Future-proofing your company is a team sport
Being ready for recession means asking your teams to think differently.
There’s an entire generation of leaders today who have never led through a recession. Now, faced with raging inflation, tumbling profits and volatile stock prices, they are flummoxed. While this is not another global pandemic, there are whispers in the wind that troubled times are coming. How can you help your teams work together in an agile way to prepare for whatever is next?
There are lessons to draw from winners post-COVID who seemed to nimbly navigate the last crisis, and those that lumbered and bumbled their way through.
Among the losers were those that didn’t just get it a little wrong – they doubled down on a single bet. They kept rolling the dice at the same table despite the odds that their “luck” could run out.
- Peloton produced more bikes than people wanted and were left peddling in the wind with quality issues and a saturated market for their product.
- Bed Bath and Beyond bet on branded goods instead of investing in technology that would have brought loyal shoppers online to buy goods for staying home and feathering their nests.
These companies looked like early winners, and yet the falls were more spectacular than the rise. They had a plan. They were aligned. Where they failed was in imagination. Marching in lock step they went right over the edge.
Why it’s easy to go over the edge
In hindsight we can see mistakes. But how does a smart team keep from outsmarting itself? It comes down to a discipline – avoiding the tendency toward group think and coalescing around one possibility.
Breaking the cycle to think differently together
Breaking this cycle of group think is difficult, but there is too much at stake not to do it. The discipline that saves the smartest, most successful organizations in times of uncertainty is a dedication to scenario planning.
Scenario planning is both a process and a discipline that enables your team to imagine “what happens if…” by reflecting on the variables for your business and speculating with the best of your current data and experience how those might play out.
With this process your team can go deep and long before events occur, playing out how they might respond. They can then agree on the critical factors that they’ll need to consider as events unfold. They put together plausible scenarios – not only Plans A and B, but also plans C, D, E, F, and G.
Scenario Planning
Scenario planning is the practice of creating varying courses of action for a business to implement based on potential events and situations, known as scenarios.
It enables teams to challenge their own thinking, consider possibilities, and later, respond dynamically to an unknown future. There are many ways the future may unfold with scenario planning, guiding teams to be responsive, resilient, and effective.
The process begins when you define your critical uncertainties and develop plausible scenarios.
This requires teams to both apply a sophisticated process and develop the team dynamics and characteristics of agile teams.
Scenario planning is a team sport in that it first requires us to acknowledge no one of us is smarter than all of us. When your team develops this capability, you have the ingredients to become agile. Agility is not so much response to crisis as it is planning to pivot when necessary and knowing what you will do. It may mean changing the metrics by which you’ll measure success so that you can manage through a challenging period.
There may be no industry that suffered during the pandemic more than the airlines. Many tried and tried again to “guess” when air travel would resume. CEO of United, Scott Kirby told analysts “We’re not going to pretend we know what demand will be.” After spending months pouring over data, they concluded it couldn’t be done.
Instead they assembled a “bounce-back” cross-functional team to consider slow, medium, and fast rebound scenarios. Conversations on cutting costs were scuttled for debates on growth. Many had never met each other or worked together. But they set a goal of becoming a “just in time” organization, looking at options, risks, plans. Through that they placed some bets. The result was a different version of success – liquidity – which enabled them to ride out volatility in demand indefinitely.
Why can’t more teams do what United Airlines did? The answer is they can if they know how to get there. There are qualities of leaders and teams that give them the capabilities to work together more effectively and thrive in uncertainty, and tools to support them through the churn. Scenario planning is one of those tools – the most powerful way to ensure your team has the debate before there is a crisis. The difficult conversations have been started, the tradeoffs contemplated, so that when it’s time to act, it feels familiar.
Leading a future-proof team
The role of the team leader is to create space and environment for acknowledging what is unknowable and building a process that moves away from report-outs and political debates to alignment around critical factors and criteria for decision-making.
The team needs to be empowered and expected to debate constructively and bring discipline to its decision process. We know from research and through our work with agile teams that there are three qualities of these teams that make it more likely they’ll be able to plan for various scenarios, stay current on the critical factors, and be ready to pivot.
