News & Updates

On paper, they were fully resourced. No complaints logged. No formal red flags. Delivery metrics holding steady. But behind closed doors, the signs were there. Delays. Fatigue. Silence in meetings where pushback used to live. And a growing sense that key people were leaning out, emotionally, if not yet physically. When the cracks finally showed, the conclusion was predictable: “We need more people.” But that wasn’t the real problem. The problem was trust. And most organisations never see it until it’s too late. The Hidden Cost of Disengagement In Gallup’s 2023 global workplace report , only 23% of employees worldwide reported being actively engaged at work. A staggering 59% identified as “quiet quitting”, psychologically detached, going through the motions, doing only what their job description demands. Source: Gallup Global Workplace Report 2023 Disengagement is expensive. But it’s also quiet. It doesn’t show up on a balance sheet. It doesn’t send a Slack message. Disengagement isn’t new, just silenced. And in executive teams, it looks different. It looks like polite agreement in strategy meetings. It looks like leaders shielding their teams from unrealistic demands, instead of confronting the system causing them. It looks like performance metrics still being met… while people emotionally check out. The issue isn’t always capability. It’s safety. Psychological, political, and professional. Many senior leaders don’t raise concerns, not because the problem isn’t real, but because they don’t believe they’ll be heard, supported, or protected if they do. And this is where the failure begins. The Leadership Lie No One Talks About We talk a lot about leadership capability. About experience, commercial acumen, execution strength. But we don’t talk enough about context. Every leadership hire walks into a culture they didn’t create. They inherit unwritten rules, quiet alliances, and legacy power structures. If those dynamics are broken, or if trust is fractured at the top, no amount of capability will compensate. According to a 2022 Deloitte mid-market survey, 64% of executives said culture was their top strategic priority. But only 27% said they actually measured it in a meaningful way. We say culture matters. But we rarely structure around it. And so new leaders walk in with pressure to perform, but little real insight into what the role will cost them emotionally, politically, or personally. We Don’t Hire for Trust. And It Shows. In executive search, the conversation is often dominated by pedigree and “fit.” But fit is often a euphemism for sameness. And sameness doesn't build trust, it maintains comfort. We rarely ask: Does this leader know how to build trust vertically and horizontally? Can they operate in a low-trust environment without becoming complicit? Will they challenge inherited silence, or unconsciously uphold it? Instead, we hire for confidence and clarity, traits that often mask what’s broken, rather than reveal it. And when those hires fail? We call it a mismatch. Or we cite the usual: “lack of alignment,” “wasn’t the right time,” “they didn’t land well with the team.” But the truth is often uglier: They were never set up to succeed. And no one told them until it was too late. The Cultural Infrastructure Is Missing One of the most damaging myths in leadership hiring is that great leaders will “make it work.” That if they’re tough enough, experienced enough, skilled enough, they’ll overcome any organisational dysfunction. But high-performance isn’t just personal. It’s systemic. It requires psychological safety. A clear mandate. The backing to make hard decisions. The freedom to speak the truth before it becomes a PR problem. When that infrastructure isn’t there, when the real power dynamics are unspoken, good leaders stop speaking too. And the silence spreads. What Trust Breakdown Really Looks Like Often, the signs of a trust breakdown don’t show up in dramatic ways. They surface subtly in patterns of underperformance that are easy to misread or excuse. You start to notice project delays, but no one flags the root cause. Teams keep things moving, quietly compensating for the bottlenecks rather than surfacing them. Not because they’re careless, but because they’ve learned that early honesty doesn’t always earn support. New leaders hesitate to make bold calls. Not because they lack conviction, but because the last time they did, they were left exposed. Board reports look flawless. Metrics track nicely. But spend five minutes on the floor, and the energy tells a different story. These are not resource issues. They’re relationship issues. And the data backs it. According to Gallup’s 2023 State of the Global Workplace report , just 23% of employees worldwide are actively engaged. Worse, around 60% are “quiet quitting.” That’s not just disengagement. It’s people doing only what’s safe, only what’s required, because trust has quietly eroded. Gallup also found that managers account for 70% of the variance in team engagement, a staggering figure that reinforces just how pivotal leadership trust is. When people don’t feel psychologically safe, they shut down. Not dramatically. Quietly. Invisibly. What’s breaking isn’t the org chart. It’s the ability to speak plainly and be heard. And by the time it’s visible? The damage is already done, and someone calls for a restructure. “Low engagement is estimated to cost the global economy $8.8 trillion, 9% of global GDP.” Gallup, State of the Global Workplace 2023 So What’s the Real Takeaway? If you’re seeing performance issues, before you jump to headcount, ask a different question: Do the leaders in this business feel safe enough to tell the truth? Because if they don’t, the data you’re reading isn’t real. And if they do, but you’re not acting on it, then they’ll stop telling you. Leadership doesn’t fail in obvious ways anymore. It fails in the gap between what people know and what they’re allowed to say. And the price of that silence? Missed opportunity. Reputational damage. Cultural decay. Sometimes, the problem isn’t who you hired. It’s what you’ve made it unsafe to say.

