It sounds almost paradoxical, but the biggest leadership challenge in Danish business right now is not innovation, AI or geopolitics. It is the leadership team. Not because leaders lack competence, but because collaboration at the top is too often the weakest link at a time when companies must both cut to the bone and reinvent themselves. Kronik bragt i Børsen den 17. januar 2026
The numbers look strong, but uncertainty is lurking just beneath the surface. Geopolitics, technology and shifting market conditions mean that no one can afford to rest on their laurels. Companies must save and become more efficient – while at the same time investing in innovation, digitalisation and new business models. It is a paradox that puts immense pressure on top management.
The greatest unrealised potential in Danish business therefore does not lie in new markets or smarter AI.
It lies in the most senior leadership teams.
Research from, among others, McKinsey and BCG shows that the vast majority of strategy implementations fail. Not because of the quality of the strategy, but because of collaboration. At the same time, many CEOs overestimate the degree of alignment in their own team.
This is hardly surprising.
To every one their own
If the leadership team avoids the difficult discussions, agreement looks fine on the surface. But it evaporates quickly once the meeting is over, and each leader walks out of the room and does what they themselves think is most sensible. It is like a tug of war where everyone has tied their own rope to the shared one – and then pulls in different directions.
The challenge is that many leadership teams are organised as a decision-making forum, not as a working community.Meetings are filled with reporting and budget follow-ups.
We meet leadership teams who think they are completely aligned, but who turn out to disagree about everything that actually matters: the concrete priorities, the conflicts between departments, and what one is actually willing to sacrifice in order to succeed.
One manager said to us: “I’m responsible for digital. That has nothing to do with the design of the shops.” No – not if you see your own function as isolated from the purpose of the business. But in a market where coherence and customer experience are crucial, it is of course deeply connected.
The challenge is that many leadership teams are organised as a decision-making forum, not as a working community. Meetings are filled with reporting and budget follow-ups.
People talk about strategies in an abstract language that never touches the concrete dilemmas that make the difference in execution. And when discussions remain at the very overarching, strategic level, the disagreements never surface.
This makes the organisation vulnerable, especially when the market shifts quickly and the company must be able to change direction rapidly while keeping costs down.
You cannot navigate that paradox without a leadership team that functions as one unified system. It requires leaders to have the courage to talk about conflicts before they become destructive. That they can connect their own areas to the bigger picture, and that they can create meaning across the organisation, not just within their own department.
When reality puts pressure on the business, the leadership team’s ability to think and act together becomes a genuine competitive parameter. Strategic success is not about IQ – the individual leader’s ability to think and analyse – but about WEQ: the leadership team’s ability to create meaning, trust and collective capacity to act together. Working on the team’s WEQ is not “soft”. It is a question of execution capability.
To create meaning
Karl Weick points out that leadership in complex situations is about creating meaning together, because our actions actually create the reality we later interpret.
One example is a merger that only becomes a reality when both leaders and employees begin to act as if it is a reality. This means that leaders’ most important task is not to have the answers, but to be able to put words to doubt, unpredictability and dilemmas in a way that enables the company to act. You cannot do that individually. It requires a leadership team that actually is a team.
The meaning the leadership team creates together must be concrete, not abstract. The kind of meaning where I know, there is a connection between what is happening in my department and what is happening in the other departments.
Where it is natural to discuss in the most senior leadership teams: “I’m thinking of launching this new product – how do you see it affecting the other departments in the company?” Not to discuss every decision in detail, but to know when to coordinate, when to collaborate and when to co-create as a leadership team.
We see this very clearly in practice.
Some leadership teams close in on themselves as soon as pressure rises.
The best do the opposite: they use the turbulence to rebuild shared direction. They work systematically on their collaboration, not as a cosy side project, but as something that determines whether they reach their goals.
It does not have to be big or ceremonial. It can be ten minutes of shared reflection after every meeting: What did we handle well today? What did we rush past far too quickly? It sounds simple. But it requires discipline and a willingness to take a good, hard look at one’s own practice.
Danish companies are leaving value on the table today because the leadership team is not using its full capacity.
They invest in technology, market analysis and organisational change, but overlook the power of having a genuinely well-functioning leadership team at the top. At a time when companies must both cut costs and grow, it is paradoxical that the area where the greatest difference can be made is the one where the least time is spent.
The next competitive advantage will not come from more models or larger volumes of data.
It will come from the leadership team’s ability to create a collective “we” that can stand in complexity and act in the same direction. When collaboration is strengthened, quality increases, the pull becomes stronger, and the company gains the full benefit of its strategy. That is where the potential lies.
If Danish companies are to succeed in a time when pace, complexity and the demands for renewal are increasing, the agility of the leadership team must be treated as a strategic resource on a par with capital and technology. Collaboration is not about cosy togetherness. It is competitive strength.