Seize the power of Both/And thinking
Both/And Thinking is the ability to hold that more than one seemingly conflicting fact or set of facts may be true, or there maybe be more than one scenario, potential outcome, or impact of any decision.
Both/And Thinking in teamwork requires all members to hold for the group the notion that seemingly opposing points of view can both contain truths. For example, it can be true that a recession may be painful, but also positive for your company.
To encourage both/and thinking, enable your team to embrace the plausibility of numerous scenarios, as well as options for the best actions based on emerging data. Helping your team to explicitly understand and analyze both sides of the seemingly contradictory truth is a key step forward.
Unlock the creativity that comes with curiosity
In teamwork, curiosity is ability of a team to display humility by soliciting input and other points of view. Curiosity avoids narrow, myopic thinking. It prevents your team from closing ranks at critical moments and helps open the aperture to see all possibilities.
To encourage curiosity, insist on questions even from those who have “been there and done that.” Seek to understand, model the behavior by asking questions yourself, even if you believe you know the answer. You never know when the “crazy” idea will be the one that makes most sense.
Make the path forward real through Decision Savvy
All the curiosity and flexibility in your approach won’t mean much if your team can’t make good decisions and move forward together. Agility requires a discipline around decision-making that encourages the team to decide on the criteria for decision before advocating for a point of view. When your team does this, it is far easier to build alignment and get to the right decision.
To foster decision savvy requires the leader to insist on taking a step back to ask “what problem are we solving” before the team begins solutioning. This step alone will prevent your team from solving before they get to the heart of the matter. Then, simply ask, “what are the criteria that this decision must meet?” and generate those in writing. Use it as a checklist to consider the various options, and then, tally up how well each potential solution meets the criteria.
Scenario planning is not a cure-all for thriving in a recession. But it will give you and your team a multitude of options and a path forward to take now. Perhaps most important, it will change the crisis mentality and alter the chemistry of the team. You’ll be able to meet each challenge head on, with greater confidence, agility, and resilience.
Related content
Meetings are a universal ritual in organizational life. While managers on average spend more than half their working hours in meetings, many leaders can’t shake the feeling that meetings are falling short of their potential. Are they advancing the work, or quietly draining energy? At BTS, we study teams not as collections of individuals, but as living systems. This perspective reveals dynamics that traditional methods often overlook. Rather than aggregating individual 360° assessments, we assess the team as a whole to examine how the team functions collectively. Applying that lens to one of the most common team activities (meetings) uncovers patterns worth paying attention to. Drawing on thousands of team assessments in our database, we focused on two meeting behaviors:
- Do teams meet regularly?
- Do team members leave meetings with clear accountabilities and next steps?
Our question: How strongly do these behaviors relate to overall team effectiveness?
What the data revealed
Using data from 1,043 respondents (team members and informed stakeholders) we ran a Bayesian analysis to evaluate the predictive power of each behavior. The results were striking:
- Both behaviors were linked to higher team effectiveness.
- But one mattered far more: leaving meetings with clear accountabilities and next steps was 3.9x more predictive of team effectiveness than simply meeting regularly.
- And teams that often or always wrap up meetings with next steps rated 0.66 points higher on a 5-point scale of team effectiveness than teams who sometimes, rarely, or never close with accountabilities - that's almost a full standard deviation higher (0.96 sd)
Meetings aren’t the problem, muddy outcomes are.
Teams often default to frequency, setting cadences of check-ins or standing meetings. Our data suggest that what differentiates effective teams from the rest is not how many meetings they hold, but what comes out of them. A team that meets less often but ends each session with clear accountabilities will outperform a team that meets frequently but leaves outcomes ambiguous. In other words, meetings aren’t inherently wasted time; they become wasted time when they don’t translate into aligned action.
A simple shift that pays dividends
The good news: improving meetings doesn’t require radical redesign. Small changes reinforce accountability and dramatically increase the value extracted:
- Close with clarity. Reserve the last 5–10 minutes of every meeting to confirm: What decisions have been made? Who owns what? By when? This habit shifts meetings from “discussions” to “decisions.”