Why Culture Decay in FMCG Is a Silent Threat to Performance It doesn’t start with resignations. It starts with something much quieter. A head of operations stops raising small problems in weekly meetings. A sales lead no longer defends a risky new SKU. A team member who used to push ideas now just delivers what they’re asked. Nothing breaks. Nothing explodes. It just... slows. And from the outside, everything still looks fine. The illusion of stability In food and beverage manufacturing, where teams run lean and pressure is constant, performance often becomes the proxy for culture. If products are shipping, if margins are intact, if reviews are clean, the assumption is: we're good. But that assumption is dangerous. According to Gallup's 2023 global workplace report, only 23% of employees worldwide are actively engaged, while a staggering 59% are "quiet quitting ", doing just enough to get by, with no emotional investment. And in Australia? Engagement has declined three years in a row. In a mid-market FMCG business, those numbers rarely show up on dashboards. But they show up in other ways: New ideas stall at the concept phase Team members stop challenging assumptions Execution becomes rigid instead of agile Everyone is "aligned" but no one is energised And by the time the board sees a drop in revenue, the belief that once drove the business is already gone. The emotional cost of cultural silence One thing we don’t talk about enough is what this does to leadership. When energy drains, leaders often become isolated. Not because they want to be, but because the organisation has lost the instinct to challenge, question, or stretch. I’ve seen CEOs second-guessing themselves in rooms full of agreement. Seen GMs miss red flags because nobody wanted to be "the problem". Seen founders mistake quiet delivery for deep buy-in. The emotional toll of unspoken disengagement is real. You’re surrounded by people doing their jobs. But no one’s really in it with you. And eventually, leaders stop stretching too. We train people to disengage without realising it Here’s the contradiction that most organisations won’t admit: We say we want initiative, but we reward obedience. The safest people get promoted The optimists get extra work The truth-tellers get labelled difficult So people learn to conserve energy. They learn not to challenge ideas that won’t land. They learn not to flag risks that won’t be heard. And over time, they stop showing up with their full selves. This isn't resistance. It's protection. And it becomes the default when innovation is punished, risk isn't buffered, and "alignment" becomes code for silence. Boards rarely see it in time Boards don’t ask about belief. They ask about performance. But belief is what drives performance. When culture begins to fade, it doesn't look like chaos. It looks like calm. It looks like compliance. But underneath, the organisation is hollowing out. By the time a board notices the energy is gone, it’s often because the financials have turned, and by then, the people who could've helped reverse the trend have already left. In a 2022 Deloitte study on mid-market leadership, 64% of executives said culture was their top priority, yet only 27% said they measured it with any rigour . If you don’t track it, you won’t protect it. And if you don’t protect it, don’t be surprised when it disappears. The real risk: you might not get it back Here’s what no one likes to admit: Not all cultures recover. You can try rebrands. You can run engagement campaigns. You can roll out leadership frameworks and off-sites and feedback platforms. But if belief has been neglected for too long, the quiet ones you depended on, the culture carriers, the stretchers, the informal leaders, they’re already checked out. Some have left. Some are still there physically but not emotionally. And some have started coaching others to play it safe. Once that happens, you're not rebuilding. You're replacing. So what do you do? Don’t listen for noise. Listen for absence. Absence of challenge. Absence of stretch. Absence of belief. Ask yourself: When was the last time someone in the business pushed back? Not rudely, but bravely? When did someone offer an idea that made others uncomfortable? When did a leader admit they were unsure and ask for help? Those are your indicators. Because healthy culture isn’t silent. It’s alive. It vibrates with tension, disagreement, contribution and care. If everything looks fine, but no one’s really leaning in? That’s your problem. And by the time it shows up in the numbers,t might already be too late.

