7 factors behind a company’s paralysis
In the initial conversation about a CEO search, the investor says: “Commodity prices, China, tariffs, AI: that alone doesn’t explain the paralysis. Our problem goes deeper.”
These are the factors that come up again and again in our conversations:
1. Politics in management
Mid-sized companies aren’t immune to coalitions and compromise either, instead of clear decision-making mandates. Decisions get delayed because competing interests have to be balanced. That’s fatal when speed decides competitive advantage.
2. The company as a fragmented system
Functions develop their own targets: finance, sales, R&D, production, plus external stakeholders such as investors or unions. Each unit follows its own definition of success. The result: conflicting goals instead of cooperation.
3. Battles over the narrative instead of problem-solving
In politicised organisations, it isn’t the analysis that decides, but who controls the story: whoever defines the problem determines the solution. Competing narratives fight it out on advisory and supervisory boards while the strategic challenges remain unsolved.
4. HR between aspiration and reality
Many HR functions see themselves as strategic partners but mostly do administration. Much of their time goes on documentation and routine. In a skills shortage, the shaping role in talent acquisition is missing.
5. The rise of the generalist
The road to top management doesn’t always run through professional excellence. Presentation skills, networks and capital markets communication count for more and more. People make strategic decisions without deep knowledge of product or market.
6. Numbers run riot at the customer’s expense
Short-term KPIs dominate decisions. Cost cuts improve margins but erode service quality and competitiveness over time. When people on the front line are swearing and the bosses don’t notice, something’s wrong.
7. A leadership vacuum at the top
When managing directors don’t make clear decisions, others fill the vacuum: investors, supervisory boards or employee representatives. Influence without operational responsibility weakens decision-making even further.
For us, it’s important to understand what state the organisation is in. Yes, you read that correctly: sometimes a change of leadership isn’t the answer.
Once that decision has been made, interviews need to reveal how candidates would deal with these problems. The key question: how would a prospective managing director establish decisiveness, accountability and clear leadership?
And do the conditions even allow it?
What’s your experience of these seven killers?