- Make commitments visible. Use a shared action log, team board, or project tracker so next steps are transparent, and progress is easy to follow. Visibility builds accountability.
- Assign a “Closer.” Rotating this role signals that closing well is everyone’s responsibility. The Closer ensures the team doesn’t drift into vague agreements, but leaves aligned and ready to act.
When teams adopt these habits, the difference is tangible: less rehashing of the same topics, faster progress on priorities, and a stronger sense of shared ownership. These small shifts compound quickly, making meetings not just more efficient, but more energizing and effective. In a world where teams face relentless demands and limited time, focusing on how meetings end may be one of the fastest ways to improve how teams perform.
.webp)
Day 42: A newly hired Group Strategy Director is still at her desk at 9:00 p.m. She was brought in to lead a major transformation - one that’s been discussed for months but never clearly defined. She was hired because she’s capable, and there’s often an unspoken belief that capable leaders should just “get it” and move.
Her inbox is overflowing. Priorities keep shifting. Her peers are polite but distant - unclear on her mandate, protective of their turf, and too busy to engage deeply. Conversations stay surface-level.
She’s been invited in - but not set up to succeed.
It’s a common story: a strong leader, dropped into a high-stakes role without the clarity, structure, or support to land well.
Whether new to the company or stepping into a bigger role, many executives spend their critical first months navigating complexity alone - while being expected to deliver from day one.
Research has held steady for years: around 40% of leadership transitions fail within 18 months when the right support isn’t in place.
Too often, companies focus on choosing the right person - then overlook what it takes to truly integrate them. Without structured, human-centered support, even the most capable leaders struggle to succeed.
Why this matters more now
Transitions have always been high-stakes moments. But in today’s climate, the pressure is rising and the timelines are shrinking.
Leaders are stepping in during disruption - not stability.
Most aren’t inheriting status quo - they’re hired to fix or accelerate something.
Hybrid work delays trust-building and blurs cultural cues.
Visibility is high. Expectations form early and often.
In short: less room for error. More risk when it goes wrong.
Different paths. Same risks.
It’s tempting to think internal promotions are easier. But each path comes with invisible traps:
External hires lack historical context and relationships yet are expected to drive change.
Internal promotions bring familiarity but struggle to reset relationships and lead differently.
In both cases, leaders are often left navigating ambiguity alone once onboarding ends.
What’s missing
Most organizations do onboarding. Few do transitions. And that’s where things break down.
What’s often overlooked:
- A clear and aligned mandate
- Shared definitions of success across key stakeholders
- Insight into unspoken cultural and political dynamics
- Active sponsorship from the manager
- A longer runway to build trust and momentum
- Board-level clarity and engagement for senior roles
The result? Leaders are under pressure to perform - while still finding their footing.
The quiet rejection
Leaders are often hired to shift the system. But once inside, they encounter subtle resistance:
- Their pace feels too fast.
- Their questions challenge norms.
- Their style doesn’t match unspoken rules.
Suddenly, trust is withheld. Expectations shift. Peers disengage - but don’t say why. The very qualities that got them hired now work against them. Confidence erodes. Performance stalls. And promising transitions quietly derail.
This isn’t just an onboarding issue. It’s a readiness issue - on both sides.
The cost of getting it wrong
A failed executive transition doesn’t just impact the individual - it ripples across the organization. It stalls momentum, fractures teams, delays results, and undermines trust in leadership.
It’s also expensive. Between lost productivity, re-recruitment, and missed goals, the cost can easily reach several times the leader’s salary.
When transitions go off course, it’s not just a talent issue - it’s a business one.
What needs to change
Organizations that get transitions right do five things well:
- Treat transitions as enterprise critical. Ask: What’s at stake beyond this one role?
- Define success together. Ask: Are expectations aligned across leader, manager, and stakeholders?
- Equip the manager to lead the transition. Ask: Are they prepared to sponsor - not just evaluate?
- Provide real support - not just warm welcomes. Ask: Have we created space for the leader to reflect, adapt, and build capability?
- Extend support beyond day 90. Ask: What happens after the honeymoon ends?
