The work

Situation

A family-owned industrial components manufacturer with approximately EUR 280 million in revenue had completed three acquisitions over eighteen months. The acquired businesses operated semi-autonomously with duplicated functions, inconsistent reporting, and unclear decision rights between headquarters and operating units. The founding family retained board seats but had transitioned day-to-day management to a professional CEO appointed two years prior. Tensions had emerged between the CEO's integration agenda and certain family members who favored preserving acquired company identities.

Approach

We conducted a four-week diagnostic covering organizational structure, decision flows, and stakeholder positions. The work included confidential interviews with family board members, the executive team, and operating company leadership. We mapped formal reporting lines against actual decision patterns, identifying twelve areas where authority was ambiguous or contested. The diagnostic surfaced that resistance to integration was concentrated in two specific areas (brand management and sales organization) while other functions had clearer paths forward. We facilitated three working sessions with the CEO and family representatives to build alignment on integration principles before structural recommendations were finalized.

Work Completed

• ■Organizational diagnostic with decision rights analysis across all four entities
• ■Stakeholder position mapping covering family members, executives, and acquired company leaders
• ■Integration framework distinguishing mandatory harmonization areas from permissible variation
• ■Revised organizational structure with explicit decision rights matrix
• ■Implementation sequencing plan addressing highest-friction integration points first
• ■Governance design for the combined entity including committee charters

Outcome

The executive team implemented a revised structure over six months. Three corporate functions were consolidated to headquarters while commercial operations remained regionally organized. The decision rights framework resolved the most contentious authority disputes. Follow-up discussions with the client eighteen months later indicated the structure had held without major revision and that family-management tensions had substantially reduced.

Situation

A Vienna-based B2B software company had grown from 45 to 180 employees over three years while revenue increased approximately fourfold. The founders, who remained as CEO and CTO, recognized that management practices adequate at smaller scale were creating friction. Decision-making had slowed, middle managers were uncertain about their authority, and the company had experienced departures of several strong performers who cited organizational confusion as a factor. The founders sought external perspective on what structural changes were required to support continued growth.

Approach

We spent three weeks in close contact with the organization, conducting interviews across all functions and levels. Rather than applying a textbook scaling framework, we focused on understanding where the organization was actually feeling strain. The diagnostic identified that the core issue was not structure but decision rights. The company had added management layers but not clarified what those managers could actually decide. Nearly all consequential decisions still flowed to the founders, creating a bottleneck that affected speed, manager development, and employee perception of career opportunity. We developed a decision rights framework specifying which decisions could be made at each level, which required escalation, and which needed founder involvement.

Work Completed

• ■Organizational stress diagnostic based on interviews with 35+ employees across functions
• ■Decision flow mapping showing actual vs. intended decision patterns
• ■Decision rights framework with explicit delegation boundaries by decision category
• ■Role clarity documentation for all management positions
• ■Escalation protocol design with clear triggers and expected response times
• ■Founder operating model recommendations to shift their role toward strategic oversight

Outcome

The founders implemented the decision rights framework over four months. The initial reaction from middle managers was positive; several reported that clarity about their authority actually increased their comfort making decisions. Six months post-implementation, the founders reported spending significantly less time on operational decisions. The company has since grown to over 250 employees using the framework as a foundation, with periodic updates to decision boundaries as new situations arise.

Situation

A Swiss subsidiary of a larger European professional services group had underperformed its targets for three consecutive years. Headquarters explanations from the local management team attributed results to market conditions and competitive dynamics. The group CEO, newly appointed, wanted an independent assessment before deciding whether the unit's issues were environmental or addressable through management action. The local managing director had been in role for seven years and had strong relationships with certain group board members, making the political dynamics sensitive.

Approach

We conducted a six-week independent assessment reporting directly to the group CEO. The work included detailed analysis of the unit's financial performance against both budget and market benchmarks, interviews with the local leadership team and key client-facing staff, review of client feedback and win/loss patterns, and confidential conversations with former employees and market participants. We maintained strict confidentiality protocols given the sensitivity. Our findings indicated that market conditions explained approximately 30-40% of the performance gap; the remainder reflected issues within management's control, primarily pricing discipline, partner productivity variation, and delayed response to shifts in service demand mix. We presented findings to the group CEO in a written memo before any broader discussion.

