For much of the past eighteen months, organisations have adopted a cautious approach to senior hiring. Economic uncertainty, persistent inflation, rising employment costs and a slower rate of growth encouraged many boards to delay leadership appointments, restructure existing teams or extend the tenure of incumbent executives rather than embark on significant new searches.
That caution has not disappeared, but there is growing evidence that confidence is beginning to return.
The picture is far from uniform and few would describe the market as buoyant. However, across a number of sectors, organisations are once again making carefully considered investments in leadership where the appointment is expected to drive transformation, growth or long-term resilience.
Recent market indicators suggest that hiring activity has begun to improve after an extended period of restraint. The latest KPMG and Recruitment and Employment Confederation Report on Jobs indicates that the decline in permanent appointments has eased significantly, while temporary hiring has strengthened at its fastest pace for more than three years.
At the same time, several sectors have experienced notable increases in demand for experienced professionals. Technology, manufacturing, utilities and logistics have all reported stronger vacancy growth during recent months, reflecting continued investment in digital capability, infrastructure, supply chain resilience and industrial modernisation.
These are precisely the sectors where leadership decisions have become increasingly strategic rather than operational.
Despite these encouraging signs, the overall labour market remains more subdued than many commentators suggest.
The Office for National Statistics estimates that UK vacancies remain below the levels seen during the post-pandemic peak, while there are now significantly more jobseekers competing for each advertised position than there were only a few years ago.
At first glance this appears to favour employers, but in reality, executive search continues to operate in a very different market.
Exceptional chief executives, finance directors, HR leaders, commercial executives and operational specialists rarely become available simply because vacancy numbers increase. The individuals capable of leading complex organisations are almost always already succeeding elsewhere, and attracting them requires a compelling opportunity rather than simply an attractive remuneration package.
The executive search market has proved more resilient than many areas of the wider employment market because organisations do not appoint senior leaders simply to replace headcount. Boards invest when leadership capability becomes critical to delivering strategy.
Across the UK we are seeing mandates driven by business transformation, digital investment, international expansion, operational improvement, succession planning, regulatory change and private equity activity rather than routine replacement hiring. These appointments are fewer in number, but considerably more significant in their impact.
A single executive appointment can alter the direction of an organisation for many years. That reality means businesses continue to invest in identifying outstanding leaders even during periods of economic uncertainty.
One misconception is that a softer employment market automatically makes senior hiring easier, but our experience suggests precisely the opposite. Although more candidates may technically be available, organisations continue to compete for a relatively small group of proven leaders who combine commercial judgement, strategic thinking, cultural intelligence and the ability to deliver change.
Those individuals are rarely active applicants, they are carefully approached, thoroughly assessed and highly selective about the organisations they choose to join and increasingly, they are evaluating far more than salary. They want clarity of purpose, confidence in the board, a credible growth strategy, an inclusive culture and genuine autonomy to make a difference.
As confidence gradually returns, the organisations achieving the greatest success will not necessarily be those recruiting most aggressively, they will be those asking better questions before beginning a search.
The answers to those questions determine whether a search attracts merely competent candidates or truly exceptional ones.
The UK leadership market is undoubtedly becoming more active, but this should not be mistaken for a return to the broad-based hiring conditions experienced several years ago. Organisations remain disciplined in their investment decisions and are placing greater emphasis on leadership quality than leadership quantity.
From Friisberg UK's perspective, this represents a healthy evolution rather than a temporary recovery.
Businesses are becoming more deliberate about the appointments they make, more rigorous in defining the capabilities they require and more focused on securing leaders who can create lasting value.
For executive search, that is exactly the kind of market in which experience, judgement and a deep understanding of leadership make the greatest difference.
At the executive level, hiring decisions are rarely just about filling a vacancy. They are strategic bets-on leadership, direction, and ultimately, business outcomes. And yet, even in well-run organizations, these bets do not always pay off.
Most companies are aware that a wrong executive hire is expensive. What is less visible-and far more consequential-is how those costs are evolving in today’s environment.
In 2026, the true price of a mis-hire at the top is not only higher. It is also more complex, more immediate, and more difficult to reverse.
Let’s start with what is easy to quantify. Research has long suggested that replacing a senior executive can cost anywhere between 2x to 5x their annual compensation when factoring in recruitment, onboarding, severance, and lost productivity. For C-level roles, that figure can quickly escalate into seven-digit territory.
