There are three things you

There are three things you do the most when a leader changes.

- Stop a project by a full-time leader
- a major reorganization
- External blood transfusion and sub-tissue replacement

This is a bad thing, but not necessarily. What's wrong with correcting the wrong strategy, creating the most efficient organizational structure to achieve the newly set goals, and placing the right person who can perform it best.

However, this is sometimes a problem.

- We're rushing without knowing the organization
- They are not trying to gain consensus from members on the purpose of such change.

Of course, direction, strategy, and personnel management rights are the unique authority of the leader. In principle, you do not need to obtain the consent of the members, and you can make a decision on your own if you think that a change that everyone opposes is necessary. A company's decision-making system is not a democracy. This is especially true in an emergency situation where cash flows are rapidly collapsing.

However, hasty decisions and decisions made by leaders who are not supported by their members are highly likely to lead to wrong decisions. If visible results are not achieved in a short period of time, the momentum will be lost rapidly. This is why it is necessary to understand the organization, listen to the opinions of members, and persuade them before making any drastic changes in case of a real emergency, unless it is absolutely necessary. It is not because it must, but because it can increase the probability.

This is especially true for the organization that has frequently undergone leadership changes, major reorganization, and external blood transfusions and intermediate leader changes in recent years. Members feel tired of repeatedly witnessing the process of changing the organization for each person who comes and leaving if they fail. Dejavu, or PTSD, is repeated. This is why it is the responsibility of a new leader who has joined the organization to take into account the mistakes of the previous leader.

How you organize your organization is more important than you think. There is a huge difference between having a proper camp and not even with the same power. However, there is no such thing as a magical organizational structure that applies in any situation. For example, the answer to what is more effective to achieve the goal between a functional organization and a target organization varies from company to company, situation to member. How much power will be put on the reorganization that proceeds without understanding the difference and explaining it to members.

Will it succeed right away if we apply the success formulas of Steve Jobs or Elon Musk to our company? Even if he experienced such success at Apple and Tesla. In soccer, will it be successful if the most popular soccer tactics in the UK or Spain are transplanted into Korea within a month or two? Without even knowing the players.

Reorganizing strategies, rebuilding camps through reorganization, and appointing appropriate middle leaders are essential for the company's reconstruction. In particular, it is the leader's ability and assets, not the parachute, that draws a person who has long been in contact with a new leader from the outside. This is because it includes not only the person but also the person he can bring in the ability to newly place a leader.

However, it is the timing that matters. It is up to the leader to decide how quickly or how carefully he decides the timing, and whether he makes a big reorganization at once or proceeds step by step from the most necessary parts. There is no rule that you should wait at least a few months. If you are confident, you should be cautious, identify your members, and elicit support through dialogue.

During my working life, I was able to observe how talented leaders raise up an organization that has been stagnant for a long time. I was able to know how much effort I put into identifying the organization, members, where to make changes, who to put in the position, and how to explain those changes to people and ask for consent. When the middle leader who had previously played a role was removed from his position, I saw how many conversations he had, talked about his hard work, and provided a place to smile and say goodbye to the people he had done with him. There may be no regrets, but so that the face of the person leaving can be a little comfortable.

When I left the company, joined a new company, and led the organization, I had such an experience on the basis of slowing down and talking more than before. I did not know the answer, but rather with the feeling that I had learned a little more about how to find it, and I spoke my thoughts. Even if I did not get the consent of the majority, there were times when I had to make a decision, but I never forgot to explain why I did. Whenever it was difficult to persuade, I remembered the leader I had seen. I paid off the debt with a feeling of being indebted.

—

When a new leader comes, people see the leader's words and actions. But is the leader looking at the people who will work with him.