The Right Kind of Support: Strengthening Management through Executive Coaching
This is the second article in our series on Portfolio Performance: From Drift to Direction
“We need to bring in some outside help.”
When portfolio companies drift, this phrase often surfaces in board discussions. It’s a natural response to underperformance, but how that “help” is framed, introduced, and delivered makes all the difference.
In our previous article, we explored how to identify the real operational blockers that cause good investments to drift. Now we turn to the question of intervention: once you understand what’s blocking performance, how do you provide support that strengthens rather than sidelines the management team?
The Intervention Spectrum
Not all operational support is created equal. The right approach depends on the nature of the blockers, the capability of the existing team, and the time available to effect change. Rather than a binary choice between leaving management alone or replacing them, there exists a spectrum of intervention options:
Executive Coaching
At one end of the spectrum is Executive Coaching support for the existing CEO or leadership team. This approach works when the fundamentals are sound, and the team has the capability but needs perspective, challenge, or specific expertise.
However, it’s important to distinguish between traditional executive coaching approaches and what leaders under commercial pressure actually need. Most CEOs and MDs in underperforming portfolio companies don’t need coaching in the conventional sense, with frameworks and motivational approaches. They already hold many of the answers. What they need is space to think clearly, test their judgment with someone who’s navigated similar challenges, and gain perspective from a trusted advisor who understands the weight of leadership under pressure.
This isn’t about generic guidance or process-driven interventions. It’s about providing the calm presence and grounded support that helps leaders make sense of the noise when scrutiny is high and room to manoeuvre is limited.
When it works best:
- The team has the right skills but lacks specific experience
- Decision-making has slowed but not stopped
- The business needs adjustments rather than fundamental change
- There’s time to build capability rather than force immediate shifts
- Leaders need space to think and test their judgment rather than formal coaching
How it’s implemented:
- Regular but not overwhelming contact (typically weekly)
- Focus on specific challenges rather than general oversight
- Building the team’s problem-solving capability rather than solving for them
- Providing perspective and trusted advisory support rather than coaching frameworks
- Creating space for leaders to think clearly under pressure
This approach preserves and builds leadership confidence while adding specific expertise or perspective. However, it relies on the team’s ability to adapt and implement, which isn’t always present when drift is substantial.
Structured Operational Support
Moving further along the spectrum is more formal operational support that adds specific capability while leaving the management team in place and in charge.
When it works best:
- The team has good domain knowledge but lacks operational discipline
- There are clear capability gaps in specific areas
- The business needs a more structured approach to execution
- Progress is needed within months rather than quarters
How it’s implemented:
- Regular on-site presence (typically 2-3 days per week)
- Establishing or strengthening operational rhythm and disciplines
- Supporting specific functions where capability is thin
- Creating clearer reporting and accountability mechanisms
This approach provides more hands-on support without undermining authority. It adds capability where needed while building the team’s overall operational effectiveness. The risk, however, is creating dependency rather than sustainable improvement.
Shadow Leadership
Further along the spectrum is shadow leadership, where operational support effectively parallels the management team, providing strong direction while keeping the team in place.
When it works best:
- The team is committed but seriously stretched
- Execution gaps are significant across multiple areas
- The business needs rapid stabilisation
- Results are needed within weeks rather than months
How it’s implemented:
- Substantial on-site presence (3-5 days per week)
- Direct involvement in key decisions and processes
- Creating and enforcing operational disciplines
- Acting as the “operational conscience” of the business
This approach provides significant intervention without the disruption of leadership change. It can rapidly stabilise performance but risks creating confusion about who’s really in charge if not carefully managed.
Interim Leadership
At the far end of the spectrum is interim leadership, where key management roles are temporarily filled while longer-term solutions are developed.
When it works best:
- Key leadership positions are vacant or clearly mismatched
- The business requires immediate directional change
- Performance issues threaten survival
- A reset is needed before rebuilding
How it’s implemented:
- Full-time placement of experienced interim executives
- Clear mandate for specific changes within defined timeframes
- Focus on stabilisation and preparation for longer-term leadership
- Transparent transition plan from the outset
This approach provides the most direct intervention but also creates the most disruption. It’s a last resort when other options have been exhausted or when time simply doesn’t permit more gradual approaches.
