Pros
At a global level, the company has a strong mission and a well‑articulated set of values. What I observed, though, is that the translation of those values into day‑to‑day leadership behaviors varied significantly by region.
In Switzerland, leadership seemed more aligned with the long‑term vision — communication was clearer, expectations were consistent, and decisions reflected the stated values. In North America, the operational reality didn’t always match the mission on paper. Some of the leadership behaviors, priorities, and communication patterns were more reactive and short‑term, which created a gap between the company’s stated culture and the lived experience.
Cons
In the North American organization, there was a noticeable absence of cohesive leadership. Department leaders often operated in silos and, at times, undermined one another rather than aligning around shared goals. Challenges were frequently attributed to other teams instead of being addressed collaboratively, which made it difficult to build momentum or drive solutions.
Information flow was inconsistent as well — critical details were sometimes withheld until escalated publicly, and the lack of transparency created unnecessary friction. As a result, individuals who attempted to step in, create clarity, or demonstrate leadership were not always supported, which ultimately discouraged proactive problem‑solving.
The experience highlighted the importance of leadership teams that model collaboration, share information openly, and create an environment where people feel empowered to contribute.
