Cases
Cases, to judge the work by
Four decisions on who leads and how they are governed: the situation, the question, what was done and the outcome.
Founder-led industrial group · Succession and governance
Family-group succession
Situation
An international industrial group, founder-led, with several companies and brands across three markets. The founder’s two sons ran it as co-CEOs, each over his own part of the businesses, with the founder still as chairman.
The question
Should succession and talent be governed by one standard for the whole group, or by one policy for each brother’s companies?
What was done
- Work with all three (the chairman and both co-CEOs) on a common succession policy for the group.
- Shared human capital guidelines for every company.
- Executive assessment and top-talent review company by company, across the brands in the three markets.
- Two separate policies, one per brother, were considered and rejected: easier to approve, but they would have turned an operating division into a permanent governance division.
Outcome
One standard for the whole group, with the chairman behind it.
In a family group, the hard part is making one standard hold across two separate sources of authority.
Software and engineering services · Management due diligence
Management-team risk map
Situation
A software and engineering services company, founder-led, in exclusivity with a mid-market fund.
The question
Can this team deliver the plan, and where does the value depend on a few people?
What was done
- An assessment of each member of the management team against the value creation plan.
- Key-person dependence, retention risk and succession cover, role by role.
- One action per role, agreed before signing.
Match against the investment plan
Priority before signing
Founder and CEO
52%
Priority before signing
Chief Technology Officer
60%
Priority before signing
Chief Financial Officer
44%
Head of the largest practice
76%
Sales Director
68%
Match of each role with the plan, from the L4 report: capability against the plan (40%), key-person dependence (20%), retention risk (20%) and succession cover (20%), the last three scored so that lower risk adds to the match.
The evidence
| Role | Capability against the plan | Key-person dependence | Retention risk | Succession cover | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Founder and CEO | Medium | High | Low | To build | Chair and CEO roles defined before signing; a COO by month six |
| Chief Technology Officer | High | High | High | Partial | Retention plan in the SPA; deputy named in the first 100 days |
| Chief Financial Officer | Low | Low | Medium | To build | Replace within six months; interim support from closing |
| Head of the largest practice | High | Medium | Medium | Partial | Co-investment; second-line leader developed |
| Sales Director | Medium | Medium | Low | Partial | Account plan for the top ten clients shared with the CEO |
Outcome
Conclusion for the committee: the plan depends on two people, the CEO and the CTO. The risk is acceptable on three conditions: a retention arrangement for the CTO before signing, a new CFO within six months, and a COO appointment that separates the founder from day-to-day delivery.
Listed technology services group · Organisation design and governance
Sales governance model
Situation
A technology services group that had grown as a founder-led company and was now listed. The top sales role had turned over repeatedly in a short period, and each time the answer had been a new appointment. Sales still ran the way it had under the founder: the go-to-market was still to be defined, each country had its own structure, and sales, operations and delivery worked as silos.
The question
The executive committee met to choose the next sales leader. The question Julia put on the table was a different one: is this a talent problem, or a structural one?
What was done
- A diagnosis presented to the executive committee: the repeated exits had one structural cause, rather than three selection errors.
- A new sales governance model on three pillars (strategy, delivery and operations), designed against silos.
- A two-layer account architecture: top strategic accounts with client partners as owners, and recurring business organised by vertical under the business-unit directors.
- The C-level role redefined from a general commercial mandate to a hunter and strategy mandate, with an incentive scheme tied to the sales leadership.
- A new Delivery area, reporting jointly to operations and sales, to secure each sale and retain the client against its service levels.
- Leadership of the selection process for the new role.
Outcome
The model was approved in the same session. It has been running for nearly a year, the structure and the leadership have held, and the new sales leader came from the shortlist Julia built. The cultural integration of sales and operations continues.
IT services group backed by private equity · Senior appointment
CFO finalists, compared
Situation
A European IT services group, backed by private equity, three years into a buy-and-build. Three finalists: one internal, two external.
The question
Which of the three finalists should be the next CFO, and on what conditions?
What was done
- Five criteria, weighted and agreed with the CEO and the Chair before any assessment.
- A structured assessment of each finalist: interviews, references, documents and work samples.
- A comparison side by side against the same criteria, each finding traced to its source.
Match against the agreed criteria
Candidate A · internal
66%
Recommended
Candidate B · external
86%
Candidate C · external
60%
Overall match weighted by the criteria agreed with the client, from the L4 report. Strong, Sufficient, Gap: our judgement on the evidence, rather than a prediction. Evidence: I interview, R references, D documents and work samples.
The evidence
| Criterion (weight) | Candidate A · internal | Candidate B · external | Candidate C · external |
|---|---|---|---|
| Financial leadership through acquisitions (25%) | Sufficient · I, R | Strong · I, R, D | Sufficient · I, R |
| Lenders, investors and refinancing (20%) | Gap · I, R | Strong · I, R | Strong · I, D |
| Cash, working capital and reporting discipline (20%) | Strong · I, R, D | Sufficient · I, R | Sufficient · I |
| Leading a finance team across countries (20%) | Sufficient · I, R | Strong · I, R | Gap · I, R |
| Working relationship with the CEO and the board (15%) | Strong · R | Sufficient · I, R | Sufficient · I |
Outcome
Recommendation: appoint Candidate B, with two conditions agreed before the offer: a handover period with Candidate A on cash and reporting, and a first-year objective on the integration of the two most recent acquisitions. Retain Candidate A as Group Financial Controller, with a development plan; this is also the internal succession cover for the role.