Imagine this.
My colleague and I sit before the CEO of the listed public company.
He has a situation he can’t easily resolve – a board that’s divisive (conflicting share holder agendas) and highly competitive direct reports who won’t collaborate and are individually currying favour with the directors.
Though the CEO is introverted, he is a very capable strategist and has a great track record. But this situation doesn’t suit his introversion, whilst the behaviour of the board and direct reports renders strategy less effective.
The effect on the business is measurable – lower productivity, bigger gap between strategy and execution.
Financial analysts and the fund managers who invest in the business are signalling their displeasure.
My colleague and I discussed our recommendations, mainly to coach the CEO to deal with the situation rather than to do it for him.
When the CEO asks what the cost of our intervention will be, we startle him with our response.
“Our business model for working with you and your company is based entirely on results we achieve.
We take the risk for you.
We will deliver the measurable outcomes which will be both quantitative and qualitative.
We need to agree on a dollar value for the qualitative before we start.
Then we will be paid only on success on an agreed time frame.
We want our costs recovered and 10% of the benefit value.
How does that suit you?”
“I like it, but I’ll need board approval first” the CEO said.
He got it and we delivered the desired results after the next quarter.
We were all happy.
If you were the CEO, would you have agreed?
If you were the consultant would you have offered those terms?