Most companies I speak to say they’re planning for the future. But it’s a lie. When the CEO resigns, the shortlist is blank. The board scrambles. I get a call for help. The talent that was supposed to be “next in line” either isn’t ready — or quietly left two years ago. That’s not succession planning. That’s performance. And in Australia’s mid-market, it’s happening everywhere. If You Have a Deck but No Decision, You Don’t Have a Pipeline Look at your last board strategy pack. There’s a succession slide — probably colour-coded. Key roles mapped. Names in boxes. Risk flags on anyone nearing retirement. But what happens when that person leaves tomorrow? Does someone step up — with board confidence, cultural alignment, and commercial readiness? Or does everything go into pause mode? Most leadership pipelines aren’t pipelines at all. They’re documentation exercises. Names written down so the company appears prepared — not because anyone’s seriously investing in readiness. And the data backs it up. In the 2024 CEW Senior Executive Census, just 27% of ASX300 companies had gender-balanced executive leadership teams. Only 1 in 8 CEO appointments in 2024 were women — a sharp drop from 1 in 4 the year before. Worse still, 20 ASX300 companies had no women at all in their executive teams. And 82% of pipeline roles like COO, CFO and Group Exec are still held by men. Why Is This Happening? Because it’s easier to pretend you’re planning than to actually commit to it. Real succession means risk. It means stretching people before they’re “ready.” It means visibility. Investment. Accountability. It means putting someone in the room who might one day replace you. That’s uncomfortable. So companies hedge. They focus on process instead of outcome. They delegate it to HR. They call it “talent mapping” or “development planning” — and convince themselves that’s enough. But when succession is treated as a compliance task, you get structure without substance. Most Pipelines Are Demographically Narrow — and Strategically Passive The succession conversation is often framed as a future-looking exercise. But the truth is, it reveals everything about a business now . Who’s trusted. Who’s stretched. Who’s seen. And if the answer is: people who already look and think like the current executive team — the pipeline is a mirror, not a mechanism. According to CEW, it could take another 54 years to reach gender parity in CEO roles at the current rate. Not because women aren’t ready — but because succession is still being run by legacy instincts, not performance or potential. This isn’t a gender issue. It’s a visibility issue. It shows just how narrow — and self-reinforcing — most internal pipelines are. Boards Are Talking Succession — But Avoiding Succession Events In public statements, succession is always described as a “priority.” But when a CEO departs, the replacement is usually external. Why? Because the plan wasn’t real. It wasn’t built into performance cycles, role design, or investment decisions. It wasn’t modelled for readiness. It wasn’t supported by real-world testing. So when the vacancy comes, the board looks around and realises: no one’s actually ready. And that’s when they default to external search — time pressured, high-stakes, and often misaligned. Even companies with formal succession frameworks fail to develop internal successors who can genuinely step up. According to McKinsey, only 29% of high-potential employees globally say they are being actively developed for future leadership roles. Real Pipelines Aren’t Built on Potential — They’re Built on Pressure Most “high-potential” employees never get tested. They’re praised for being strategic, collaborative, well-liked. But they haven’t led transformation. They haven’t navigated crisis. They haven’t made the call when it really counted. That’s not their fault — it’s the system’s. If your future leaders aren’t being put in rooms where the stakes are high, the talent is being wasted. Because without context, potential is just a guess. Real succession means stress-testing people before the vacancy. Not waiting for a resignation to find out if they’re ready. Why Leaders Say Succession Is a Priority — Then Undermine It Because it forces difficult conversations. What happens if the COO is better suited to the CEO role than the founder’s chosen successor? What if your most capable future CFO is currently in HR? What if your only succession-ready leader doesn’t want the job? Succession exposes reality. It tests assumptions about who’s loyal, who’s capable, and who’s trusted. And many leadership teams would rather protect the illusion of unity than confront the truth of readiness. So they hold back. They over-prepare weak candidates and underinvest in strong ones. They promote for loyalty, not capability. And they hope tenure will somehow turn into executive presence. HR Isn’t the Problem — But It’s Often Trapped HR leaders are often tasked with “running succession.” But they rarely hold the real power to make it happen. They can facilitate calibration, run talent reviews, maintain