The gray zone
Most leadership transitions don’t fail during onboarding - they stall in the murky middle. That stretch between onboarding and full performance. Too late for checklists, too early for formal reviews, and too often overlooked.
This is when the leader is highly visible but still gaining footing. The system assumes they’re up and running. But what they actually need is time to reflect, context to navigate, and support to show up differently.
Without that space, small misalignments become big ones. First impressions stick. And promising transitions quietly derail - not because the leader isn’t capable, but because they’re left to navigate complexity alone.
This “gray zone” isn’t anyone’s job to manage - and that’s the problem.
The role of transition coaching
Transition coaching provides a confidential, strategic space to:
- Navigate unspoken dynamics
- Build confidence and clarity
- Reflect and recalibrate in real time
As Greg Smith, CEO of Teradyne, put it:
“We’re investing in executive coaching because we want our senior leaders to lead with confidence from day one—not figure it out by month six.”
And the research backs it up. Coaching accelerates traction, strengthens alignment, and improves long-term performance.
But it only works when paired with system-level readiness: aligned stakeholders, engaged managers, and a clear plan for integration.
Final thought
Transitions aren’t just about setting a leader up to succeed. They’re a mirror for whether your organization is ready to evolve.
Because every new leader brings change - and every transition is a test of how well your system absorbs it.
If you’re hiring or promoting this year, the question isn’t just “is this the right person?”
It’s “are we ready to change with them?”
BTS helps leaders - and the systems around them - thrive through transition. Let’s talk.
Sources
- McKinsey & Company (2023), Leadership Transitions: Making the Move from Operational to Strategic
- Harvard Business Review (Ciampa & Watkins, 1999), Right From the Start
- CEB/Gartner Executive Research (2016), Why Successful Executives Fail
- DDI Global Leadership Forecast (2021), Assessing the Risks in Leadership Transitions
- McGill, P., Clarke, P., & Sheffield, D. (2019). From “blind elation” to “oh my goodness, what have I gotten into”: Exploring the experience of executive coaching during leadership transitions into C-suite roles. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring. Oxford Brookes University.
- Greg Smith, CEO of Teradyne, as quoted in BTS webinar (2025)
- International Coaching Federation (ICF, 2021), The Value of Coaching in Leadership Transitions
A large financial services company promoted a key leader into the position of CEO. Two of their peers were also vying for the top job. Almost immediately, the other two executives left the company. This created an unexpected leadership vacuum that cascaded within their respective departments, where no one on either team was able to step up into the suddenly vacant leadership spots. The lack of “ready now” successors required the company to look outside to replace those executive leadership roles, significantly disrupting their critical strategic transformation effort and creating additional chaos at the top of the company at a time when they could ill afford to slow momentum.
Similarly, a global manufacturing company promoted a key leader into the CEO role who lacked sales and marketing experience – an area where his predecessor had deep expertise. This expertise was a critical driver in the company’s success to date, and the gap at the top was stalling revenue growth and impeding the new CEO’s ability to deliver on the Board’s expectations. In order to fill the CEO’s knowledge gap, the company reorganized the head of sales and marketing role so that it was led by two executives instead of one. This unanticipated restructuring created confusion across the C-Suite and the rest of the sales and marketing organization regarding roles and responsibilities, which compounded their challenges in driving growth. The unexpected increased salary costs accompanying the additional executive role further impacted the bottom line, as well.
What these two examples illustrate is the Domino Effect. The Domino Effect occurs when a star performer is promoted, and there is no “ready now” successor to fill the role they are vacating. With so much attention placed on getting a new CEO into the role, the Domino Effect can cascade down through the organization and is an often hidden and unanticipated outcome that can hinder even the most capable chief executive from successfully taking the reins.
Assessing the impact of the Domino Effect
Conventional wisdom and the literature suggest that CEOs sourced internally outperform CEOs that are sourced externally. For example, in Harvard Business Review’s “Best CEOs of the World” top 100 list, 84% came from internal promotions1. The majority of leaders who ascend to the CEO role are COOs, CFOs, divisional CEOs, and some are “leapfrog” leaders identified below the C-Suite2. A question that has not been addressed is: what happens to the performance of the company when there are no internal candidates for the new CEO’s previous role? In other words, what is the impact of the Domino Effect on company performance?
