MICHAELA VOLLER: Bold leadership change requires equally bold follow-through

When Unilever’s new CEO, Fernando Fernandez, described parts of his leadership team as “pockets of mediocrity” and announced plans to replace 50 of the company’s top 200 managers, it made global headlines. The openness was striking as it’s rare for a CEO of a large multinational to speak so bluntly about the capability gap in their own executive ranks. 

But beneath the headline, the story is not just about numbers. It is about what happens inside an organisation when a leader decides to tackle entrenched underperformance at the very top. Bold people decisions ripple far beyond the organisational chart. They shape culture, test investor confidence and determine whether transformation efforts gather momentum or grind to a halt. 

Leaders across industries are facing a similar dilemma as they try to restore consistency and growth in a world of squeezed margins, shifting consumer demands, and relentless investor pressure. There is always a temptation to leave senior teams largely intact to avoid unsettling the status quo, but doing so risks reinforcing the very apathy that holds companies back. 

Unilever is not alone. Even in SA we are seeing more boards and executives forced into visible, sometimes painful, leadership reviews. The rise of activist investors has sharpened the stakes, but the underlying driver remains the pursuit of superior performance. It is especially apparent when stakeholders start to demand answers and executives are forced to ask hard questions of their leadership teams: Are they good enough? Are they aligned? Are they fit for the future?

Culture of indifference

These “pockets of mediocrity,” as Fernandez described them, do not appear overnight but emerge slowly, often tolerated in the name of stability or long service. For example, a senior leader who delivers inconsistently but avoids outright failure may be harder to challenge than one who visibly falters. The problem here is that if left undealt with, these tolerated gaps create a culture of inconsistency, or worse, indifference. 

The damage isn’t always obvious, but it spreads quickly. When senior leaders operate below the bar it signals that underperformance is acceptable, eroding strategy execution, fragmenting culture and lowering the standard of success across the business. The damage here is that it is something customers usually sense long before the boardroom does. 

This is why leadership alignment sits at the heart of any meaningful change. Time and again we see well-designed strategies fail when leadership strength is inconsistent, with the real cost measured in stalled growth and the erosion of trust across the organisation. 

Replacing executives is the easy part; changing culture is far more complex. People inside Unilever will be watching the reshuffle closely, not just to see who leaves but to understand what the new appointments signify. Do they set a higher bar, or are they simply familiar faces in new positions? 

New energy vs fear

What makes the difference is how the change is communicated and followed through. The announcement of high-profile departures can spark energy and renewal if it signals clarity and accountability, but it can just as easily create fear and disengagement if it comes across as punitive or politically driven. 

By framing his actions around “mediocrity,” Fernandez has shown honesty and conviction. Yet without a clear and positive vision of what better looks like, the same language could just as easily heighten anxiety across the wider organisation. 

Leaders everywhere can draw lessons from Unilever’s move. Courage matters because decisive action at the top sets a tone for the rest of the organisation, while hesitation only deepens mistrust. But courage alone is not enough.

Culture must keep pace with headcount; otherwise, new appointments risk becoming placeholders rather than true change agents. Above all, alignment is non-negotiable. Transformation rarely fails because of a single individual; it falters when the senior team cannot function as a cohesive unit. That is why building cohesion across tiers is just as important as selecting the right people. 

Leadership no longer an untouchable layer

What makes Unilever’s decision noteworthy is not just its scale but its timing. After years of criticism for bloated management and sluggish execution, the company is signalling that it will no longer tolerate drift, loss of focus, or conflicting priorities. That signal matters beyond Unilever and reflects a broader shift in how companies view leadership — notably they are no longer an untouchable layer and will need to show measurable performance just like every other employee. 

In addition, boards are starting to recognise that culture change cannot be outsourced to middle management and must begin with the executive team. When leaders act decisively to align senior capability with strategic ambition, they create an environment that encourages transformation. 

For Unilever, the test is whether bold statements translate into lasting momentum. Cutting bureaucracy, sharpening focus on core segments, and driving discipline are clear priorities, but the greater challenge lies in proving to employees and investors that this is more than a reshuffle. 

The broader lesson for business is the same. Decisive action at the top only creates real impact when it is matched by sustained follow-through that makes structural change stick as part of the company’s culture. As corporate strategist and author Stan Slap has argued, culture has its own logic: it is hesitant, hereditary and rational in its own way. When leaders give culture what it needs — certainty, energy and a sense of belonging — it will in turn, give the business what it needs. 

The winners will be organisations whose executives demand excellence and live it, replacing pockets of mediocrity with pockets of excellence that lift the entire business. Change of this kind begins with one decision, carried through with conviction.

• Voller is executive: people solutions division, at Change Logic.