Factors Influencing Organizational Success

“If I can do it, so can you”, sounds supportive. But for leaders, this mindset can quietly hold your team back. New research from Muriel Wilkins introduces a hidden blocker, the belief that your capabilities should be your team’s baseline. It often leads to: — Unfair expectations — Harsh feedback — Missed growth opportunities Not because leaders lack good intentions, but because they project their own standards onto others. This is rooted in something called naïve realism, the assumption that your view of the world is objective and everyone else should see it the same way. Here’s the problem: Your way isn’t the way. Exceptional leaders don’t measure others by their own pace, preferences, or past. They meet people where they are. They ask: What support would help you most? How do you define success? Where do you want to grow next? The best leaders don’t raise the bar by replicating themselves. They raise the bar by helping others realize their own potential.

Law firms don't lose their best people. They lose their credibility with their best people. The exit interview rarely reveals the real reason. Top lawyers don't leave only for higher pay. They leave when leadership stops inspiring, culture becomes political, incentives reward the wrong behaviours, and trust quietly disappears. The firms that dominate the next decade won't simply recruit exceptional talent. They'll build places where exceptional people choose to stay. Retention is no longer an HR issue. It's the ultimate leadership test. My latest column in Boardroom Briefings explores why culture, leadership, incentives and trust have become the four pillars of competitive advantage for modern law firms.

Nobody’s talking about this enough. → 79% of CEOs say talent strategy is their #1 priority (PwC, 2024). → But 70% of executive hires still fail within 18 months — not because of capability — but because of cultural misalignment, unmet expectations, or unclear onboarding (Harvard Business Review). As an executive search partner, I see this disconnect every day. Companies hire for what someone has done. But success is driven by what someone can do here, now, in this culture, with this team. That’s a very different filter. Especially in FMCG & Consumer Goods — where transformation is happening at warp speed. The old rules no longer apply: → A 20-year career in a global brand doesn’t guarantee success in a PE-backed hypergrowth environment. → A brilliant marketing leader in Europe may struggle with the speed and autonomy expected in the U.S. → Leaders who thrived in a product-first organization might crumble in a culture that prizes operational excellence. This is why the future of Executive Search isn’t about bigger talent pools. It’s about sharper talent insight. It’s about questions like: → Can this leader scale ambiguity? → Can they operate without perfect infrastructure? → Can they win hearts and minds in a new market? → Will they thrive in this leadership team — not just survive? I often tell clients: The CV is just the entry ticket. The real work is understanding what sits behind it. Their patterns. Their blindspots. Their drivers. Executive Search today is less about placement. More about pattern recognition. And in an FMCG industry that’s navigating M&A, private equity disruption, new market expansion, and talent scarcity across key roles — getting this wrong is expensive. Because the cost of a failed executive hire isn’t just salary. It’s lost momentum. Lost team trust. Lost time to market. This is why I’m obsessed with digging deeper. With not just asking what did they do? But how did they do it? And could they do it again, here? The companies that get this right? They build teams that don’t just deliver results. They stay. They grow. They lead. And that’s the real win. #ExecutiveSearch #Leadership #TalentStrategy #FMCG #ConsumerGoods #HiringTrends #FutureOfWork #ExecutiveHiring