But these are the accounting costs-the ones that appear on balance sheets and reports.
They are only part of the story.
The real impact of a wrong executive hire often unfolds quietly, across the organization:
These costs rarely show up as line items. But they are often the ones that hurt the most.
If executive hiring has always been high-stakes, why is the risk rising now?
There are several structural shifts at play:
1. Leadership Roles Are More Complex Than Ever Executives today are expected to navigate digital transformation, geopolitical uncertainty, talent shortages, and rapid market shifts-often simultaneously. The margin for error is shrinking.
2. Speed Is Taking Priority Over Precision Many organizations feel pressure to move quickly, especially in competitive markets. But accelerated hiring processes can lead to incomplete evaluation-particularly at the executive level, where nuance matters most.
3. The Talent Pool Is More Global-and Less Visible The best candidates are often not actively looking. They are selective, discreet, and difficult to access through traditional channels. This makes identifying the right fit-not just an available one-more challenging.
4. Cultural Fit Has Become a Strategic Variable It is no longer enough for an executive to deliver results. How they lead, communicate, and align with organizational values has become equally critical-and harder to assess on paper.
One of the most common patterns seen in executive hiring is the decision to move forward with a candidate who feels “good enough.”
On paper, the profile works. The experience is relevant. The interviews are positive.
But something is slightly off-whether in leadership style, adaptability, or long-term fit.
In a tight timeline, these concerns are often rationalized away. This is where the hidden cost begins. Because at the executive level, “almost right” is often completely wrong.
Organizations that consistently make strong executive hires tend to approach the process differently-not necessarily by spending more, but by thinking more rigorously about risk.
A few patterns stand out:
In many cases, this also means involving partners who specialize in navigating complexity, confidentiality, and high-stakes decision-making - not because the process cannot be done internally, but because the cost of getting it wrong is simply too high.
When we are aware of our behaviours, values, beliefs, and the ways they either serve or hinder us, we can make a choice. We can embrace new ways of thinking and acting - or we can resist, remain attached to old patterns, and allow that resistance to gradually become toxic for ourselves and those around us.
The choice to grow is deeply connected to our human drive to evolve and become better versions of ourselves. Transformation occurs only when awareness is followed by intentional action.
Meaningful transformation is often triggered by significant life experiences: a health challenge, a career transition, the loss of an important relationship, or stepping into a completely new environment or role. These moments touch us at a deeper level. They invite us to pause, reflect, and reconsider how we live, lead, and show up in the world.
What I am sharing today is inspired by something I recently witnessed.
A senior leader faced a serious heart condition. Rather than allowing the experience to define him, he chose to embrace the lesson it offered. He decided to operate from a new set of beliefs: to speak from the heart, lead with authenticity, and trust the process of change.
The impact was remarkable: his team noticed the difference in meetings, his peers observed a shift in his leadership style and began following his example and together, they went on to win the top prize in an internal company competition. Yet perhaps the most remarkable outcome was something less tangible - the genuine joy and sense of fulfilment he found within himself. It became contagious.
Transformation begins from within. Different triggers move us, but how is it that we need to wait for the “big trigger” to happen? How can an inspiration be a trigger? Something we spot, watch or read and with courage instead of fear we take step by step forward, seeking support from those who can guide us can be so natural.
That is how growth journey can start, following our natural instinct to evolve, to discover a deeper sense of meaning, to keep learning, growing, and becoming.
Because awareness may open the door but transformation happens when we choose to walk through it.
A chair once remarked to me, after a difficult CEO transition, that the organisation had become, “informationally rich but emotionally illiterate.”
The dashboards were excellent, reporting was immaculate, productivity targets were being met, yet leadership had completely missed the fact that trust inside the organisation had quietly collapsed because nobody had properly interpreted the silence.
That observation has stayed with me because it captures something increasingly visible across modern organisations: HR functions are quietly shrinking.
Not everywhere, and not always dramatically, but enough to become a genuine boardroom conversation. AI-driven start-ups have popularised the idea of ultra-lean operating models with minimal support functions, while larger corporates are increasingly centralising HR, automating recruitment and reducing management layers in pursuit of efficiency. In recent weeks alone, headlines around AI-related workforce reductions at major global firms, including banks and technology companies, have intensified debate around how lean organisations can realistically become.
