Chaos in Business Teams - Anonymous employee World Economic Forum Employee Review

-While the creation of industry teams in 2023 was intended to integrate and strengthen account management, the current operating model is creating execution risks. Many industry heads are not yet positioned to engage credibly with C-suite counterparts at major industry organizations, and there is a growing misalignment between decision-making authority and hands-on account management expertise. As a result, critical account decisions are being made without sufficient grounding in partner history, contributing to internal friction and increasing the risk to key partner relationships. -Despite the existence of regional offices, a significant portion of regional business teams are not physically based in their respective regions. This has resulted in elevated and recurring travel costs, as well as reduced proximity to clients and partners. Account ownership within regional teams appears to be informally concentrated along nationality or language lines, with certain individuals positioning themselves as indispensable intermediaries. Language and cultural differences are frequently cited to justify restricted access, limited transparency, or resistance to broader engagement. These factors are increasingly being used to limit oversight rather than enable effective account management. There is insufficient oversight and challenge in how local partners are selected, managed, and represented, creating concentration risk and potential reputational exposure for the organization. -Across the business teams, the engagement model structurally positions the Primary Engagement Manager as a “service” role, while the Secondary Engagement Manager is labeled as the “executive” role. In practice, this framing does not reflect where value is created. The majority of account work- including relationship continuity, coordination, delivery alignment, and issue resolution- is carried by the Primary Engagement Manager, yet this role has limited authority, recognition, or progression. At the same time, Secondary Engagement Managers are expected to represent the organization at CEO and C-suite level, despite often lacking the seniority and partner engagement experience required for credible peer-to-peer dialogue. This creates a risk that senior client interactions are symbolic rather than substantive, weakening trust and limiting the organization’s ability to deepen strategic partnerships. Over time, this inverted model has contributed to perceived unfairness and de facto demotion of high-performing Primary Engagement Managers, increasing frustration and attrition risk among those who carry the core account responsibilities. Ultimately, more accounts will be at risk due to this most awkward business structure.