The problem this solves
Major initiatives are approved in rooms where disagreement stays polite and unspoken. Then execution starts: the CEO expects a revenue transformation, the sales director expects a reporting tool, the CFO approved a cost line and mentally checked out, and the sponsor turns out to have enthusiasm but no calendar time. Teams sense the split within weeks and hedge accordingly. Most transformation failures trace back to this moment, long before any technology decision was made.
How we work
We interview each member of the leadership team individually, asking the same structured questions: what is this change for, what does success look like in a year, what are you personally prepared to change in your own function, and what would make you quietly withdraw support. Individual interviews matter; the answers diverge in ways group settings never reveal.
We then map the divergence: where goals genuinely conflict versus where language differs, whose support is active versus nominal, and whether the named sponsor holds the authority, time, and appetite the change actually requires.
The deliverable is an alignment map, presented candidly to the leadership team together, with the specific disagreements named and a recommendation for resolving each before execution begins. Uncomfortable for an hour, and considerably cheaper than discovering the same misalignment in month six of a stalled rollout.
Deliverables
- Structured individual interviews with each leadership team member
- Alignment map showing where goals, expectations, and success definitions diverge
- Sponsorship strength assessment covering authority, time, and commitment
- Named list of conflicts to resolve before execution starts
- Facilitated leadership readout with resolution recommendations