Philanthrope LLP
21 May 2025
How purpose-led businesses can manage executive competition, foster collective accountability, and build leadership teams that support long-term strategic clarity
As organisations grow, leadership becomes more than a collection of high performers. It becomes a system. One that must absorb ambition, manage conflict and sustain strategic focus across shifting conditions.
For purpose-led businesses, this becomes visible early. A small team builds traction quickly, often through entrepreneurial instinct and individual drive. But as scale sets in, the leadership team must adapt. Not only to external expectations, but to each other.
Unchecked competition at the top is one of the least visible risks in growing companies. It rarely presents as dysfunction. More often, it shows up as drift: duplicated initiatives, unclear accountability, internal churn or stalled decisions that compromise execution. We see this most acutely in SMEs preparing for investment, scaling internationally or formalising executive roles for the first time.
The Competition-Collaboration Paradox
Most senior leaders succeed by standing out. They are promoted, recruited or retained for their ability to deliver results independently. But executive leadership demands the opposite dynamic. Alignment. Mutual reliance. Shared visibility.
This is the paradox. The same behaviour that got them to the table can undermine the team they now serve on.
Too much competition creates silos and strategic conflict. Too much collaboration dilutes accountability and slows decisions. The task for founders and CEOs is to design a leadership model that balances both. Competition of ideas, collaboration in execution.
Structural Pressure Points: When Growth Exposes Misalignment
The tipping point varies by company, but common signals include:
New executives interpreting mandates differently
Tensions between internal promotions and external appointments
Leaders building teams around themselves rather than the organisation
A CEO caught between mediating conflicts and driving performance
Values being cited but not operationalised
At Gymshark, for example, founder Ben Francis restructured the senior team to align with international expansion. This marked a shift from high-intensity entrepreneurship to long-term strategy. At Revolut, rapid innovation exposed internal tensions, with functional heads pulling in different directions and regulatory oversight catching up later.
These are not cultural slip-ups. They are structural frictions. Without clear behavioural expectations, they erode alignment.
Four Leadership Practices That Hold
From our work with scale-stage and investor-backed businesses, four practices consistently improve leadership cohesion and performance.
1. Define Strategic Direction Early
Founders and new CEOs who define a clear agenda early make alignment possible. At Monzo, clarity around transparency and customer focus enabled senior leaders to align priorities while scaling at pace. Direction should be stated, not assumed.
2. Design Roles Around Fit for Purpose
Different growth stages demand different team structures. At BrewDog, early competitiveness was a strength. But as governance matured, leadership roles were adjusted to support long-term credibility. Designing roles for the business you are becoming, rather than the one you have been, avoids retrospective corrections.
3. Select Leaders for System Contribution
Effective leadership teams are built by selecting individuals who elevate the whole. At Octopus Energy, leaders are selected not only for their technical capability, but for their ability to function within a culture of openness and cross-functional collaboration. Internal promotions, external hires and role realignments must all be evaluated through this lens.
4. Set Clear Norms and Behaviours
Once the team is in place, behavioural clarity is essential. Decision-making processes, information flow, feedback norms and conflict protocols must be agreed. Revolut’s use of visible KPIs and structured check-ins is one version of this. But the principle is universal. What is not defined is left to interpretation, and that creates drag.
The Role of the CEO
For CEOs in growth environments, the shift is personal. The job is no longer to outperform each function. It is to integrate them. This means:
Holding competing views in tension until clarity emerges
Protecting ambition without creating rivalry
Making team design a governance discipline, not an HR function
It also means knowing when change is needed. At Bulb, for example, early values around sustainability and customer service were a unifying force. But as scale introduced operational complexity, leadership cohesion became critical to holding direction.
Adjusting Over Time
Team design is not a one-time act. It requires adjustment as the business, context and people evolve. Market shifts, new capital and internal transitions all test leadership dynamics. The best CEOs remain alert to subtle signals. Decision drift, quiet disengagement and fatigue masked as harmony are all signs of misalignment.
Role rotation, feedback loops and external calibration can all help. So can structure. And so can early clarity.
Leadership That Holds
The most resilient leadership teams are not the most harmonious. They are the ones with clear roles, explicit behaviours and enough psychological safety to challenge without fracture.
At Philanthrope, we support founders and CEOs in designing and sustaining leadership systems that hold. Through growth, scrutiny and change.