the spreadsheet. But they can’t override political appointments. They can’t force development budgets. And they can’t get future leaders into strategy sessions unless the CEO signs off. So they manage the optics. They keep the plan updated. They run performance frameworks. But they don’t challenge the organisation’s tolerance for risk or its lack of bold placements. And succession — like so many other critical issues — becomes theatre. What a Real Pipeline Looks Like It’s small. It’s specific. And it’s active. The top 5 succession candidates have documented development goals. They’re being exposed to investor conversations, board updates, or crisis moments. They’re sitting in on decisions they don’t yet own. And they’re receiving feedback not just on performance — but on readiness . Real succession isn’t about names on a slide. It’s about signal. Are you giving your future leaders enough signal — authority, exposure, context — to actually grow? Or are you keeping them in reserve, hoping they’ll stay warm until you need them? Most Internal Candidates Are Lost Long Before the Vacancy Opens Talent attrition isn’t just about pay. It’s about perceived opportunity. If your best internal leaders aren’t being stretched, seen, or spoken to, they’ll find someone who will. That’s not speculation. It’s playing out across Australia right now. The 2024 CEW Census shows that companies without clear succession action are more likely to lose top talent, especially women in pipeline roles. And when those people leave, they take with them the last thread of credibility in your internal bench. The Cost of Cosmetic Succession Planning The price isn’t just reactive hiring. It’s loss of culture. Institutional memory. Momentum. When succession isn’t planned properly, the outgoing leader often overstays. Or worse — leaves chaos behind. And the people who could’ve brought continuity and fresh thinking are either too green… or already gone. You don’t just lose a leader. You lose your rhythm. And in the world of FMCG — where category cycles are brutal and competitor innovation is relentless — rhythm matters. So What Now? Ask these questions: Who are our five most critical leadership roles? If any one of them left tomorrow, who steps in? Would that person command confidence from the board, the team, and the market? And if not — why haven’t we done something about it? Succession isn’t about the future. It’s about the decisions you make now — when you still have time to act. Because when the vacancy hits, theatre ends. And only the real work will matter.

In the FMCG and food manufacturing sector, we glorify customer wins. The logos on pitch decks. The volume metrics in board reports. The partnership language that implies mutual growth. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: Many mid-market FMCG businesses are quietly being crushed by the very customer relationships they once celebrated. So let’s ask the real question: What happens when your biggest customer becomes your biggest liability? A Dangerous Dependency No One Wants to Own Australian suppliers are no strangers to margin pressure. Whether you’re supplying Coles, Woolworths, or Costco, the power dynamics are rarely in your favour. A 2024 report by PwC shows that while 85% of Australian CEOs believe their businesses will remain viable for a decade if they maintain current strategies, the same report highlights a global shift towards faster business model reinvention — driven largely by dependency risks and commercial stagnation. In other words, the Australian market has become dangerously complacent. Companies stay anchored to one major retail relationship — because it’s familiar, because it’s comfortable, and because no one wants to say what everyone already knows: This relationship is now costing us more than it makes. The Structural Trap — Why Choice is an Illusion in Australian Retail And it’s not just about comfort. It’s also about limited choice. Australia’s grocery retail landscape is one of the most concentrated in the developed world. Woolworths and Coles account for over 65% of the total market. Add Aldi and Costco, and four players control the overwhelming majority of national grocery volume. This leaves most mid-market FMCG suppliers with only two real options to scale. You either win one of the majors — or you don’t grow. There’s no Tesco vs Sainsbury’s. No Target vs Kroger. No regional chain ecosystem to spread risk. So when a Woolworths or Coles listing lands, businesses go all in — not because they’re naive, but because structurally, they don’t have a viable alternative. And once they’re in, the retailer holds all the cards: promotional demands, packaging changes, supply chain compliance, and extended payment terms. This is how overexposure starts: not as a failure of strategy, but as a feature of the system. The Margin Myth: “Strategic Partnership” or Slow Suffocation? The term “strategic partner” implies shared goals and equitable benefit. But in many supplier-retailer relationships, that’s not how it plays out. Suppliers absorb freight increases, packaging