Major roadblocks to corporate sustainability  🌎 Sustainability strategies are advancing, but execution remains a challenge. Even companies with strong commitments face internal and external barriers that slow progress. Identifying these roadblocks is the first step toward addressing them. Leadership remains a defining factor. Without clear executive commitment, sustainability struggles to move beyond surface-level initiatives. A lack of mandate and strategic prioritization often leads to fragmented efforts rather than systemic integration. Short-term financial pressures further complicate decision-making, prioritizing immediate returns over long-term resilience. Even with leadership support, execution can stall due to limited organizational expertise. Many teams lack the technical knowledge to operationalize sustainability goals, from ESG reporting to decarbonization strategies. Without this capability, sustainability remains aspirational rather than actionable. Another key challenge is weak strategic integration. In many organizations, sustainability is still treated as a side initiative rather than a core business driver. Embedding it into financial planning, product development, and supply chains requires a shift from compliance-driven approaches to value creation. Beyond internal capacity, operational constraints play a role. Limited resources—financial, technological, and human—can slow down execution. Cultural resistance within organizations also remains a factor, as legacy mindsets often favor conventional business practices over systemic change. Data is another weak link. Inconsistent, incomplete, or unreliable sustainability data creates challenges in measurement and decision-making. Without robust tracking systems, companies struggle to set credible targets, demonstrate impact, or refine strategies over time. Finally, broader systemic factors—regulatory uncertainty, supply chain risks, and lack of industry collaboration—create additional complexity. Policies are evolving, but alignment across industries is still inconsistent, making it difficult for companies to navigate expectations and scale best practices. Addressing these challenges requires more than ambition—it demands a structured approach that aligns leadership, strategy, and execution. Companies that recognize these barriers early and build internal capacity to overcome them will be positioned for long-term success. #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #climatechange

When a leader is appointed to a high-stakes role without a background in that field, the conversation often splits into blind optimism or personal attacks. Both miss the point. We need to look at the rationality of domain expertise. We need to look at the facts. The Statistical Case for the "Expert Leader" The "disruptive outsider" is a popular narrative, but the data tells a different story 🚀 The Performance Premium: A study of 35,000 data points in The Leadership Quarterly found "Expert Leaders" correlate with a 25% to 33% increase in organizational performance. 📊 The Match Quality Gap: Research from 2025 (Lyman & Capron) shows "match quality" between a leader and firm is 78% higher for those with deep-background experience. ⚠️ The Dismissal Rate: The Center for Creative Leadership reports 55% of outsider CEOs are dismissed within 18 months, largely due to a "learning tax" paid when lacking industry nuance. 📉 The Strategic Failure Rate: HBR analysis shows outsiders hired for "turnarounds" fail to improve operational returns in over 50% of cases. For a population of one, any person can break the odds. We should never prejudge an individual; every leader deserves the chance to prove their competence. However, we must distinguish between "prejudice" and "rational skepticism." 🔹 Positive Outliers: They exist, but they are statistically rare. Long-term performance data shows that only 1 in 10 outsiders manages to reach the top 20% of industry performance. 🔹 Negative Outliers: In most fields, you will find more negative outliers than positive ones. Probability distributions show outsiders have a significant "left-tail" risk, meaning they are statistically more likely to cause a massive decline in value than a massive gain compared to industry veterans. The Bottom Line Is it "rational" to have concerns about a total outsider? Yes. That concern is grounded in the statistical reality that background and passion for a field are the primary predictors of success. We can hope for the exception, but we should plan for the average. Sources 📍 The Leadership Quarterly (2015): Expert leaders explain 16% of organizational performance variance. 📍 Insider CEOs: Lucky or Good? (2025): Insiders possess 78% higher firm-specific capital. 📍 Center for Creative Leadership: 55% of external CEO hires fail within 18 months. 📍 HBR (Khurana & Nohria, 2012): Analysis of 850+ successions over 20 years shows outsiders are significantly more likely to represent "extreme negative outcomes" (left-tail risk) than internal experts. 📍 McKinsey & Company (2023 CEO Excellence Study): Performance tracking of 2,400 CEOs reveals that only 10% of outsider appointments achieve "top-quintile" excess shareholder returns over a 5-year period. 📍 Wharton School of Business (Matthew Bidwell, 2011/2012): Research on "External Hires" confirms they are 61% more likely to be laid off or fired and score lower on performance reviews despite being paid 18% more on average.