The pressure is understandable. UK businesses are operating in a difficult environment of rising employment costs, weak productivity growth and economic uncertainty. The CIPD reports that one in six employers now expects AI to reduce headcount over the coming year, rising to one in four large private-sector firms. Clerical, administrative and junior management roles are viewed as particularly exposed.
As a result, many organisations are asking themselves the same question: should we follow?
Some of this change is entirely rational because many businesses genuinely became too bureaucratic and process-heavy, but there is a profound difference between removing administration and removing interpretation because strong HR professionals were never simply policy managers. At their best, they acted as organisational interpreters, they sensed when leadership messaging was no longer landing, when a culture had become politically cautious, or when a restructuring looked convincing in a board presentation but damaging in practice.
That matters because businesses are operating in an unusually fragile environment. Hybrid working has weakened informal communication channels and AI itself is creating uncertainty around future roles and skills. Many organisations are simultaneously managing transformation fatigue, economic pressure and shifting workforce expectations.
The irony is that, at precisely the moment when human interpretation may matter most, many firms are reducing the capability that historically provided it, and some are already discovering the limits of overcorrection. Gartner recently warned that companies cutting staff aggressively in anticipation of AI efficiencies are often failing to achieve the returns they expected, with many later needing to rebuild capability.
Leaders can become increasingly insulated by dashboards, formal reporting structures and systems while losing visibility of what employees are actually thinking and feeling. Problems then emerge later and more publicly: cultural fragmentation, failed transformation programmes, retention issues or leadership distrust.
At Friisberg, we increasingly see boards placing greater value on qualities that are difficult to automate: judgement, communication, emotional intelligence and the ability to navigate complexity calmly. Technical expertise still matters enormously, but leadership today is becoming as much about interpretation as execution.
Organisations are not simply systems, they are human communities, and communities rarely function well when nobody is listening between the lines.
Somewhere along the way business became obsessed with the idea that leaner automatically meant better.
For years, businesses have pursued flatter organisational structures in the belief that fewer layers meant faster decisions, greater agility and lower costs. In many cases, that thinking was entirely understandable because some organisations had become unnecessarily bureaucratic, slow-moving and overly managerial.
However, many companies are now beginning to discover that management layers did not merely exist to control process - quite often, they existed to develop future leaders.
Across the UK, organisations are simultaneously restructuring, embedding hybrid working and implementing artificial intelligence tools, often without fully understanding the cumulative cultural impact of those changes. Individually, each initiative may appear commercially rational. Together, however, they may be quietly weakening leadership pipelines at precisely the moment leadership complexity is increasing.
Leadership capability is rarely developed instantly.
Most senior executives learned gradually through exposure to operational pressure, stakeholder management, difficult decisions and observation of more experienced leaders over many years. Historically, middle management structures created the environment where much of that development occurred. They provided emerging leaders with the opportunity to gain judgement, resilience and commercial maturity before carrying full enterprise-level responsibility.
When organisations aggressively flatten structures, they often remove precisely those developmental stepping stones.
Initially, the model can appear highly successful: costs reduce, decision-making accelerates and reporting lines simplify. The difficulty often emerges several years later when businesses suddenly discover there are too few operationally mature leaders ready to step into senior roles.
Hybrid working has intensified this challenge further. Younger professionals no longer absorb organisational culture, political judgement and leadership behaviour through daily proximity in the same way previous generations did. Informal mentoring and observational learning have weakened significantly in many organisations.
Research from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development suggests concerns around career progression and developmental access remain particularly strong amongst younger employees operating in hybrid environments.[1]
Artificial intelligence may deepen the issue further if organisations focus exclusively on automation and productivity without considering the human infrastructure leadership depends upon. AI can streamline analysis and process, but it cannot easily replicate trust, contextual judgement, emotional intelligence or the credibility developed through lived organisational experience.
That matters because increasingly the differentiator in leadership is not technical competence alone, but judgement under pressure.
Boards are beginning to recognise this. The Financial Reporting Council continues to emphasise succession planning and workforce resilience as critical governance priorities,[2] while the Institute of Directors has highlighted growing board-level concern around leadership capability and organisational resilience.[3]
This is no longer simply an HR issue. It is becoming a strategic business issue.