changes, and promotional discounts — all in the name of partnership. Meanwhile, average net margins in Australian FMCG hover below 5% in many categories. Some, especially in private-label or chilled goods, are significantly lower. If you're constantly renegotiating, discounting, and funding promotional calendars to stay on shelf — you're not in a partnership. You're in a hostage situation with quarterly reviews. And the worst part? Most leadership teams can’t afford to walk away — and the customer knows it. Commercial Blind Spots: How Did We Let It Get This Far? It usually starts innocently. One major account grows, fast. The ops team scales up. Forecasts look strong. Then the volume dips. Forecasts aren’t met. But by then, too much infrastructure, headcount and internal process are built around a single customer. So you make the classic trade-offs: You hold off on new channel development. You delay diversification. You keep servicing at full cost — for diminishing returns. The account grows riskier with every passing quarter. But no one wants to put their hand up and say: “We’re overexposed. We built the business around a single buyer. And now we’re stuck.” How Businesses Get Trapped — And What the Alternative Looks Like The deeper question is: how are businesses ending up in this position to begin with? It’s not usually poor strategy. It’s the seduction of fast volume. A major retailer comes in with a large forecast, national exposure, and prestige. Execs say yes. Operations scale. Sales teams build pipelines around that one account. It becomes the centre of gravity for the entire business. And by the time volume doesn’t meet forecast, the machine is already too big to pivot. Warehousing, labour, production schedules — everything is now calibrated to serve one customer. But what’s the alternative? The most resilient FMCG brands in Australia are the ones who build multi-channel portfolios from day one. That means: Diversifying into DTC, foodservice, or independents, even when it’s slow to scale. Prioritising cost-to-serve data so every account’s profitability is clear — not just revenue. Rewarding commercial teams for profitable growth, not just top-line expansion. Investing in longer-term resilience, even if it means slower growth upfront. This approach doesn’t grab headlines. But it builds optionality. It gives leaders the power to say no. And that, ultimately, is how you get out of the trap. The Denial Loop: Why Leadership Doesn’t Act Sooner So why don’t businesses pivot faster? Because the consequences of admitting overdependence are immediate — cost cuts, tough board conversations, sometimes job losses. Admitting the issue feels riskier than managing the decline. Boards often get sugar-coated updates about “strong relationships” and “opportunities in the pipeline.” Meanwhile, account managers know that POs are getting shorter, shelf space is shrinking, and payment terms are stretching. But no one wants to be the bearer of bad news. The loyalty to that one big customer becomes a form of inertia. What Brave Commercial Leadership Looks Like Fixing this doesn’t mean severing key accounts. It means reassessing risk and rebuilding margin discipline — even if it’s painful in the short term. Here’s what commercial bravery looks like in this context: Modelling account risk exposure: What happens if your top customer halves their orders tomorrow? What if payment terms stretch to 120 days? Redefining your internal narrative: Stop calling a margin-eroding customer a “partner.” Start calling it what it is — a risk. Rebalancing your portfolio: Incentivise sales teams to win new channels, even at lower volume. Diversification is margin insurance. Rebuilding cost-to-serve models: Know exactly what it costs to service each account — down to logistics, chargebacks, and admin drag. This is what commercial leadership must look like in 2025. The Silent Crisis in Mid-Market FMCG This isn't just a one-off case study. It's a pattern playing out across Australia’s mid-market FMCG and manufacturing base. KPMG’s 2024 disruption report found that 52% of private companies list supply chain disruptions and over-dependence on external suppliers or customers as key threats to growth — but only 43% are actively addressing it. It’s not a strategic issue. It’s a leadership one. And it’s playing out in boardrooms right now. What’s at Stake? Everything. If your business is too dependent on one customer, you’re not in control of your own future. One category review, one change in buyer, one corporate acquisition — and your volume is gone overnight. Commercial leadership isn’t about maintaining the status quo. It’s about having the courage to act before the numbers force your hand. So ask yourself: Where are we quietly overexposed? What have we built our business around that’s now becoming a liability? And do we have the courage to change it — before the market makes that decision for us? This isn’t just about one customer. It’s about the future shape of your business. And the longer you avoid the truth, the more power you give away.

