01Turnaround starts with accountability, not a new strategy
Turnaround rarely needs a new strategy. It needs the processes and the culture that make people answerable for the numbers they own.
When a company is profitable in some years and not in others, the temptation is to chase a new strategy. But usually there is no plan to begin with — no clear ownership of results, no honest reporting, no routine where missing a number means a real conversation instead of a quiet adjustment. What turns a company around is changing the processes around accountability — clear ownership, honest reporting, and routines that surface problems early — and changing the culture to support them. A reward structure that reinforces the right behavior matters too: when people see that the changes that produce desired results are recognized and rewarded, the culture follows. And the tone starts at the top — leaders have to lead by example, be accountable for their own decisions and performance, and not just hold staff accountable. Financial stewardship follows from all of it. Culture change is the lever, but the processes have to move first.
02An ESOP is a governance decision before it is a financing one
An ESOP is not right for every company. When it fits, success depends on leadership, succession, accountability, and treating the repurchase liability as the financing obligation it is.
An ESOP is a financing vehicle, not a universal answer — and the decision starts with that honesty. For the companies where it does fit, it has to be treated like any other stock or debt: the repurchase liability is real and ongoing, and it has to be continually planned for, or it becomes a problem that surfaces years later when the options are narrow. What makes an ESOP succeed long term is not the structure but leadership — leaders developed and ready, a real succession plan, and an accountability culture that turns ownership into an owner mentality rather than a line on a pay stub. The board has to understand its fiduciary role to the trustee, and management has to answer to owners who are also colleagues. Done well, it builds a performance-owner culture that outlasts any single leader. Done carelessly, it is a benefit plan wearing the word 'ownership.'
03The board table looks different from each side of it
Sitting as the executive being overseen and as the director doing the overseeing teaches you what each role actually needs.
Governance advice is easy to give and hard to live. As president and chief executive reporting to a board, you learn what good oversight feels like when it is useful — and what it feels like when it is noise. As a director, you learn how hard it is to ask the right question without running the business for management. The boards that work best are the ones where both sides respect the line between governance and management, and where the relationship is candid enough that the hard conversations happen early instead of in a crisis. That balance is a practice, not a policy document.
04A board effectiveness review is worth more than a new committee
Most boards do not need more structure. They need an honest look at whether the structure they have is doing the work.
When governance feels off, the reflex is to add a committee, a charter, or a policy. Sometimes that is right. Often the real issue is that the board is spending its meeting time on the wrong things — operational updates instead of strategy, routine approvals instead of risk, or the CEO's priorities instead of the board's. A structured board effectiveness review asks the unglamorous questions: Is the agenda ours? Do directors have the information they need, early enough? Is there a process for the conversation nobody wants to have? The answer is usually less structure and more discipline, not the other way around.