Yesterday I walked past our local Aesop store and they had over $930 of free sample products on display out the front, literally on the street for anyone to try. So I did the maths… There were seven 500ml/17oz bottles of beautiful hand lotions of varying cost, so the average retail price for each was $94. Aesop has around 500 stores globally & many of them only offer three sample bottles - so we can average it out to 5 bottles per store. That means at any one time all their stores combined have just over $235,000 worth of storefront samples on display. The lovely sales associates told me they replace these bottles on average every 3 weeks. So if that’s happening at every location, each year Aesop is giving away just over $4 million worth of storefront samples (obviously this costs them less because they don’t pay retail for their own products). And that’s not even counting all the other free samples they offered me in-store - including creams, serums, hand washes, balms, massage oils and lots more in those little sachets. I watched people stop, pump the lotion, smell their hands and then walk in to buy it. This happened over and over again. It was a great reminder that in today’s world of endless digital content, social media advertising, influencers, EDMs, SMS marketing & paid search - sampling trumps them all. There is still no better way for a brand to convert new people into paid customers than by offering free samples.

When content is infinite, brand strategy has to move from “what do we say?” to “what do we stand on?” Here’s what that looks like in the wild. First: sharper positioning. Duolingo could use AI to produce 500 wholesome, educational posts a week. Instead, it doubled down on chaotic, unhinged mascot energy. The owl is clingy. Slightly threatening. Chronically online. That is not an accident. It is a strategic choice. AI helps them scale execution, but the worldview is human: learning is awkward and internet-native. Liquid Death sells water. The most commodified product on earth. In an AI world, every hydration brand can generate edgy copy. But Liquid Death’s moat is not copy. It is a full entertainment system around “murdering your thirst.” The merch. The collaborations. The tone that commits. That's conviction, not content velocity. Second: taste as a system. Aesop is a masterclass here. In theory, any AI can generate minimal, literary-sounding product descriptions. But Aesop’s distinctiveness is architectural, retail-driven, slow, textural. Their stores are curated experiences. The brand is an editorial filter. AI can help draft. It cannot decide what feels “Aesop-level restrained” versus Pinterest-minimal. Glossier is a cautionary tale. Early Glossier had a tight worldview: skin first, community-powered, millennial pink optimism. As the market professionalised and content industrialised, the edges softened. The aesthetic got replicated. When your differentiation lives on the surface, AI makes you easier to copy. Third: structural defensibility. Apple wins because of ecosystem lock-in, hardware-software integration, retail control, and obsessive product narrative. You can generate “Think Different” style lines all day. You cannot AI your way into supply chain mastery. Nike could flood feeds with AI-generated athlete stories. Instead, it repeatedly chooses cultural flashpoints. Colin Kaepernick. Body inclusivity. Women’s sports. That is brand as political and emotional positioning. AI can scale the asset creation. It cannot decide when to take a risk that might alienate half your market. Fourth: memory and long arcs. Patagonia has spent decades reinforcing one narrative: we exist to save our home planet. That consistency compounds. In an AI era obsessed with short-term optimisation, Patagonia’s brand memory is a competitive asset. You trust them because the story hasn’t flinched. Now zoom out. If AI makes it easy to look competent, the competitive advantage shifts to: – ideological clarity – aesthetic discipline – product truth – distribution leverage – cultural courage The lazy move is: “Let’s use AI to do more.” The strategic move is: “Given that everyone can now do more, what must we do differently?” The real question isn’t how to use AI. It’s what parts of your brand are still human-only. That’s where strategy has to go next. #ai #brandstrategy #branding #marketing

