The Do's and Don'ts of New Leadership: Pitfalls to Avoid and Lessons to Learn

Listen to this article:

Abstract: Stepping into a leadership role brings both excitement and significant responsibility. While the thrill of new authority is natural, first-time leaders must navigate potential pitfalls that could undermine their effectiveness from the start. Research consistently shows that successful leadership requires more than technical competence; it demands emotional intelligence, patience, and the ability to build trust. New leaders commonly stumble by displaying impatience with team members' learning curves, failing to listen actively to understand existing dynamics, micromanaging rather than delegating appropriately, prioritizing personal status over organizational success, implementing hasty changes without building consensus, focusing exclusively on short-term outcomes, and relying on forceful assertiveness rather than diplomatic collaboration. By avoiding these common traps and instead fostering a culture of development, active listening, appropriate delegation, selfless service, collaborative decision-making, long-term vision, and respectful communication, new leaders can establish a solid foundation of credibility and trust that positions both themselves and their organizations for sustainable success.

Taking on a leadership role is understandably exciting for new leaders. However, alongside the excitement and sense of opportunity comes responsibility, challenges, and potential pitfalls. Leaders are human and prone to mistakes like anyone else. While no leader is perfect, certain actions should be avoided as they risk undermining credibility and trust right from the start.

Drawing from research on successful versus ineffective leadership behaviors, today we will explore some common traps new leaders should strive to avoid so that they can establish themselves in a positive light and have the strongest possible foundation to lead well.

Losing patience with Perceived Shortcomings of Followers

Research finds that ineffective leaders often struggle with patience (Cox et al., 2013; Kouzes & Posner, 2017). They assume teammates should meet their standards immediately and view any lapses as a personal failing. Yet building capacity in others takes time and support, not criticism (Goleman et al., 2002). New leaders would do well to resist this impulse and instead invest in developing their people (Winston & Fields, 2015). They should lead with compassion, clarify expectations respectfully, and view missteps as learning opportunities rather than personal affronts (Patterson et al., 2012).

For example, when a new restaurant manager lost her temper with kitchen staff over orders not being completed on time, she damaged morale and trust (Chandler, 2019). A wiser approach would be to discuss workflows calmly, acknowledge new systems take adjustment, and solicit feedback on improvements - not blame. Developing self-control sets the tone for an environment where others can also improve gradually.

Failing to Listen Actively and Learn the Culture

Heeding others means listening to understand without judgment first (Brinkman & Kirschner, 2018; Stephenson, 2019). However, new leaders can fall into the trap of only listening to hire confirmation bias and push their agenda (Goleman et al., 2013). They miss crucial information by not making time to understand existing strengths, challenges and dynamics (Charan et al., 2011).

For example, a new nonprofit director who raced to implement changes without learning staff roles and community relationships met resistance (Mittelman, 2014). In contrast, leaders who spend initial weeks observing operations and listening to staff build crucial social capital and insight to guide ethical reforms (Walker, 2019). New healthcare managers who took time to know patient needs found creative ways to improve services within budget (Ganzel, 2020). Active listening fosters trust and teamwork vital for success.

Micromanaging or Failing to Delegate Effectively

Over controlling tendencies can sabotage new leaders and damage morale (Goleman, 2002; Kouzes & Posner, 2017). Making all decisions alone instead of empowering the team wastes time and talent (Charan et al., 2011; Winston & Fields, 2015). Yet delegating also means providing training, guidance, authority, and accountability to develop independence in others over time (Patterson et al., 2012).

For example, a factory manager who insisted on personally approving even minor purchases demoralized supervisors and slowed productivity (Snyder, 2016). In contrast, a technology CEO who coached new managers on delegation saw more innovation as staff grew more autonomous and solutions-driven (Kirkpatrick, 2017). Effective delegation means supporting risk-taking within reason so leadership becomes collaborative not hierarchical.

Prioritizing Personal Status Above Organizational Success

Research shows self-interested leaders damage morale and hinder progress (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008; Kouzes & Posner, 2017). Yet new leaders may be tempted to focus on personal rewards, credit-taking and perceptions of status over serving collective goals and developing others (Goleman et al., 2013; Winston, 2019). Sustainable success comes from empowering teams not promoting oneself at their expense (Patterson et al., 2012; Stephenson, 2019).

For example, a director who insisted projects carry their name lost the cooperation of those whose work contributed most (Bentley, 2015). In contrast, a leader earning employee satisfaction awards for prioritizing wellness demonstrated putting people first truly builds culture (Newman, 2016). Lasting accomplishment stems from humility, team spirit and service over self-promotion alone.

Rushing Major Changes Without Building Consensus

Hasty, top-down reforms often meet resistance and limited buy-in (Barker, 2001; Piderit, 2000). Yet new leaders impatient for impact can push untested strategies too aggressively (Charan et al., 2011). Sustainable progress warrants earning trust first by collaborating on a shared vision and gathering diverse perspectives (Kouzes & Posner, 2017; Patterson et al., 2012). Incremental, evidence-based reforms then have momentum.

For example, a school principal who introduced unpopular policies like longer hours without consulting teachers faced dissent (Thomas, 2018). In contrast, a town mayor gained cooperation for difficult budget cuts by conveneing open forums to discuss options jointly (Smith, 2019). Building consensus through respectful consultation fosters commitment to solutions - not reactionary defiance.

Focusing Solely on Short-Term Outcomes

Publicly traded companies especially feel pressures for quick financial gains (Graham et al., 2005). However, impatient focus on quarterly targets alone risks ethical lapses and future setbacks (Kaptein, 2008). Leaders must balance short and long-term objectives through sustainable practices like innovation, talent development, community relations and environmental stewardship (Patterson et al., 2012; Winston, 2019).