Australia’s health, wellness, and supplements sector isn’t just growing. It’s exploding. From functional drinks to adaptogenic gummies, wellness brands have gone from niche to mainstream in record time. The industry is now worth over $5.6 billion, up from $4.7 billion in 2020 — a 19% growth in just three years. IBISWorld projects continued expansion with a CAGR of 5.3% through 2028. But behind the glossy packaging and influencer campaigns, something else is happening: the regulators have arrived. And most wellness brands? They’re underprepared. From Trend to Target The boom brought founders, fitness coaches, nutritionists, and marketing entrepreneurs into the supplement space. What many built was impressive. But what most forgot was how fast wellness moves from enthusiasm to enforcement. With more than 40 infringement notices and administrative sanctions in Q1 alone, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) strengthened enforcement of the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code in early 2024. Prominent companies were named in public. Soon after, the ACCC revised its guidelines for influencer marketing disclosures and launched a campaign against the use of pseudoscientific terminology in product marketing. TGA head Professor Anthony Lawler noted in March 2024: “We’re seeing an unacceptably high level of non-compliance, particularly around unsubstantiated therapeutic claims.” In short: credibility is the new battleground. Why Sales-First Leadership is Failing Too many brands are still led by executives whose playbooks were built on community engagement, retail hustle, and Instagram fluency. That got them early traction. But it won’t keep them compliant — or protect them from an investor exodus when the lawsuits begin. The biggest risks now are not formulation errors. They’re: Claims breaches Compliance negligence Advertising missteps Unqualified health endorsements Reputational collapse through regulatory exposure And these aren’t theoretical. The TGA pulled 197 listed medicines from the market in 2023 alone — a 42% increase on the previous year — due to non-compliant claims or sponsor breaches. What the Next Wellness Leader Looks Like This is where many boards and founders face a difficult transition. The next generation of leadership in wellness isn’t defined by hustle. It’s defined by: Deep regulatory fluency Cross-functional commercial leadership (eComm, retail, pharma, FMCG) Reputation management under pressure Ability to scale with scrutiny, not just speed The leadership profiles now needed aren’t coming out of marketing agencies — they’re coming out of pharmaceuticals, healthtech, and functional food. They’ve sat on regulatory committees. They’ve built compliance-first commercial strategies. They understand how to win trust, not just impressions. Yes, this might feel like a shift away from the founder-led energy that made these brands exciting. But it’s not about slowing down. It’s about making sure you’re still standing when the music stops. Where the Gaps Are The underlying problem isn’t just non-compliance. It's immaturity in structural leadership. The majority of wellness brands haven't developed: An accountable governance structure; a scalable compliance architecture; a risk-aware marketing culture; and any significant succession planning beyond the founder. In fact, a 2023 survey by Complementary Medicines Australia found that only 22% of wellness businesses had dedicated compliance leadership at executive level, and just 14% had formal succession plans in place. This isn’t sustainable — not at scale, and certainly not under scrutiny. Final Thought The wellness boom isn’t over. But the rules have changed. Rapid growth is no longer enough. The brands that win from here will be those with: A compliance culture baked in Leadership teams built for complexity A board that sees regulation not as a barrier, but a brand advantage Those who don’t? They could be one audit away from crisis.

Australia’s meat sector is facing a leadership vacuum. Explore the hidden crisis behind staffing, succession, and ESG risk in food manufacturing.

Comfort has become the silent killer of executive performance. In an era defined by disruption, volatility, and shrinking margins, too many leadership teams are still optimising for control, not adaptability. They talk about transformation, but build cultures of stability. They prize clarity, yet avoid the ambiguity where real growth lives. The problem isn’t capability. It’s discomfort intolerance. The solution? Start hiring and promoting leaders who deliberately seek discomfort—not just those who can tolerate it when it arrives. Growth Mindset Isn’t Enough Anymore You’ve heard the term "growth mindset" countless times. It’s become a leadership cliché. But it’s not wrong—it’s just incomplete. A growth mindset says, "I believe I can learn." Discomfort-driven leadership says, "I will actively seek out the hardest experiences because that’s where I’ll grow fastest." The distinction matters. Leaders with a growth mindset tend to thrive when external change forces them to adapt. But leaders who embrace discomfort create those conditions on purpose. They invite hard feedback. They question their own success. They take action before external pressure arrives. According to a 2023 study by Deloitte, only 