Having spent two decades within highly recognized global corporations, the instant I departed, the mutual deficiencies became strikingly apparent. As a leader, the influx of proposals is ceaseless. Everyone is convinced they've solved your challenge—they simply require a brief period of your attention to demonstrate it. Every discussion begins with the identical assurance: that they've identified a resource you were unaware of, one that will reveal what your own enterprise somehow overlooked.
TL;DR
- Internal corporate structures often reward larger teams and budgets over efficiency and simplicity.
- Organizational progress is hindered by capacity, past experiences, timing, and conflicting commitments.
- External solutions fail when not tailored to a company's pace, ethos, or ability to adopt new ideas.
- True transformation requires focusing on assembling existing resources and creating headspace for innovation.
Following twenty years spent within organizations — thirteen of those with Moët Hennessy and Diageo, six with Maersk, and four with Google — I made the transition to the external world for the initial instance. My shift from the internal to the external sphere served as a profound realization.
Internally, individuals recognize potential, yet they're navigating a complex network of obligations, past events, routines, and dangers. What appears as opposition or a void from an external viewpoint frequently conceals deliberate planning, limitations in resources, and conflicting commitments — all unapparent unless experienced firsthand.
We talk endlessly about AI replacing jobs. But inside any organization, few people ever say: “Let’s cut 20% of my department because we’ve become 20% more effective.” Efficiency is easy to celebrate in principle; much harder to act on when it means reassigning people, reshaping budgets, or renegotiating board expectations. In many organizations, incentives quietly reward footprint growing larger teams, bigger budgets, broader scope. Those signals tend to carry more clout than focus or simplicity. This creates a subtle tension: the choices that would streamline work often sit at odds with what many cultures implicitly encourage to grow.
Inside Look: The Unseen Restraints That Truly Impede Progress
While I was part of the organization, I played a role in the culture where promising concepts faced significant hurdles, often involving 15 “buts.” Even when the overall plan was sound, numerous factors would hinder its implementation. Some of the primary issues I frequently observed included:
- Capacity: The feasibility of actions is dictated by the capacity of individuals and systems, whether that capacity is financial, human, or cognitive.
- History: Every executive carries past scars — and skepticism — from previous initiatives.
- Timing: The corporate calendar defines what’s possible. The next board meeting, the next budget cycle, or a pending leadership change can shift even the best plan.
- Invisible Shields: Supervisors frequently shield their subordinates, for both positive and negative motivations, serving as unacknowledged intermediaries for directives.
Priorities aren’t arbitrary; they’re promises. Each is linked to commitments — to people, partners, and the board. Asking executives to “add something” is rarely the right question. The real leverage comes from helping them cut or upgrade existing activities. As I would often ask: “if you had to reduce your activities by half, what would truly add value — and what would simply return by habit?”
Numerous activities persist annually as they've evolved into traditions of constancy: yearly festivities, demonstrations of backing, and the commitment of time to be a present and accessible leader. These deeds uphold confidence yet also consume considerable time. The personal aspect of leadership—the discreet empathy during someone's challenging period or the effort expended in fostering a feeling of steadiness—is seldom apparent in executive reports but profoundly influences the company's cadence.
Then there are the well-known reflexes of internal life:
“It’s not my mandate.”
“We’ll revisit this after the next budget cycle.”
“Procurement will take months.”
“That’s not how we do it.”
These aren’t signs of apathy. They are survival mechanisms in systems that are already stretched.
When entities overextend themselves for extended periods, their capacity not only hinders expansion but actively diminishes it. I observed this phenomenon during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the trend has persisted. The crucial inquiry isn't the reason for these reductions. Instead, it's why the complete capabilities of individuals and infrastructures weren't fully utilized sooner — when there was still an opportunity to adjust course instead of making cutbacks.
I previously held a significant part in a major overhaul where all aspects were officially synchronized. The board had granted their approval. Funds were allocated. The CEO openly endorsed it. Even key performance indicators at the highest level indicated the change.
However, the entity doubted the alteration was genuine. Annually, fresh objectives emerged, exhaustion from constant shifts was palpable, and each year, established practices persisted. The true influence resided in organizational cultures, not in mere announcements. Reflecting, significant shifts stemmed more from practical encounters than from pronouncements.
Communicating expectations to teams only partially involved them, but when novel circumstances were demonstrated and they were included with more thorough background information, they identified fresh opportunities for themselves within this. We shifted from persuasion to active involvement.
We reconciled external assessment requirements with the organization's peak momentum in elevating both its own members and its contemporaries, overseeing resources, schedules, and drive, and consistently uncovered narratives that bolstered confidence. We tolerated disarray provided there was responsibility. Transformations required more time to manifest, yet they endured.