Leadership shortages cannot be solved quickly because commercially credible leadership capability takes years to develop. Organisations that weaken their internal succession structures for too long may eventually discover that replacing experience externally becomes increasingly difficult and significantly more expensive.
For executive search firms, these shifts are changing both the nature of leadership assessment and the conversations taking place in boardrooms.
Increasingly, clients are not simply asking for executives with sector expertise or operational track records. They are looking for leaders capable of navigating ambiguity, complexity, workforce fragmentation and sustained organisational pressure without destabilising culture or losing strategic clarity.
At the same time, many organisations are beginning to recognise that external hiring alone cannot permanently compensate for weakened internal succession pipelines. Recruitment can solve immediate capability gaps, but it cannot entirely replace the long-term cultivation of leadership culture within an organisation itself.
This is why leadership assessment is becoming more nuanced and significantly more human. Emotional intelligence, adaptability, resilience, judgement and cultural credibility are no longer peripheral leadership characteristics discussed politely during interviews before everyone returns to EBITDA and delivery metrics. Increasingly, they are becoming central predictors of executive effectiveness.
The organisations that will outperform over the next decade are unlikely to be those that simply become the leanest or most technologically automated. More probably, they will be the businesses capable of balancing efficiency with humanity, transformation with continuity and innovation with long-term capability development. Ultimately, organisations do not thrive merely because they remove layers, they thrive because they continue producing leaders capable of carrying responsibility, building trust and making sound decisions in environments where certainty itself has become increasingly rare.
That may prove to be one of the defining executive search challenges of the next decade.
[1] Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), Flexible and Hybrid Working Practices in the UK, 2025.
[2] Financial Reporting Council (FRC), Review of Corporate Governance Reporting, UK, 2025.
[3] Institute of Directors (IoD), Director Sentiment Monitor and Board Priorities Survey, UK, 2025.
[4] Deloitte, Global Human Capital Trends, 2025.
[5] World Economic Forum, Future of Jobs Report, 2025.
Last month, Friisberg welcomed members of its Executive Committee to our London office for a strategic leadership meeting focused on the future direction of the firm and the opportunities emerging across global markets.
The discussions reflected both the strength of our international partnership and the ambition that continues to shape our growth strategy. With increasing client demand for cross-border leadership advisory and executive search support, the meeting centred on how we continue to scale as one integrated global firm while preserving the entrepreneurial agility and local market expertise that define Friisberg.
A key focus of the meeting was the continued expansion of our international footprint, including plans to strengthen our presence in the United States and the Nordics. As leadership challenges become increasingly global in nature, clients are seeking partners who can combine international reach with deep sector expertise and trusted local relationships. Expanding our presence in strategically important markets is therefore a natural evolution of our long-term growth strategy.
The Executive Committee also discussed investment priorities across leadership advisory, digital visibility, cross-border collaboration and operational integration. In an environment where organisations are navigating geopolitical uncertainty, technological disruption and changing workforce expectations, leadership has become one of the defining differentiators of business performance. Firms advising at board and executive level must therefore evolve with equal pace and clarity.
What continues to distinguish Friisberg is our collective strength. Our growth is not driven by scale for its own sake, but by a shared commitment to quality, long-term relationships and trusted advisory work at the highest levels of leadership. Across our international offices, we continue to see increasing collaboration between teams, deeper sector specialisation and growing momentum in multinational assignments.
This latest London meeting reinforced a clear strategic direction: to continue building a truly integrated international firm with the capability, credibility and cultural alignment required to support clients across complex leadership challenges worldwide.
As global markets continue to shift, we remain focused on what matters most: helping organisations identify, attract and develop exceptional leadership capable of driving sustainable growth and transformation.
Our conversations in London reflected confidence, ambition and alignment across the partnership. More importantly, they reflected a firm that continues to invest in the future with purpose and clarity.
The job market is competitive, and good talent is often in short supply, that is why organisations are increasingly turning to ‘hidden search’ (discreet recruitment) to fill senior vacancies. Instead of publicly posting their management vacancies on job boards, a headhunter actively seeks out suitable candidates through private channels, such as personal networks. This discreet approach helps avoid internal turbulence and strengthens your strategic position, without attracting the attention of competitors.