To answer this question, we compared the S&P 500 twenty best performing companies3 with the twenty worst performing companies4 based upon percentage change in stock price.
What happened at the Best Performing companies?
Within the top 20 best performing companies, 75% of the CEOs were internal with 5 of the CEOs being founders of the company and 10 being promoted into the role. For their former positions, from which they were promoted, four were filled by internal candidates, and two were replaced with external candidates. Examining the leadership teams on the company’s websites, it appears that in three incidences, the role that the CEO vacated no longer exists. In one case the role was restructured and split into two different positions.
What happened at the Worst Performing companies?
70% of the CEOs at the worst performing companies came through promotions or being founder led (12 and 2 respectively), which is nearly identical to the best performing companies. All things being equal, one would expect a similar trend regarding the number of internal vs. external replacements for the CEOs’ previous roles from which they were promoted. However, we found that there were differences. Only three of the backfilled positions were placed by internal candidates and four were placed by external hires. In three of the companies, the position no longer exists, and two of the companies restructured the position.
Understanding the impact: disruption and worsening performance
The research shows little difference between the best and worst performing companies in relation to internal promotions and external hires for the CEO position. However, we do see more organizational disruptions in the replacement of the previous roles held by the CEO. A disruption is defined here as either the company was required to hire from the outside, restructure the role, or eliminate the role altogether. All of these create added turmoil and challenge for the new CEO as they try to move quickly to onboard and start delivering impact.
We found that disruptions were present in 60% of the top-performing companies, compared to 75% of the poorest performing companies. While more research is needed to uncover the nuances, our research suggests that companies with a stronger bench for newly promoted CEOs’ previous positions have less organizational disruption and outperform those who do not have a strong bench.
Tackling the Domino Effect before it falls
While CEO succession garners the greatest amount of the spotlight in the press, among board members, and in public sentiment of the health of a company, our research underscores the need for CEOs, CHROs, and Boards to focus on the Domino Effect as part of their C-Suite succession process. That is, creating a bench of potential successors targeted specifically for the CEO’s previous role, and the roles deeper within the organization that could replace those who are being elevated in the company at the time of the new CEO transition.
Consider these best practices to get ahead of the Domino Effect:
- Build the backfill into the identification process. When identifying potential candidates for the CEO, simultaneously consider who may replace that candidate for their current role.
- Focus on the role rather than the person. You may not be able to replace the next CEO’s position with one individual, but you may be able to replicate their skills with people who can excel in the role with complimentary skills.
- Expand the purview of success profiles. Create success profiles for the CEO and those roles that are likely feeder pools for CEO. Ensure that the success profiles are future focused rather than focused on what is important today. Business realities change over time. What makes someone successful today may be different than what is required in the next 3 to 5 years.
- Leverage the power of data for determining future success. As you look at your bench, use structured assessment processes to assess individuals against the success profile, reduce the risk of biases towards individuals, and determine their readiness to address the future business challenges that the organization will face.
- Comprehensively build the right bench. Look broad and deep within the organization when identifying potential successors. You may find those “leapfrog” leaders who would otherwise be overlooked.
- Continually refresh your succession slate. Given the cascading impacts of the Domino Effect, it is more important than ever to ensure your slate is up to date with viable candidates for higher level positions. Consider doing so on at least an annual basis.
- Ensure that succession is seen as a strategic imperative across the leadership of the organization rather than a single event of placing a new CEO. The CEO and the CHRO should own the succession process, the Board should be involved, and the focus should stay equally on the CEO role and the successor leadership roles throughout the organization.
Finding, placing, and ramping up a new CEO is a momentous decision with big outcomes at play – for the CEO’s own success and the viability of the organization. If you embrace the opportunity to turn the Domino Effect into a strategic gameplan, you will be positioned both for accelerated success and impact.
