The situation
In this case, the decision had effectively already been made, at least in principle.
There was a broad acceptance that the business now needed a non-family CEO, driven by a combination of scale, complexity and a sense that the current model had taken it as far as it could, even if that wasn’t always expressed directly.
On the surface, it sounded straightforward. The intent was clear, and there was a shared view that bringing someone in from outside was the right next step.
But once the conversation moved beyond that, the detail was less defined.
There wasn’t a consistent view of what the CEO would actually be responsible for, how the role would differ from what existed today, or how it would work alongside the founder, which meant that while the decision had been made, the shape of it hadn’t been fully worked through.
What wasn’t obvious
What sat behind it didn’t really present as a hiring decision in the way it was first described.
It was more a question of how leadership would operate going forward, how authority would be shared, and what the founder was prepared to step away from, all of which were being approached from slightly different angles by different stakeholders.
That tends to create a situation where the role carries multiple expectations, some explicit and some assumed, without those expectations being brought together into a single view.
The assumption is often that the right individual will shape the role once they arrive, but in practice the boundaries they step into tend to determine how effective they can be.
What we focused on
Rather than moving straight into defining the role or beginning a search, we spent time understanding how the business actually worked in practice, how decisions were currently made, and how those decisions might need to be handled differently.
That involved speaking to stakeholders individually to understand their expectations of the CEO, how they saw the relationship with the founder developing, and where those perspectives aligned or differed.
From there, the focus moved to defining the role in more practical terms, not just in terms of capability, but in terms of ownership, boundaries and how the position would operate day to day.
As that became clearer, the brief began to take shape in a more coherent way, which made it easier to move forward with a shared understanding.
The outcome
The appointment worked because that clarity had been established beforehand.
There was a consistent view of what the CEO was there to do, where authority sat, and how the role would operate alongside the founder, which made it easier to assess candidates against something defined.
The impact developed over time. Decisions became clearer, the leadership dynamic settled more quickly, and there was less need to revisit the fundamentals of the role once the individual was in place.
The CEO was able to operate with confidence from the outset, rather than having to establish their position as they went.
The TWYD view
Statements like “we need a CEO” often give the impression that the decision itself is the difficult part, when in reality it tends to bring together a number of separate questions that haven’t yet been addressed.
What the business needs, what the founder is prepared to let go of, and what others expect from the role are often treated as one thing, when they are not.
In this case, progress came from separating those questions and working through them individually, which allowed the role to be defined with more precision.
That tends to be where these situations either work or don’t. Not in the decision to hire, but in how clearly that decision has been thought through.