Hidden search is a strategic recruitment method whereby companies attract talent without publicly advertising vacancies. This approach is increasingly being used for specialist roles, interim management or senior positions. It is all about precision and discretion, enabling companies to identify and approach the best professionals in a targeted manner. By utilising market knowledge, networks and specialist headhunters, companies can work in a targeted way. Candidates are approached confidentially, without the market being aware of it.
This approach provides access to so-called ‘passive’ candidates; professionals who are not actively looking for a job, but who are (latently) open to new opportunities. The focus here is on quality rather than quantity. And because the recruitment process takes place behind the scenes, competitors and/or employees are unaware of the recruitment activities. This prevents speculation in the market or unnecessary internal unrest.
There are several reasons why organisations are increasingly opting for this discreet approach:
This development is making the work of recruiters less visible. The focus of recruitment is shifting from advertising to proactive searching, from visibility to discretion, and from volume to quality. As a result, networking, search skills and confidentiality are becoming increasingly important.
Hidden search offers interesting advantages, including for SME entrepreneurs. You reach candidates who are not actively looking but are open to the next step. And these are often the strongest profiles. It also reduces the workload; instead of dozens of unsuitable applications, you receive a small, relevant selection. By operating under the radar, you also prevent competitors from identifying your plans or growth direction prematurely, or from causing internal unrest.
Although hidden search offers many advantages, there are also a few points to consider:
Hidden search is not a replacement for traditional recruitment, but a complement to it. In practice, both methods are used side by side: open recruitment (increasingly via social media channels, relying heavily on strong employer branding) for scale and visibility, and hidden search for key positions and senior management. This approach is a logical consequence of a changing labour market in which talent is scarce and strategic choices are becoming more sensitive. For Hiring Managers and for entrepreneurs, hidden search offers good opportunities to attract talent in a more targeted and effective manner, provided it is used correctly. A strong network, a clear strategy and the right balance between visibility and discretion are essential for success.
Would you like to know if and how hidden search can help your organisation? Then please contact the specialists at Friisberg.
This week, in our interview series ‘In the C-Suite’, Nevena Nikolova, from our office in Sofia, talks with Alexander Montchovski, Interim Executive Director at UNICEF, about his career in Interim Management.
If I look at my career honestly, it never followed a traditional corporate ladder. What it did follow is a pattern: I was always invited into situations where something wasn’t working as it should and where change had to happen fast.
I helped scale a fashion e-commerce business across 15 countries to €50M. I built and led global teams at Amazon Advertising serving three continents. I took over a 350-person omni-channel organization as General Manager and later transformed it digitally across 21 markets as Chief Digital Officer. I led global brand marketing for Notino across 28 countries with double-digit growth and I built my own businesses in Canada and Europe.
Today, I serve as Interim Executive Director at UNICEF Slovakia during a leadership transition.
Although I have worked in different industries, there is the same reason I was there: to bring clarity, structure, performance, and calm into complexity. Only later did I realize that this is exactly what interim management is.
A consultant observes and recommends whereas a permanent executive plans for the long term whereas an interim executive walks into the room and starts fixing things on Monday morning.
Interim management is about immediate accountability. You don’t have the luxury of long onboarding, politics, or observation, instead you enter, you understand very fast, and you act.
You are there for outcomes, not for presentations.
Interestingly, companies rarely say: “We need an interim manager.” They say:
What they actually need is someone who can step in, see the full picture quickly, and create order without drama. That is where I am usually called.
The first visible change is not strategy, it is clarity.
Within months you see:
At Studio Moderna this translated into profitability improvements. At UNICEF Slovakia it translated into operational stability and performance focus before any big plans.
Interim impact is visible very quickly because it removes noise.
Because I am temporary, I don’t threaten anyone’s position. I am not part of internal history, I am there to make everyone’s work easier and clearer.
I listen intensely, identify patterns fast, and solve practical problems that teams feel immediately.
Trust is built when people realize: “This person is here to help us perform better, not to judge us£ and that works in every country.
The biggest misconception is that interim is “expensive consulting”. In reality, interim management is often the cheapest way to stop months of inefficiency, wrong decisions, and slow progress.
Another misconception is that “temporary” means low commitment. In fact, interim executives are often more committed because they are measured purely by results, not tenure.
I see huge potential in:
These are environments where experience and speed matter more than hierarchy.
For companies: Give the interim executive access, authority, and a clear mandate. The value comes from action, not observation.