References
1 Harrell, E. Succession Planning: What the Research Says. Harvard Business Review December 2016
2 Harvard Business Review Staff. November 2009. The Best Performing CEOs in the World. Harvard Business Review 41-57.
3 https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/10/10/invest-sp-500-stocks-market-portfolio/
4 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/20-worst-performing-p-500-200036146.html
Related content
La maggior parte delle riunioni di vendita non fallisce.
Semplicemente non porta a una decisione.
Ed è lì che si perde valore.
I clienti di oggi sono più informati, più selettivi e hanno meno tempo.
Non hanno bisogno di altre presentazioni di prodotto.
Hanno bisogno di conversazioni che li aiutino a stabilire le priorità, decidere e andare avanti.
Eppure, il 58% delle riunioni di vendita non riesce a creare valore reale.
Non perché i venditori manchino di capacità, ma perché le conversazioni non sono progettate per far avanzare le decisioni.
“I clienti non agiscono su ogni esigenza che riconoscono.
Agiscono quando qualcosa diventa una priorità.”
In questo breve executive brief scoprirai:
- Perché la maggior parte delle conversazioni informa… ma non porta all’azione
- Cosa spinge davvero i clienti a stabilire priorità e muoversi
- Come creare urgenza senza compromettere la fiducia
- Il passaggio dal presentare soluzioni al facilitare decisioni
- Cosa distingue le conversazioni che si bloccano da quelle che accelerano il progresso
Se i tuoi team stanno affrontando trattative bloccate, decisioni ritardate o un pipeline lento, questo brief ti aiuterà a capire il perché e cosa fare in modo diverso.
Scarica l’executive brief e scopri come progettare conversazioni che portano davvero a decisioni.
A maioria das reuniões de vendas não fracassa.
Elas simplesmente não levam a uma decisão.
E é aí que o valor se perde.
Os clientes de hoje estão mais informados, mais seletivos e com menos tempo.
Eles não precisam de mais apresentações de produto.
Precisam de conversas que os ajudem a priorizar, decidir e avançar.
Ainda assim, 58% das reuniões de vendas não conseguem gerar valor real.
Não porque os vendedores não tenham capacidade, mas porque as conversas não são desenhadas para impulsionar decisões.
“Os clientes não agem sobre todas as necessidades que reconhecem.
Eles agem quando algo se torna prioridade.”
Neste breve material executivo, você vai descobrir:
- Por que a maioria das conversas informa… mas não gera ação
- O que realmente faz os clientes priorizarem e avançarem
- Como criar urgência sem prejudicar a confiança
- A mudança de apresentar soluções para viabilizar decisões
- O que diferencia conversas que estagnam daquelas que aceleram o progresso
Se suas equipes estão enfrentando negócios estagnados, decisões atrasadas ou um pipeline lento, este material vai ajudar você a entender o porquê — e o que fazer de diferente.
Baixe o material executivo e aprenda como desenhar conversas que realmente impulsionam decisões.
La mayoría de las reuniones de ventas no fracasan.
Simplemente no llevan a una decisión.
Y ahí es donde se pierde el valor.
Los clientes de hoy están más informados, son más selectivos y tienen menos tiempo.
No necesitan más presentaciones de producto.
Necesitan conversaciones que les ayuden a priorizar, decidir y avanzar.
Y, sin embargo, el 58% de las reuniones de ventas no logra generar un valor real.
No porque los vendedores carezcan de capacidad, sino porque las conversaciones no están diseñadas para impulsar decisiones.
“Los clientes no actúan sobre cada necesidad que reconocen.
Actúan cuando algo se convierte en una prioridad.”
En este breve informe ejecutivo descubrirás:
Por qué la mayoría de las conversaciones informan… pero no generan acción
- Qué es lo que realmente hace que los clientes prioricen y avancen
- Cómo crear urgencia sin dañar la confianza
- El cambio de presentar soluciones a facilitar decisiones
- Qué diferencia a las conversaciones que se estancan de las que aceleran el avance
Si tus equipos están experimentando acuerdos estancados, decisiones retrasadas o un pipeline lento, este informe te ayudará a entender por qué y qué hacer diferente.
Descarga el informe ejecutivo y aprende a diseñar conversaciones que realmente impulsen decisiones.