22% of executives say their leadership team is “very prepared” for the future—despite record spending on transformation programmes (Deloitte Human Capital Trends, 2023). That gap exists because most teams are trained to manage change , not lead into uncertainty . Ask yourself: Are you hiring leaders who wait for disruption—or ones who walk towards it? Discomfort Is the Driver of Strategic Advantage Companies don’t fall behind because they make bad decisions. They fall behind because their leaders avoid the hard ones. In high-stakes industries like FMCG, where regulatory pressure, margin compression, and shifting consumer loyalty are accelerating, comfort is dangerous. It fosters: Short-termism Decision paralysis Lack of innovation Cultural stagnation McKinsey found that organisations with a strong tolerance for ambiguity—where leaders frequently challenge their own assumptions—are 2.4x more likely to be top-quartile performers on total shareholder returns (McKinsey & Company, 2022). In other words: embracing discomfort isn’t a trait—it’s a multiplier. Let’s take an example. When COVID hit, Lion Brewery—one of Australia's largest beer producers—was forced to rethink logistics and supply overnight. But smaller craft breweries who had already diversified through direct-to-consumer models adapted faster. Why? Their founders had already been operating in discomfort. They were trained for volatility. What Discomfort-Driven Leaders Actually Do Differently You can spot these leaders. They don’t always look like the most confident in the room—but they’re always the most effective in a storm. They: Seek feedback from critics, not fans Prioritise strategy over popularity Tackle underperformance head-on—even if it means conflict Ask hard questions that slow down groupthink Regularly step out of their functional lane to challenge assumptions They also act . Not rashly—but decisively. In a recent Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) survey, directors ranked “resilience and adaptability” as the #1 trait they now seek in new appointments—outranking experience for the first time (AICD, 2024). That’s not a trend. It’s a shift in what leadership now demands. The Real Cost of Hiring for Comfort Not hiring discomfort-driven leaders isn’t just a missed opportunity—it’s a risk. Here’s what it’s costing you: Strategic Drift: Without challenge, strategies become stale. Your team optimises yesterday’s model. Talent Exodus: Top performers disengage when they see leadership avoiding tough calls. Innovation Bottlenecks: Safe cultures don’t take smart risks. New ideas die in committee. Crisis Fragility: Leaders who haven’t been tested won’t perform when stakes are high. Bain & Company found that companies with decision-making cultures built around speed and tension—not consensus—were 95% more likely to deliver sustained value creation (Bain, 2023). Ask yourself: Is your executive team equipped for bold calls—or just built for calm waters? How to Identify Discomfort-Driven Leaders in Interviews Everyone talks a good game in interviews. But few have the scar tissue that comes from operating in real discomfort. The trick is to go beyond surface-level success stories. Here’s how: Ask Better Questions: “What’s the most uncomfortable decision you’ve made in the last 12 months—and how did it play out?” “Tell me about a time you got strong pushback from your team. What did you do?” “What’s a belief you held strongly that you’ve now abandoned?” “When have you chosen a path that was harder in the short term, but better long term?” Look for: Specificity (vagueness = theory, not lived experience) Self-awareness without self-promotion Signs of humility: they talk about learning, not just winning Evidence of risk-taking: role changes, cross-functional moves, or failed experiments Pro tip: Ask referees how the leader handles ambiguity. Not just performance. This will tell you more about how they lead under pressure. What to Do Now: Practical Actions for Executive Teams If you want to build a leadership culture of discomfort, you have to engineer it. It won’t happen organically in high-performing, risk-averse teams. Here’s how to start: Audit Your Current Team: When was the last time each leader took on something that scared them? Rethink Talent Criteria: Shift from stability and experience to adaptability and action under pressure. Redesign Development: Stretch your execs with ambiguous, cross-functional challenges—not just workshops. Model It at the Top: If the CEO isn’t embracing discomfort, no one else will. You don’t need to create chaos. You just need to stop insulating your leaders from discomfort—and start asking them to seek it. The Discomfort Dividend You can’t build a future-ready business with comfort-first leadership. The next generation of strategic advantage will come not from better processes or faster tech—but from bolder human decisions. From leaders who are willing to feel awkward, wrong, or out of their depth—because they know that’s where the value is. So next time you're hiring a leader, ask yourself: Are they looking for clarity—or ready to lead without it? Do they want the role—or are they ready for the risk that comes with it? Are they seeking comfort—or prepared to create discomfort for progress? Because in 2025, comfort is a luxury your business can’t afford .

