won’t get better overnight, but we will make it better” is a fair message. Do not promise too much, and keep the promises you do make.
The sequence in the first 90 days is clear, and it differs fundamentally from a normal takeover. In the first 30 days, you manage acute crises: putting out the fires that cannot wait. Use the honeymoon phase, where you are forgiven for asking tough questions and taking drastic measures that would be seen as a political attack six months later. Between day 30 and 60, you lay the foundation: clarity on priorities, initial structures that work, small wins that build momentum, and decisions that have been postponed for too long. Only between day 60 and 90 do you communicate the larger vision, once you understand enough to formulate a realistic one.
Quick wins build momentum and credibility. But not every fast success is a good quick win. Good quick wins solve real problems that everyone feels, are visible and understandable, do not cost too many resources, and do not create new problems. Bad quick wins solve sham problems while the real issues remain, or they antagonize important stakeholders.
Larry Bossidy, former CEO of AlliedSignal, described the difference between turnaround leaders who fail and those who succeed: the successful ones do not choose their first battles based on what seems most urgent, but on what has the greatest signaling effect. The best first quick win is often the abolition of a nonsensical bureaucratic rule that the team has suffered under. This costs nothing but immediately proves the ability to act and wins trust. Ask your team which rule annoys them the most. Abolishing it shows: a new wind is blowing, and this boss listens.
A warning sign: if your predecessor already tried the same quick wins and they didn’t work, ask about the history before repeating the past. Quick wins are a means, not an end. They buy time and credibility for the larger changes that must follow.
A mess often has a team that is either part of the problem or could be part of the solution. The distinction is critical, and it must be made quickly. There are the high performers who have persevered despite the difficult situation; they are worth their weight in gold. There are the followers who have adapted and can improve with the right leadership. There are the blockers who consciously or unconsciously sabotage change, often well-connected and skilled at resisting without being openly conspicuous. And there are the damaged ones who suffered under the previous leadership and are now burnt out, cynical, or fearful.
The most difficult decision is the one everyone expects and most leaders postpone for too long: with toxic blockers, “eventually” is often too late. You must part ways with these people in the first 60 days. The team is waiting to see if you have the courage the predecessor lacked. If you hesitate, you lose the high performers who are waiting for a signal that things will be different this time. Fairness does not mean endlessly tolerating incompetence or unwillingness. With followers and the damaged, you can give more time—a fair chance to prove themselves, but not unlimited patience. If you have to conduct difficult termination talks, do so professionally.
Even if your predecessor is gone, their shadow remains. The temptation is great to blame everything on them. That is too easy and often not the whole truth. Conversely, you should not pretend that everything was fine. Some in the team were loyal to the predecessor; that is not automatically a bad thing. Give these people time to get to know you.
At some point, the focus must shift forward. And here lies an uncomfortable truth: after a while, you are no longer new. The problems you inherited become your problems. Set yourself a deadline for how long you can refer to the legacy—six months, a year. Work toward the point where you no longer need it. Eventually, you will no longer be measured by what you found, but by what you made of it.
First: Have you systematically looked for hidden problems, or do you only know the obvious ones? Speak this week with three people who are not part of your direct team.
Second: Are your superior’s expectations realistic, and have you discussed this explicitly, or are both sides just hoping it will work out?
Third: Is there a blocker in your team where you are postponing the decision, even though you have long known what is necessary?
Taking over a mess is harder, more stressful, and more thankless than a normal job. You inherit the mistakes of others and are still measured by the results. You have to make difficult decisions that hurt people. You are the villain, at least in the beginning.
But it is also an opportunity. Few situations offer so much room for maneuver. Few successes are as satisfying as a turnaround that succeeds. Taking over a mess is not for everyone. But for those who can do it, it is the ultimate leadership task.
The difference between failure and success rarely lies in the scale of the problems. It lies in the clarity of the diagnosis, the honesty of the expectations, the consistency of the decisions, and the stamina to see it through. You did not choose the legacy you stepped into. The legacy you leave behind is in your hands.
The First 100 Days – The normal case of a takeover. Many principles apply here too, but the sequence and speed are different.
Leading in a Crisis – A mess is often a permanent crisis. How to lead under sustained pressure without burning out yourself.
All Insights can be found in the overview.
Proven tools and models for self-application are available under Solutions.
If you want to take these thoughts further for your company, a no-obligation initial conversation is worthwhile.