Work Completed

• ■Financial performance decomposition separating market factors from controllable factors
• ■Competitive positioning analysis based on market participant interviews
• ■Partner productivity analysis with anonymized benchmarking
• ■Client relationship quality assessment based on interviews and feedback review
• ■Root cause analysis memo with evidence-based findings
• ■Remediation options assessment with investment requirements and probability estimates
• ■Recommendations for board discussion including management implications

Outcome

The group CEO used our findings to structure a board discussion about the unit's future. The board decided to pursue a remediation program with revised leadership. We were not involved in implementation. Eighteen months later, the unit had returned to acceptable performance levels under new management, consistent with our assessment that the issues were primarily addressable rather than environmental.

Situation

A network of clinics and outpatient facilities in southern Germany had grown through acquisition to include twelve facilities with combined revenue of approximately EUR 420 million. The network operated under a holding structure with substantial autonomy at individual facilities. This model had allowed acquisitions to proceed without forcing immediate integration but had resulted in governance complexity: unclear escalation paths, inconsistent quality standards, duplicated administrative functions, and difficulty executing network-wide initiatives. The supervisory board commissioned a governance review following a compliance incident that revealed coordination failures across facilities.

Approach

We conducted an eight-week governance assessment covering the holding company, facility management, and key cross-facility processes. The work required navigation of German healthcare governance requirements including Mitbestimmung and relationships with facility-level works councils. We mapped the formal governance structure against actual decision patterns, interviewed supervisory board members, holding company executives, and facility directors, and reviewed recent incidents where governance gaps had created problems. Our recommendations distinguished between governance changes requiring supervisory board action, management changes within existing authority, and operational improvements that could be delegated to working teams.

Work Completed

• ■Governance structure assessment including board committee effectiveness review
• ■Decision rights analysis across holding company and facility management levels
• ■Cross-facility coordination assessment for key clinical and administrative processes
• ■Compliance framework gap analysis following the triggering incident
• ■Revised governance framework with committee charter updates
• ■Escalation and oversight protocols for cross-facility matters
• ■Implementation roadmap distinguishing governance changes from operational improvements

Outcome

The supervisory board approved revised governance arrangements including restructured committee responsibilities and clearer escalation protocols. The holding company management team implemented operational changes over the following year. The compliance gaps that triggered the engagement have not recurred. The client has since expanded the network with two additional acquisitions, using the governance framework to integrate new facilities more systematically.

Situation

A US-based consumer products company with approximately $2 billion in global revenue sought to expand its European presence through direct operations in German-speaking markets. Previous European growth had relied on distributors; the company now wanted to establish its own sales and marketing capability in the DACH region. Leadership had limited experience with German labor law, works council requirements, and the operational differences between DACH markets and their North American and UK operations. They sought advisory support for market entry planning and operating model design.

Approach

We conducted a twelve-week engagement covering market assessment, operating model design, and implementation planning. The work addressed structural questions (entity setup, organizational design, reporting relationships to US headquarters) and practical operational questions (employment arrangements, regulatory requirements, stakeholder navigation). We provided education to the US leadership team on Mitbestimmung, works council dynamics, and other DACH-specific factors that would affect their management approach. The operating model recommendations were built to fit within the company's global structure while accommodating regional requirements.

Work Completed

• ■DACH market assessment covering competitive positioning, channel structure, and barriers to entry
• ■Operating model options with trade-off analysis (direct vs. hybrid approaches)
• ■Organizational design for the DACH operation including recommended headcount phasing
• ■Entity structure recommendations addressing tax, legal, and operational considerations
• ■Headquarters-subsidiary relationship framework defining decision rights and reporting
• ■Implementation roadmap with regulatory, hiring, and launch sequencing
• ■Management briefing materials on DACH operating environment for US leadership

Outcome

The company launched direct operations in Germany within the planned timeline, with Austria following six months later. The operating model has functioned as designed through the first two years of operation. The client has subsequently expanded their DACH team and exceeded their initial revenue targets for the region. They have noted that early investment in understanding regional requirements avoided friction that other US companies entering the market have experienced.