When a President Can’t Pick Their Own Team: The Hidden Cost of Corporate Control

“To unlock world-class results, organizations must rebalance trust and control by empowering presidents to hire for character, culture, and chemistry—not just credentials

”

By Michel Koopman

For CSQ

There’s a quiet, growing frustration among division presidents, particularly those running billion-dollar businesses within larger enterprise ecosystems. They carry full P&L responsibility, are expected to drive innovation, culture, and bottom-line performance, yet often don’t get to choose their own team.

Let that sink in: The person accountable for winning the game doesn’t get to pick the players. About 31% of managers have resigned because of poor relationships with leadership, and that friction often begins when they’re handed a team they didn’t assemble and told to make it work.

A President in Name, a Passenger in Practice

Recently, I spoke with the president of a large division of a global company. On paper, she has it all: big title, big budget, big responsibility. But peel back the layers, and you’ll find a leader who feels boxed in. She:

• Can’t hire who, she wants without multiple “approvals”

• Can’t promote talent she believes in without HR pushing someone “in line.”

• Can’t fire underperformers without running the legal maze

• Is constantly checking boxes instead of following instincts

And it’s not just HR or legal hindering talent decisions. In many cases, there’s a group leader, a CEO, or an active board of directors weighing in on people decisions that should sit squarely with the business unit’s most senior leader. Add to that same-level colleagues in different functions who exert influence well beyond their lane and possibly a system that values consensus over conviction.

The result? A team that’s paper-perfect but lacks the grit, drive, and chemistry she once championed. The characteristics she likes to hire for—culture fit, personality, hunger, resilience, and humility—are now overshadowed by résumés that sparkle, succession plans that have been prewritten, and stakeholders that are more concerned with pedigree than purpose.

Engagement isn’t Cosmetic — it’s Core

This isn’t just a talent management issue; it’s a culture erosion issue, and it can lead to a team that does not gel and a business unit that may not perform.

This president isn’t trying to build a compliant team. She’s trying to build a committed one. She cares deeply about engagement, not just productivity. For her, it’s about how people feel Sunday night before they go back to work. Do they feel excited, empowered, and aligned? Or do they just show up, get paid, and go home? That’s true for leaders, too. For her, it is also about showing up and loving who is on her team. That puts an extra skip in her step.

Even at the top, motivation isn’t driven by money or title alone. It’s fueled by ownership. When leaders can’t shape their own teams, they begin to detach. They go through the motions. They lead cautiously, not courageously. And the ripple effects travel fast through the org chart.

The System is Designed to Manage Risk, Not Build Teams

The modern enterprise is obsessed with governance, and for good reason. Avoiding bias, ensuring fairness, and managing reputational and legal risk are all valid.

But here’s the unintended side effect: We’re drowning our best leaders in process, compliance, or politics. Instead of enabling them, too often we’re second-guessing them. Instead of trusting them and letting them do what we hired them for, we’re guiding them to pre-approved answers.

The result?

• Leaders optimize for politics, not performance

• Decisions get watered down by compromise

• Team chemistry gets traded for checklist compatibility

And when that happens, culture starts to fade—not in a dramatic collapse, but through slow, invisible erosion.

The Misalignment No One Wants to Talk About

We say we want leaders who are accountable, bold, and inspiring. But then we treat them like project managers for a people strategy built elsewhere.

We say we believe in “servant leadership.” But then we burden our top leaders with serving stakeholders before serving their teams.

We say we value soft skills, culture fit, and engagement. But then we elevate those with the cleanest career ladders and lowest perceived risk.

And perhaps most critically: We reward polished credentials over authentic character, but then wonder why the team doesn’t gel.

It’s no wonder business unit top executives are asking the quiet question: “If I’m not trusted to pick my team, what exactly am I leading?”

Time to Rebalance Trust and Control

If you’re a group CEO, CHRO, or board member, it’s time to take a look at the balance your organization has between centralized control and decentralized trust.

Ask yourself:

• Are we enabling our business leaders to build high-performing teams, or just well-governed ones?

• Are we overly focused on managing downside risk while missing upside potential?

• Are we really empowering these leaders or simply tasking them to execute someone else’s plan?

Because when a business unit president feels disempowered, it doesn’t just hurt them; it hurts the business. Performance flattens. Energy fades. Accountability blurs.

Engagement isn’t a perk. It’s a feeling. A fire. A force multiplier. And it starts with leaders who believe they’re building something that reflects their own values and those of the greater organization, not just enforcing someone else’s design.

So, if you want world-class results from your division presidents, here’s the simplest first step: Let them pick their own team, support them, and hold them accountable.

And when they choose, encourage them to hire for character, culture, and chemistry over credentials.

Because in the end, perfect résumés don’t build great companies. People do.

Read the original article on CSQ.