For senior professionals: Interim management is not for those who want comfort. It is for those who enjoy walking into complexity, making sense of it quickly, and leaving the organization stronger than they found it.
Interim management provides something organizations rarely have during critical moments:
Clarity without politics, speed without chaos, and results without excuses.
The biggest mistake is trying to solve structural problems with motivational solutions. Organizations often invest in workshops, strategy decks, or team-building while the real issue is lack of clarity, accountability, and ownership.
Studies from interim management associations across Europe show that over 60% of interim assignments are triggered by organizational inefficiency, unclear responsibilities, and lack of performance structure, not lack of strategy.
Interim leadership addresses structure first. Once structure is in place, performance and morale naturally improve.
Experienced interim executives rely on pattern recognition. Within days, you can assess:
Research shows that high-performing organizations spend 30 - 40% less time in internal coordination because roles and reporting are clear. That difference becomes visible very quickly when you enter an organization.
Digital transformation is often misunderstood as technology implementation. In reality, it is about transparency and visibility.
Dashboards, reporting tools, CRM systems, and data analytics create something powerful: accountability based on facts.
In my experience at Studio Moderna, Notino, and UNICEF, introducing data visibility led to faster decisions and measurable performance improvements. Organizations that use real-time data in decision-making improve operational efficiency by 20 - 25% on average, according to McKinsey research.
Digital clarity removes assumptions.
Initially, there is caution because people don’t know whether change will create more pressure. Very quickly, when they see simplification, clarity, and removal of unnecessary complexity, the reaction shifts to relief. In fact, surveys in companies that used interim executives show that over 70% of employees report improved clarity in roles and priorities within the first 3 months.
Most teams are not resistant to change, they are resistant to chaos.
You need to be comfortable with uncertainty and capable of making decisions quickly with incomplete information.
You need strong pattern recognition so you can see in days what others see in months and you must be emotionally neutral. Interim executives are effective because they are not attached to internal politics or positions.
This neutrality is often cited as one of the top 3 reasons companies choose interim leaders over internal promotions.
When the organization no longer depends on you.
When reporting works without reminders, when teams make decisions confidently and when structure holds on its own.
Industry data shows that successful interim assignments typically last 6 - 9 months, and their success is measured by how sustainable the improvements remain after departure.
The goal is to build a system that works without the person.
Because the impact is visible and measurable very quickly.
Interim executives are often brought in during periods where organizations lose months or even years due to inefficiency. Bringing clarity, structure, and performance in a short period is extremely rewarding.
Research across Europe shows that over 75% of companies that used interim executives report measurable financial or operational improvement within the first 6 months.
You enter complexity, create clarity, and leave the organization stronger than before.
It started as a medical story.
Drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy were developed to treat diabetes and obesity, but now they are reshaping something much broader: how people eat, drink, socialise and spend.
This is where it becomes a business story - and more importantly, a leadership one.
The UK has one of the highest obesity rates in Europe. According to the NHS, over a quarter of adults are classified as obese, with a further large proportion overweight. That alone explains why demand for GLP-1 medications has accelerated so quickly, but the impact is no longer confined to healthcare.
Emerging data points are starting to connect:
Individually, these signals look incremental and taken together, they point to something more structural:
A cohort of consumers is changing its behaviour faster than the businesses serving it.
We have seen waves before: low fat, low carb, plant-based and most were gradual - in fact many were reversible. I don't think this is.
GLP-1 medications work by altering appetite regulation, so people eat less, and then they feel full sooner. In many cases, they lose interest in categories they previously consumed regularly.
That has second-order effects:
This is not preference, it is physiology and that makes it more durable.
The real issue for businesses is not whether this trend continues, it is whether leadership teams are equipped to respond to behavioural change at this pace.
Most organisations are structured to:
That model works when change is linear, but it fails when change is non-linear and human-led because by the time the data is conclusive, the behaviour is already embedded.
If even a modest percentage of the UK population adopts GLP-1 medications over the next five years, the implications are significant:
This is not about decline, it is about redistribution of demand.
Some businesses will adapt early and capture it whereas others will continue optimising for a consumer that is already changing.
Many leadership teams are still:
But this environment demands something different:
Because the uncomfortable truth is this:
Markets do not wait for leadership teams to feel ready. They move, and advantage shifts to those who act first.