Partners' Missed Perspective
Having transitioned to the external sphere, I still feel the internal landscape. This viewpoint—acting as a conduit between intricate matters and outside knowledge—reveals the core obstacle that impedes almost all external endeavors. Internally, being central to significant choices frequently resulted in an inability to grasp the broader picture. The external vantage point afforded me a valuable degree of detachment, which was exceedingly difficult to sustain amidst the intricate fabric of corporate life.
Consulting firms offer considerable skill in specific areas, but their efforts frequently proceed independently. The AI group engages the marketing department, which then includes Human Resources or public relations, transforming the dialogue into a sequential exchange. As discussions span multiple departments, new groups join, or a long-term relationship manager re-enters the picture, the core subject can easily become lost.
The issue isn't a deficit in intellect; it's an inherent structural constraint. Major projects are designed for rapid execution and access to leadership, rather than the deliberate, integrated effort required to grasp internal decision-making processes. Consequently, proposed solutions often stay abstract: thoughtfully developed, yet not consistently tailored to the company's pace, ethos, or ability to adopt new ideas. The approach appears sound in principle but falters in practical application once the external advisors depart.
The issue isn't a deficit in intellect; rather, it's an absence of cohesive connection. Real change doesn't occur within isolated departments — it emerges at the interfaces connecting them. However, accountability for these crucial interfaces is frequently absent.
Emerging studies corroborate a sentiment many leaders privately acknowledge: teams aren't hindered by a deficit of intellect, but rather by the mental strain of interdepartmental collaboration. A practical trial conducted by Procter & Gamble with over 700 employees demonstrated a reduction in individuals working with AI improved performance by nearly 40%, attributed to the system's ability to reveal viewpoints that participants lacked the capacity to discover.
The realization is straightforward and highly significant: even the most capable groups encounter difficulties not due to a shortage of concepts, but from the discord generated by departmental divisions. As mental effort decreases, collaboration across different departments improves. It's not about increasing headcount—it's about more defined coordination.
So now on the outside I always focus on three areas I have seen missing before:
- When discussing prior achievements, explicitly describe the conditions under which they were successful (or unsuccessful). Because even the best work loses relevance if the underlying ask doesn’t relate.
- Which experiences have before shifted momentum and who was involved? Most blockages are personal before structural.
- Understand Incentives & Revenue Models. Let's be upfront regarding the revenue streams and disclosures of all parties so we can realistically chart a course for shared achievement. Frequently, the initial discussions during sales presentations differ from the actual outcomes, as the established business frameworks of collaborators can indeed impede advancement.
Savvy collaborators recognize that impactful transformation hinges on interconnectedness and order of operations, rather than solely on concepts. It's also not exclusively about a single proficiency.
Crucial Suggestions for Uniting Internal and External Efforts to Foster Seamless Transformation
1. Focus on Assembly, Not Addition
The issue is seldom a lack of components. It's frequently the failure to link and activate what's already available. Therefore, approaching from an external perspective: Inquire if more parts for a fresh puzzle are required, or merely a more effective arrangement of the current ones. Be inquisitive about how things relate and distribute responsibility for these connections.
2. Create Headspace
The most significant inquiry a partner can pose: “What can I do to give you headspace so you can work smarter and progress your initiatives?”
Making room isn't a minor ability; it's the essential requirement for genuine advancement. Consider if duties could be handled externally to enable the principal individuals to make superior choices for everyone.
3. Treat Partnerships Like Governance
Create a greater sense of shared accountability. Try holding monthly partner sessions that act like AGMs for collaboration. Use them to reframe situations, revisit dependencies, and build shared ownership. At first, people will attend to “look wise,” but over time, these sessions create a foundation of dependability and mutual understanding.
4. Listen and Adapt
In structures with centralized authority, adaptability serves as the key distinction. Achievement hinges less on established methods and more on insight—understanding when to adjust tempo, style, or emphasis. Be at ease when responsibilities overlap and explore what alternative benchmarks for achievement might be present. Furthermore, be prepared to cede recognition to others—this will probably yield greater rewards over time, as the challenges that can be addressed become more substantial and extensive.
Transformation Stumbles in the Unnoticed Intervals — Not in the Concepts Widely Discussed
Internally, each choice bears an unapparent burden. Externally, every postponement appears as negligence. Genuine advancement occurs when both parties comprehend — and acknowledge — the limitations, capabilities, and pledges of the other.
Change doesn't falter due to insufficient efforts. It falters from a failure to grasp what's genuinely required for sustained advancement.
Coins2Day.com's commentary pieces present exclusively the perspectives of their contributors, not necessarily the viewpoints and convictions of Coins2Day .