As companies look to successfully achieve a corporate turnaround, success or failure depends on the speed of their actions and the depth of commitment from leadership. Without aligned governance and adequate funding, even well-intentioned change efforts can stall before delivering results.
For a company, the descent into troubled territory may be a slow slide; product margins dip; sales cycles stretch, and team morale slides from urgency to resignation. Leaders can sense that performance is softening, but instead of making definitive, structural changes, they hesitate. Companies react with token fixes, making small austerity cuts, shuffling around leadership, and rebranding business units.
But small changes only amount to small improvements. By moving slowly, the C-suite gives up most of the gains before they even start. When leadership fails to treat the problem as acute, any turnaround effort becomes cosmetic in nature. This is where most turnarounds stall. Execution gets hindered by compromise. Decision rights lack clarity. Stakeholders pull in different directions. Eventually, priorities blur and plans fizzle.
Less than one in three transformation efforts improve performance and sustain it over time. To truly successfully turnaround a business and create sustainable success, most businesses need radical simplification and structural change.
Identify and focus on core strength
The starting point for the leadership of these companies must be clarity: Define what the business does best and determine whether that is profitable at scale. That’s the core, and anything that doesn’t support it becomes a candidate for elimination. In successful turnarounds, companies simplify their operations and focus on high-margin, high-potential products or services. Companies that cut back on their product offerings can see a 0.9% boost in their profit margins.
Once that area of focus is defined, the cost structure has to be reset. That means abandoning traditional budgeting and building up only what is essential. Every function, team, and tool has to justify its role in delivering against the core. This strips away inertia and makes each line item earn its place. This process reshapes more than the budget. It changes how leaders think. Zero-based budgeting forces clear decisions: what to protect, what to cut, and who takes ownership. It puts pressure on alignment and makes hesitation harder to hide. Without that kind of specificity, budgeting turns into a political exercise.
Today, some of the most closely watched corporate transformations — from consumer brands to industrials — are built on the same principles: simplify the offering, align leadership, and move fast.
Simplification often feels risky because it appears to be a contraction. But in a turnaround, complexity is a liability. Bulky portfolios and sprawling organizational charts scatter focus. Customers don’t know what you stand for. Employees don’t know what matters. Cutting through that noise is what quickly reestablishes momentum. Now with a simpler business, sales teams can drive growth through commercial focus.
Turnarounds that drag lose financial runway and internal trust. Most failed transformations can be traced back to slow execution and poor alignment in the early phases. Rapid change deployment dramatically increases the odds of successful business transformations. The longer you pause, the more value slips away.
Incentives: the key for leadership
Stalled implementation of a turnaround can have major implications for the company, particularly for the CEO who leads these efforts.
A slow-moving turnaround leads to an erosion of confidence that inevitably catches up with leadership. CEO turnover is at historic highs, while average tenures have shortened to 7 years in the U.S. The window to prove a turnaround is getting shorter. Boards are quicker to move on from plans that stall. Successful turnarounds hinge on aligned leadership anchored by execution-minded CEOs.
The way CEOs can make sure their plans are seen through with efficiency is with incentives. Incentives are often the hidden lever behind whether transformation efforts take hold or fade out. If executive compensation still reflects old goals, people will default to familiar patterns. Organizations keeping incentives tied to legacy metrics, such as revenue and profit, face reputational damage and poor financial outcomes. In contrast, companies that revise compensation to prioritize transformation objectives, empower executives to deliver better results and build more resilient companies. The most effective boards go further, ensuring that performance measures reflect the specific decisions, tradeoffs, and behaviors required to follow through.
Turnarounds are human
In today’s corporate environment, employees are constantly being asked to shift and change how they work in order to respond to market realities; the average corporate employee now experiences 10 supposed enterprise changes per year, up from just two in 2016. Leadership wants to test a new work culture, a new efficiency structure, or some change to business operations, and employees are left with whiplash — and fatigue.
It’s why feedback and follow-through are essential to successful corporate turnarounds. The most effective turnarounds stay narrow at first, targeting visible wins that prove the strategy is working. Belief builds through results. Momentum breaks down fast if leaders chase too many goals or stack new priorities on top of old ones. That kind of overload hinders change and makes future efforts more challenging. Without consistent messaging and clear wins, employees lose interest.
Successful turnarounds demand bold, decisive action.
Hesitation and complexity are liabilities; clarity and rapid execution are non-negotiable. In a time when so many companies are attempting a turnaround, by acting decisively, businesses can cut through inertia, rebuild momentum, and secure sustainable results.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
