The president of a major European business group knew exactly what was wrong, what needed to be done, and how to fix it — within minutes of being pushed on it. He chose to wait nine months anyway.
His challenge was straightforward on paper. He was trying to execute a continent-wide strategic shift — integrating fragmented country operations to achieve greater economies of scale. The country managers and developers in the UK, Germany, and France were protecting their local portfolios and budgets, actively resisting cross-border collaboration and bickering over joint initiatives.
During a meeting in London with strategist Richard Rumelt, he correctly diagnosed the problem and the exact solution. He needed to close the bickering UK and German development groups, start fresh in the Netherlands, and aggressively override the budgets of country managers who didn’t comply.
But faced with that stark reality, he backed away. It would be a painful road, he said. Many noses would get out of joint. Instead, he hoped he could gently win people over.
His intent to prioritize harmony over confrontation felt like that of civilized leaders. His logic — that the right structure or a brilliant enough concept would allow him to accomplish massive change without demanding sacrifices or hurting feelings — felt reasonable. In his mind, forcing compliance was a failure of persuasion. He completely blinded himself to the reality that his country managers were incentivized to protect their own turf rather than embrace his vision.
Nine months passed. Nothing changed. He eventually accepted he had to reorganize and force the issue anyway.
The surface reading is that he was too soft. But he wasn’t lacking intellect, a framework, or the ability to identify the crux. He knew exactly what needed to be done, when, and how. He just consciously chose nine months of strategic stagnation to avoid the discomfort of confronting people he’d have to work with afterward.