This is not really about weight-loss drugs, it is about what happens when human behaviour shifts quickly and at scale, and whether leadership is capable of keeping pace.
Most organisations will not miss this because they failed to see it, they will miss it because they saw it too late to respond.
At Friisberg UK, we are increasingly asked the same question in different forms:
What kind of leadership do we need for a market that is changing faster than our organisation is built to handle?
The answer is rarely found in a job description. It comes from experience, from pattern recognition across markets, from having seen cycles of change before and knowing when this time is different.
Friisberg is a long-established firm with deep, cross-sector expertise and a genuinely international perspective. That matters at a point like this, because when behaviour shifts quickly, decisions cannot be made in isolation or based purely on precedent.
They require:
This is the shift that matters:
When behaviour changes faster than businesses, leadership becomes the only real lever of advantage.
And the organisations that recognise that early do not just keep up, they move first.
In a recent discussion with a senior executive responsible for global client relationships in a multinational company, we explored how accelerating change and diminishing predictability are reshaping leadership in organisations. His central message was clear: organisations should invest far more in understanding their operating environment, markets and customer needs - and relatively less in technology-led development. From a traditionally product-centric Finnish perspective, this represents a significant shift in thinking.
Conventional wisdom often defines core business as the production of products or services. Capabilities such as market insight, customer understanding, marketing and sales are typically categorised as support or enabling functions. He suggested a fundamental reversal of this logic: the customer interface constitutes the core business — while production should serve as enabling function.
The structural transformation of our era is driven by four major drivers: the ecological crisis, the digital revolution, global systemic fragmentation and a shift in societal values. The impact of these megatrends is increasingly difficult to assess — yet more important than ever. On the other hand, artificial intelligence significantly enhances analytical capability and foresight. However, as these tools become universally available, their ability to generate lasting competitive advantage diminishes.
The lifespan of technological advantage is becoming ever shorter — and is likely to continue shortening. This raises a critical strategic question: could deep customer understanding and durable customer relationships represent a more sustainable source of competitive advantage than technology alone?
I have participated in numerous transformations of leadership and governance models across companies and other organisations. These have frequently focused on the role, composition and ways of working of executive leadership teams. The objective has typically been to make leadership more strategic, more focused on core business priorities, and more diverse in perspective.
Leadership teams have been streamlined to reduce committee-style decision-making and narrow portfolio advocacy, in favour of more collective, accountable and enterprise-wide leadership. Too often, the CEO remains the only member of the leadership team consistently focused on the organisation’s overall long-term interest.
At the heart of these reforms is a recurring question: what truly constitutes core business leadership? Leadership teams in which a small minority own P&L responsibility while the majority “support” it are still surprisingly common. Yet it may be that those closest to sensing changes in the operating environment and market — and those who listen to customers, shape value propositions, market and sell - are in fact at the very core of the business.
Leadership in turbulent times of change is, above all, the ability to create clarity, trust and confidence in conditions of uncertainty. Increasingly, leadership is no longer an individual performance but a collective endeavour. Future leadership excellence is rooted in how leaders and teams think together, make decisions collaboratively and share responsibility.
As leadership structures become leaner, individual leaders carry broader and more complex portfolios. This amplifies the importance of people leadership over technical or functional expertise. In environments characterised by uncertainty and constant change, the quality of leadership becomes even more critical.
At the same time, societal expectations towards companies and other organisations continue to rise. Beyond product and service quality, organisations are expected to operate in a manner that is ethically sound, socially acceptable and sustainable. Leaders are increasingly expected to demonstrate moral judgement, ethical integrity, wisdom and resilience under pressure.
Enabling consistently high performance in organisations, teams and individuals requires continuous renewal of culture, values, mindsets and ways of working. Leadership today is broader in scope, spanning multiple portfolios, and deeper in reach, connecting strategy with execution.
Leadership has undeniably become more demanding. At the same time, it remains one of the most decisive success factors for organisations navigating turbulence and transformation.
You need to load content from hCaptcha to submit the form. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More InformationYou need to load content from reCAPTCHA to submit the form. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More InformationYou need to load content from reCAPTCHA to submit the form. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More InformationYou need to load content from reCAPTCHA to submit the form. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More InformationYou need to load content from Turnstile to submit the form. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More Information