The Guiding Principles of Effective Support
Regardless of where on the spectrum your intervention falls, from executive coaching to interim leadership, certain principles determine whether support strengthens or sidelines the management team:
Clarity of Role and Purpose
The single greatest factor in whether support strengthens or undermines is role clarity. Everyone involved, the board, the management team, and those providing support, must understand:
- Exactly what the support role involves (and doesn’t involve)
- The specific areas of focus and expected outcomes
- Who has decision authority in various domains
- The timeframe and exit criteria for the support
Without this clarity, even well-intentioned support creates confusion, territorial responses, and ultimately resistance.
In practice, this means explicitly defining and documenting:
- The specific problems being addressed
- The scope of authority and influence
- The decision rights framework
- The expected outcomes and timeline
- The communication protocols
This documentation isn’t just bureaucracy; it’s the foundation of effective intervention. It prevents the gradual scope creep that turns focused support into perceived takeover.
Understanding the Weight of Leadership Under Pressure
Effective support recognises the emotional and psychological reality of leading an underperforming business. CEOs and MDs under commercial pressure often feel isolated, scrutinised, and emotionally flat from the weight of responsibility. The spark that once drove them may feel dulled, not from burnout exactly, but from the grinding pressure of navigating difficult situations with limited room to manoeuvre.
This context shapes how support should be provided:
- Offering calm presence rather than energetic intervention
- Recognising that leaders need space to think, not motivation
- Understanding the responsibility they carry and the scrutiny they face
- Providing grounded support without judgment or generic frameworks
- Creating an environment where they can test their thinking with someone who’s walked this path
Support that fails to acknowledge this emotional reality often misses the mark entirely, no matter how technically sound the advice.
Explicit Board Mandate
For operational support to succeed, it must have clear board sponsorship without undermining the CEO’s position. This delicate balance requires:
- Explicit board approval of the support approach and scope
- Clear designation of the CEO as the primary authority
- Defined reporting lines that respect the management structure
- Regular board updates that include both the CEO and support team
When support appears to be “checking up on” rather than “supporting” the management team, it immediately creates defensiveness. The board must be explicit that the support is there to help the team succeed, not to evaluate or replace them.
Focus on Capability Building, Not Just Delivery
The most effective support doesn’t just solve immediate problems; it builds the team’s capability to solve future problems. This means:
- Working alongside the team rather than in isolation
- Explaining the “why” behind recommendations, not just the “what”
- Transferring skills and knowledge explicitly
- Creating tools and processes that outlast the support period
Support that simply delivers results without building capability creates dependency. The goal should be making the support ultimately unnecessary.
Respecting Existing Capability and Judgment
One of the most critical principles is recognising that leaders in underperforming businesses often already know what needs to be done. They don’t need someone to tell them the answers; they need someone to help them think through the implications, test their judgment, and gain confidence in their decisions.
This means:
- Starting from the assumption that leaders have valuable insight into their situation
- Asking questions that help clarify thinking rather than providing solutions
- Offering perspective and experience rather than instruction
- Creating space for leaders to reach their own conclusions
- Supporting their decision-making process rather than replacing it
This respect for existing capability transforms the dynamic from consultant-client to trusted advisor-leader, creating the conditions where real influence can occur.
Designing the Right Support Approach
Given these principles, how do you design an approach that provides effective support without undermining the team? The key lies in matching the support model to the specific situation:
Assess the Real Need
Start by being clear about what type of support is actually needed. This assessment should consider:
- The nature and severity of the performance issues
- The capability gaps within the current team
- The timeline for required improvement
- The board’s confidence in the management team
This assessment isn’t a one-off exercise. As support progresses, the type and intensity needed may evolve, requiring regular reassessment.