Emotional intelligence is one of the most valued traits in executive leadership today.  It’s also one of the most misunderstood. In interviews, every candidate knows how to speak about empathy, collaboration, and “bringing people on the journey.” But when does that emotional intelligence start to look more like emotional avoidance? If you’re hiring into a senior role in consumer goods or food and beverage manufacturing, this distinction matters. Hiring someone who avoids hard conversations risks building a culture that performs around problems, not through them. The leaders delivering the best outcomes in 2025 understand how to build trust and rapport — without dodging the accountability that comes with real leadership. Emotional Intelligence: What It Gets Right In complex, fast-paced industries like FMCG and food production, leaders need more than technical expertise. They must influence, de-escalate tension, manage change, and build alignment across functions. That’s where emotional intelligence shines. High-EQ leaders are more likely to: Retain talent through strong, trust-based relationships Remain composed in high-stakes environments Reduce conflict through proactive, clear communication Drive psychological safety while still pushing for results The research backs this up. According to a 2024 EHL Insights report , emotionally intelligent leaders improve employee satisfaction, engagement, and collaboration — all essential in manufacturing settings where coordination between departments is critical. But there’s a fine line between emotional intelligence and emotional overcorrection. When Emotional Intelligence Becomes Emotional Avoidance The risk is subtle: leaders who over-index on empathy may begin to avoid the discomfort of conflict altogether. That looks like: Letting underperformance linger to “keep the peace” Over-relying on collaboration instead of making firm decisions Avoiding direct feedback Prioritising harmony at the expense of clarity A 2024 Forbes article described how emotionally avoidant leaders — despite good intentions — often undermine the very culture they’re trying to protect. Accountability erodes, decisions slow down, and high performers become disengaged. We’ve seen this play out in executive search mandates across the sector. On paper, a candidate may appear ideal: emotionally intelligent, highly personable, well-liked. But dig deeper, and a pattern emerges — reluctance to address performance issues, vague language around past team challenges, and a track record of avoiding direct confrontation. That’s not emotional intelligence. That’s fear, dressed as empathy. Emotional Intelligence Is a Must — But It’s Not the Full Picture More organisations are making emotional intelligence a key leadership trait in hiring — and for good reason. In high-change environments, emotionally intelligent leaders: Build trust across teams quickly Navigate transformation without losing people along the way Stay composed under pressure Handle interpersonal complexity with clarity But some of the most costly mis-hires we see come from leaders who present as highly empathetic, but struggle to lead through tension. Not because they lack EQ — but because they confuse it with keeping everyone comfortable. The difference? The leaders delivering the best outcomes in 2024 and 2025 are doing both: Holding people accountable while building engagement Delivering hard feedback without defensiveness Balancing calm with courage These are the leaders who retain high performers, protect standards, and still earn trust across the business. Hiring Outcomes Are Better When EQ Is Tested in Context The most effective hiring processes we’re seeing in the market today aren’t just asking, “Is this leader emotionally intelligent?” They’re asking: Can this person hold accountability and empathy at the same time? Have they delivered under pressure without letting performance slide? Do they create safe cultures that are also high-performing? The difference in outcomes is clear: More resilient leadership teams Better cultural fit Fewer surprises post-placement What to Look for in Executive Interviews Hiring emotionally intelligent leaders isn’t just about what they say — it’s about how they’ve acted in real moments of challenge. The most effective hiring panels are getting beyond rehearsed narratives by asking sharper questions: To probe real emotional intelligence: “Tell me about a time you had to lead a team through a change that wasn’t popular.” “How do you approach a conversation when someone on your team is underperforming?” “Describe a time you disagreed with your CEO or board. What did you do?” Watch for signals: Are they clear and specific, or vague and diplomatic? Do they show respect and resolve? Do they accept responsibility, or redirect it elsewhere? In reference checks, ask: “How did they manage pressure or uncertainty?” “Were they able to deliver difficult feedback directly?” “Did they avoid difficult decisions in the name of team cohesion?” When emotional intelligence is genuine, it shows up in results — not just relationships. Why This Matters Now Organisations in the consumer goods and food manufacturing sectors are undergoing constant disruption — from digitisation to regulatory shifts to cost pressures. In this environment, leadership soft skills aren’t optional. But it’s not enough to hire likeable leaders. The ones delivering real impact are those who bring empathy and edge. They’re able to sit with discomfort, hold the mirror up, and still bring people with them. That’s what true emotional intelligence looks like in 2025. So when you’re hiring your next senior leader, don’t just ask if they care. Ask if they can care and confront — with courage, with clarity, and with conviction. Because your culture doesn’t need more harmony. It needs more truth.

AI is Changing Business—So Must Its Leaders