Even to the survivors of Blake’s staff reduction, his full-steam-ahead approach made many within the USOC administration feel disenfranchised. It is important to remember that Blake was following an action plan for which he was hired and mandated by the board. Despite this, his failure to marshal support, among the athletes, their parents, and their coaches chafed deeply. Feelings erupted six weeks later, at a mid-March meeting to approach Blake’s overall plan for restructuring the USOC.

... Blake failed to appreciate the true balance of power and the deep cultural influence of the Athlete’s Advisory Council. He felt that he had his ducks in order, with a board mandate and plan approval to carry out the change that he - and many others - believed was essential. In a corporate setting this may have been relatively straightforward, given the generally clear scorecards of financial and organizational performance. Then again, it may very well have been just as difficult and ultimately unsuccessful. Why? Because whether it’s a powerful group of employees, retirees, restive shareholders, or even customers, a failure to assess the culture and the readiness for change among different interest groups can be lethal.

One of the important points regarding assessing the culture is to think through the implications of trying to change it. When Merrill Lynch appointed Stanley O’Neal as CEO, his lack of history on the retail brokerage side of the business was an important signal that the firm was ripe for change. Amid a chaotic financial services industry environment buffeted by the bursting of the tech bubble, the shutdown of the IPO market, the recession, and 9/11, O’Neal’s relative outsider status from the cultural and historical core of the operation freed him up to lead an aggressive and ultimately highly successful restructuring. He unapologetically cut billions in costs, shaped the management team to his preferences, streamlined decision making, and ultimately repositioned the firm to come out of the recession a leaner, meaner fighting machine.

That was the result of Cote’s marathoner “go slow to go fast” moves coming to fruition. Rather than flashy, highly risky, and dramatic moves, he’d made rigorously calibrated incremental improvements in business operations. These were combined with a steady stream of divestments and moderate acquisitions. Indeed, he is a standout example of someone who has mastered programmatic M&A, the systematic, highly strategic, and well-paced acquisition of relatively small companies compared the the size of the acquiring firm.

The merit of getting to know prospects to choose a good successor was evident in Charles’ case. He’d risen to the top of the heap of candidates through a long and rigorous process during which the board had gotten to know him well. They’d been presented with a wealth of information about his accomplishments and leadership talents, and they felt confident he was right for the job. But then he totally whiffed his interview with them by showing up in the manner of a direct report rather than speaking to the directors as a peer. He didn’t come across as the authoritative leader they could rely on to be forceful with them or to make the tough calls and bold moves that would take the firm where it needed to go. They were really taken aback, and they began to reconsider an external candidate.

But all that they had learned about Charles over the prior five years ultimately prevailed. Because of the experience they had with him, they agreed when we urged them to give him another chance to present. We gave him feedback and shared what the board had said about his prior performance before them. He took the feedback well and returned very much as the in-command CEO the board wanted to see. This ability to take feedback and adapt gave them even more confidence that he would continue to grow once in the role. Charles was appointed and has had a highly successful tenure.