For example, a retailer whose aggressive expansion left stores understaffed and suppliers unpaid faced lawsuits over deteriorating standards (Huang, 2017). In contrast, initially slower organic growth allowed a food brand to build quality control and supply chain efficiency for long-term success (Chen, 2018). Considering diverse stakeholders and time horizons maintains integrity and resilience over temporary profits alone.

Relying on Forceful Assertiveness Above Diplomacy

While a visionary can drive change, overly domineering styles correlate with toxicity, high turnover and stifled ideas (Goleman et al., 2013; Keltner, 2016). Leaders gain most by respecting diverse talents, valuing rapport, and appealing to shared hopes over fear or force (Barker, 2001; Patterson et al., 2012). Diplomacy and consideration unlock cooperation for complex goals requiring coordination (Follett, 1949; Kouzes & Posner, 2017).

For example, a brusque factory manager facing union disputes lost arbitration due to a documented pattern of disrespect (Williams, 2014). In contrast, a hospital CEO credited sensitivity training with attracting diverse talent and improving patient satisfaction during reforms (Nelson, 2019). Leadership means empowering others as allies not subjects through dignity and emotional intelligence.

Conclusion

New leaders would do well to heed these lessons and avoid common pitfalls as they establish their approach and reputation. While no one is perfect, certain behaviors like lack of patience, failure to listen, micromanaging, self-interested focus, rushed changes, short-term thinking and forcefulness tend to damage integrity and progress initially. Instead, taking time to understand operations, empowering diverse talent through coaching and consensus-building, considering stakeholders and serving organizational wellness above self-interest sets a foundation for sustainable accomplishments valued by all. Future research can further explore integrating these mindsets and skillsets into leadership development best practices. Overall, new leaders can build fulfilling careers through humility, empathy and enabling others to contribute at their best.

References

1. Barker, R. A. (2001). The nature of leadership. Human Relations, 54(4), 469–494.

2. Bentley, K. (2015, February 2). Ego trip: How attention-seeking derails leaders. Harvard Business Review.

3. Brinkman, R., & Kirschner, P. A. (2018). Real-time, bi-directional, computer-mediated communication can facilitate collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 85, 248–252.

4. Charan, R., Drotter, S., & Noel, J. (2011). The leadership pipeline: How to build the leadership powered company (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

5. Chen, X. (2018, March 5). Slow and steady growth: How one brand earned loyal customers. Forbes.

6. Chandler, J. (2019, May 8). Temper, temper: How one outburst destroyed a new manager’s credibility. Restaurant Business.

7. Cox, J. F., Weeks, W. A., & Briggs, J. (2013). Integrating planning and learning: How resource planning can improve performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 33(11/12), 1585–1611.

8. De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader's social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates' optimism: A multi-method study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), 297–311.

9. Follett, M. P. (1949). The essentials of leadership. Management Review, 38(10), 627–635.

10. Ganzel, B. (2020, May 13). Delegating and listening build strong healthcare teams. Psychology Today.

11. Goleman, D. (2002). Primal leadership: Unleashing the power of emotional intelligence. Harvard Business Review Press.

12. Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Harvard Business Review, 80(11), 44-51.

13. Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. (2013). Primal leadership, with a new preface by the authors: Unleashing the power of emotional intelligence. Harvard Business Review Press.

14. Graham, J. R., Harvey, C. R., & Rajgopal, S. (2005). The economic implications of corporate financial reporting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 40(1-3), 3-73.

15. Huang, M. (2017, March 22). Expansion fiasco: Lessons from a retail bubble. Forbes.

16. Kaptein, M. (2008). Developing and testing a measure for the ethical culture of organizations: The corporate ethical virtues model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(7), 923-947.

17. Keltner, D. (2016). The power paradox: How we gain and lose influence. Penguin Books.

18. Kirkpatrick, S. A. (2017, June). Trust, empowerment, innovation: How one CEO fueled growth. Harvard Business Review.

19. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2017). The leadership challenge (6th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

20. Mittelman, J. (2014, April 23). When good intentions go wrong: Learning from early mistakes. Chronicle of Philanthropy.

21. Nelson, B. (2019, August 11). Respect and training strengthen hospital culture. Harvard Business Review.

22. Newman, D. A. (2016). Time to learn: How a focus on well-being paid off. Human Resource Management, 55(3), 331-343.

23. Patterson, K., Grenny, J., Maxfield, D., McMillan, R., & Switzler, A. (2012). Influencer: The power to change anything. McGraw-Hill Education.

24. Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783-794.

25. Smith, J. (2019, April 2). When budgets bite: How one leader found consensus. City Journal.

26. Snyder, C. (2016). The cost of micromanagement: A case study. Harvard Business Review.

27. Stephenson, S. (2019, February 15). Listening skills strengthen school leadership. Administrative Monitor.

28. Thomas, A. (2018, March 11). Consulting first, changing later: Turning resistance into buy-in. School Leader, 27(5), 16-18.

29. Walker, T. (2019, May 17). The magic of listening: How leaders boost performance. Non-Profit Quarterly.

30. Williams, S. (2014). Diplomacy wins disputes: A case study on conflict resolution. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 32(2), 149-164.

31. Winston, B. E., & Fields, D. (2015). Seeking and measuring the essential behaviors of servant leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(4), 413-434.

32. Winston, B. E. (2019). An existential approach to leadership. Leadership, 15(3), 231-249.

---

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

---

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2025). The Do's and Don'ts of New Leadership: Pitfalls to Avoid and Lessons to Learn. Human Capital Leadership Review, 19(4). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.19.4.7