Law firms are hiring a non-billable role that’s quietly increasing revenue. 𝗙𝘂𝗹𝗹-𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲, 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁-𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀 are being hired at an accelerating pace - and not as reactive support, but as revenue drivers. Titles vary (Client Relationship Director, Client Account Executive, Client Development Manager), but their mandate is consistent: grow key clients, expand relationships, and capture and nurture new opportunities in certain practices and industries. The market signals are clear: - A top Am Law firm is hiring client and business development professionals focused on expanding existing relationships and cross-selling. - Others are building a dedicated client relationship function for financial institutions and private equity to deepen wallet share across practices. - Another is hiring a litigation-focused BD leader to expand client relationships and drive revenue growth. - A global firm is investing in client account executives as part of its global client program. Why now? The BTI Consulting Group reports that 87% of firms are increasing BD budgets. The shift is not just more spend; it is how firms are deploying it: toward dedicated, client-facing revenue and relationship roles. BTI’s research shows that law firm clients love these dedicated client executives, they deliver results, and (key) the law firms with these roles outperform those without them. What these professionals actually do: ☑️ Accelerate organic revenue growth: identify needs early and convert them into proposals before an RFP is issued. ☑️ Expand relationships: conduct structured, proactive engagement with key clients and prospects beyond what busy partners can sustain. ☑️ Maintain pipeline discipline: turn annual plans into active pipelines with clear ownership, follow-up, and accountability. ☑️ Improve win rates: coordinate and participate in pitches, capture feedback, and apply lessons to future pursuits. ☑️ Increase ROI visibility: track, report, and improve ROI on the firm’s BD and marketing investments. This is not a new model. Accounting and consulting firms professionalized their sales functions decades ago. Today, PE-backed firms, ALSPs, AI-native firms, and the Big 4 are competing for legal spend with fully built client development infrastructure already in place. This is no longer innovation - it is catch-up. Firms that still treat these roles as overhead will lose to those that treat them as revenue multipliers. Law firms do not have a talent gap. They have a role design gap. If your firm is considering piloting or formalizing this role, I am happy to share sample position descriptions and market insight. This is also the type of role I excel at and am actively pursuing. #lawfirms #clientdevelopment #businessdevelopment

Today’s Hiring Mistake Costing Us the Future A few months ago, I was in a leadership discussion when someone said, “We just need to find someone who’s done this before.” That is the problem. “Done this before” assumes tomorrow will look like yesterday. It won’t. The world of work has changed, yet hiring practices still feel built for when predictability was power and experience meant certainty. Leadership today isn’t about managing the known. It’s about navigating the unknown. The Status Quo Trap: Comfort Over Courage On both sides of the hiring table, I’ve noticed a pattern: we favor the familiar. Candidates who “feel like a fit” or remind us of past success: “He’s from our competitor — he’ll hit the ground running.” “She’s done this role before — low risk.” “We need someone who fits our culture.” Translation: we want someone comfortable. Comfort rarely breeds innovation. We talk transformation but hire safety. Why Traditional Hiring Fails Leadership today faces overlapping disruptions: AI, geopolitics, hybrid work, climate risk, and shifting expectations. Traditional hiring is linear: Past role →Similar role → Promotion → Next title. Successtoday isn’t what you’ve done. It’s how you think, adapt, and connect. Emotional intelligence, curiosity, and agility matter more than pedigree. How to Hire Differently Rethinking hiring isn’t about new tools. It’s about shifting from “Who fits us best?” to “Who will stretch us most?” 1. Hire for Potential, Not Pedigree Track records are context-dependent. Curiosity and learning agility predict success far better than years in the chair. 2. Build, Don’t Just Buy Leadership Many chase the “perfect” external hire when the next great leader might already be within reach. Succession planning and internal mobility are strategic advantages. 3. Use AI as an Enabler AI scans thousands of profiles fast, but reflects past patterns. Let it handle sourcing, screening, and analytics, while humans focus on intuition, empathy, and nuance. 4. Make Hiring a Team Sport When peers, boards, and future team members participate, decisions improve dramatically. 5. Redefine Fit “Culture fit” has often excluded diverse thinkers. Ask: “Will this person evolve our culture?” Find those who help us think better. 6. Shift Mindsets, Not Processes Modernizing hiring is about confronting biases, not adopting new systems. Realities to Acknowledge. Top leaders aren’t “available”; purpose attracts them. Diversity is a thinking advantage. Experience matters less than adaptability. Perfect hires don’t exist; great hires grow into and stretch the role. Are We Brave Enough? Talking transformation is easier than hiring for it. The world has changed. Talent expectations have evolved. Work itself is redefined. Only we must evolve. The future won’t be led by those who fit in. It will be led by those who stand out and help others rise with them.