Quietly. With care. At pace. As organisations grow, leadership becomes more than a collection of high performers. It becomes a system. One that must absorb ambition, manage conflict and sustain strategic focus across shifting conditions.
For purpose-led businesses, this becomes visible early. A small team builds traction quickly, often through entrepreneurial instinct and individual drive. But as scale sets in, the leadership team must adapt. Not only to external expectations, but to each other.
Unchecked competition at the top is one of the least visible risks in growing companies. It rarely presents as dysfunction. More often, it shows up as drift: duplicated initiatives, unclear accountability, internal churn or stalled decisions that compromise execution. We see this most acutely in SMEs preparing for investment, scaling internationally or formalising executive roles for the first time.
The Competition-Collaboration Paradox
Most senior leaders succeed by standing out. They are promoted, recruited or retained for their ability to deliver results independently. But executive leadership demands the opposite dynamic. Alignment. Mutual reliance. Shared visibility.
This is the paradox. The same behaviour that got them to the table can undermine the team they now serve on.
Too much competition creates silos and strategic conflict. Too much collaboration dilutes accountability and slows decisions. The task for founders and CEOs is to design a leadership model that balances both. Competition of ideas, collaboration in execution.
Structural Pressure Points: When Growth Exposes Misalignment
The tipping point varies by company, but common signals include:
New executives interpreting mandates differently
Tensions between internal promotions and external appointments
Leaders building teams around themselves rather than the organisation
A CEO caught between mediating conflicts and driving performance
Values being cited but not operationalised
At Gymshark, for example, founder Ben Francis restructured the senior team to align with international expansion. This marked a shift from high-intensity entrepreneurship to long-term strategy. At Revolut, rapid innovation exposed internal tensions, with functional heads pulling in different directions and regulatory oversight catching up later.
These are not cultural slip-ups. They are structural frictions. Without clear behavioural expectations, they erode alignment.
Four Leadership Practices That Hold
From our work with scale-stage and investor-backed businesses, four practices consistently improve leadership cohesion and performance.
1. Define Strategic Direction Early
Founders and new CEOs who define a clear agenda early make alignment possible. At Monzo, clarity around transparency and customer focus enabled senior leaders to align priorities while scaling at pace. Direction should be stated, not assumed.
2. Design Roles Around Fit for Purpose
Different growth stages demand different team structures. At BrewDog, early competitiveness was a strength. But as governance matured, leadership roles were adjusted to support long-term credibility. Designing roles for the business you are becoming, rather than the one you have been, avoids retrospective corrections.
3. Select Leaders for System Contribution
Effective leadership teams are built by selecting individuals who elevate the whole. At Octopus Energy, leaders are selected not only for their technical capability, but for their ability to function within a culture of openness and cross-functional collaboration. Internal promotions, external hires and role realignments must all be evaluated through this lens.
4. Set Clear Norms and Behaviours
Once the team is in place, behavioural clarity is essential. Decision-making processes, information flow, feedback norms and conflict protocols must be agreed. Revolut’s use of visible KPIs and structured check-ins is one version of this. But the principle is universal. What is not defined is left to interpretation, and that creates drag.
The Role of the CEO
For CEOs in growth environments, the shift is personal. The job is no longer to outperform each function. It is to integrate them. This means:
Holding competing views in tension until clarity emerges
Protecting ambition without creating rivalry
Making team design a governance discipline, not an HR function
It also means knowing when change is needed. At Bulb, for example, early values around sustainability and customer service were a unifying force. But as scale introduced operational complexity, leadership cohesion became critical to holding direction.
Adjusting Over Time
Team design is not a one-time act. It requires adjustment as the business, context and people evolve. Market shifts, new capital and internal transitions all test leadership dynamics. The best CEOs remain alert to subtle signals. Decision drift, quiet disengagement and fatigue masked as harmony are all signs of misalignment.
Role rotation, feedback loops and external calibration can all help. So can structure. And so can early clarity.
Leadership That Holds
The most resilient leadership teams are not the most harmonious. They are the ones with clear roles, explicit behaviours and enough psychological safety to challenge without fracture.
At Philanthrope, we support founders and CEOs in designing and sustaining leadership systems that hold. Through growth, scrutiny and change.
Quietly. With care. At pace.