For a business aiming to achieve “strategic change,” it often needs a new leadership from the outside of the organization in order to implement the changes required. An external perspective might be more useful than an internal one because of the degree and direction of the strategy. However on the other it can be argued that an internal leader would have a greater degree of understanding of the business. I will be discussing whether an external or internal would be most suitable for a business applying a new strategy. One argument in favor for external leadership is that it gives a new fresh perspective of the business and he/she will be able to see the wrong choices made by the existing management. Harriet Green’s “tenacity and straight talking style helped save the world’s travel company” of Thomas Cook. Providing a clear turnaround strategy based on significant cost reduction of £440m and addressing the organizational structure by axing 2,500 jobs and 400 high street branches. This is useful for a business that may have pursued unsuccessful external growth strategies or have failed to respond to a significant change in the external environment. This type of leadership style could be seen as autocratic because of the quick decisions made and this would be seen as “tells” in the Tennenbaum and Schmidt continuum because of the leader being able to identify the problem and makes the decision, expecting to be implemented immediately. Therefore we can argue that external leadership might be the right way to apply a new strategy because of the quick decision making it provides to a business that needs a turn around. However this is dependent on the experience of the external leader and the current situation of the business in the market. Additionally, another reason why external leadership is a better option to implement a new strategy is because of the expertise and experience a new leader can provide. Adam Crozier joine