Design the Engagement Model
Based on this assessment, design an engagement model that provides the right level of support without overreaching. This model should specify:
- The specific role and mandate of the support
- The time commitment and physical presence required
- The expected interaction with the management team
- The reporting and communication framework
The model should be explicit about both what the support will do and what it won’t do. These boundaries prevent misunderstanding and scope creep.
Establish Clear Metrics and Milestones
For support to be effective, its impact must be measurable. This requires defining:
- The specific outcomes expected from the support
- The timeline for achieving these outcomes
- The leading indicators that will show progress
- The criteria for adjusting or concluding the support
These metrics should focus on both performance improvement and capability building, recognising that sustainable change requires both.
Create the Right Introduction and Framing
How support is introduced to the organisation dramatically affects its reception. The introduction should:
- Clearly explain why the support is being provided
- Position it as enabling the team’s success, not compensating for failure
- Set expectations for how the team should engage with the support
- Establish the CEO as the sponsor, with board backing
This framing isn’t just about making people feel better; it’s about creating the conditions where support can actually be effective.
Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them
Even well-designed support can falter in execution. Here are the most common pitfalls and how to avoid them:
The Executive Coaching Trap
The pitfall: Defaulting to traditional executive coaching approaches when leaders need trusted advisory support and space to think, not frameworks and motivational guidance.
The solution: Recognise that most leaders under pressure already hold many of the answers. Provide calm presence, perspective, and space to test their thinking rather than generic coaching methods. Focus on being a trusted advisor who understands the weight of leadership rather than a coach with a predetermined methodology.
The Credibility Gap
The pitfall: Support lacks the sector knowledge or functional expertise to establish credibility with the management team.
The solution: Match support expertise to the specific challenges. General operational expertise needs to be combined with enough industry understanding to be credible. If necessary, use multiple sources of support to cover different domains.
The Authority Confusion
The pitfall: Unclear lines of authority create confusion about who makes decisions, leading to either paralysis or conflict.
The solution: Create an explicit decision framework that clarifies who has input, who has decision rights, and who needs to be informed across different types of decisions.
The Relationship Breakdown
The pitfall: Support becomes adversarial rather than collaborative, creating resistance rather than improvement.
The solution: Focus on building trust before driving change. Demonstrate value quickly in non-threatening areas. Create joint problem-solving rather than imposed solutions.
The Dependency Trap
The pitfall: The business becomes reliant on the support rather than developing internal capability.
The solution: Build exit planning into the engagement from the start. Explicitly transfer knowledge and tools. Gradually reduce involvement as capability builds.
The Intervention Creep
The pitfall: Support gradually expands beyond its original scope, creating resentment and confusion.
The solution: Document the initial scope clearly. Create a formal process for reviewing and agreeing any scope changes. Regularly reaffirm the boundaries of the support role.
Finding the Measured Middle
The most effective operational support finds the measured middle between insufficient and excessive intervention. It provides enough support to make a difference without creating dependency or undermining authority.
This balance isn’t static. As the business situation evolves and management capability develops, the right level of support will change. The key is maintaining open communication about what’s working, what’s not, and how the support approach should adapt.
The goal should always be to make the support ultimately unnecessary. Whether through building the capability of the existing team or transitioning to new leadership, effective support creates sustainable performance improvement, not just temporary fixes.
Moving Beyond Support to Sustainable Performance
Operational support is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The ultimate measure of its success isn’t whether it solves immediate problems, but whether it creates the conditions for sustainable performance improvement.
In our next article, we’ll explore how to translate this support into tangible progress—building recovery roadmaps that have both credibility and momentum.
Next in the series: From Plan to Progress: Building credible recovery roadmaps with the right pace, focus, and accountability
About the Author: Trevor Parker works with portfolio managers, chairs, and lenders to bring operational grip, clarity, and progress to businesses under pressure. With over two decades of experience leading and advising companies through transition, he brings a measured, practical approach that stabilises performance without creating unnecessary noise.
This article is part of the “Portfolio Performance” series from Touchline Coach. For more insights on leadership, strategy, and performance from the touchline, subscribe to our newsletter or follow us on LinkedIn.
