Test the Leadership Behind Your 2027 Plan

October 1, 2026

A 2027 business plan can be financially rigorous and still depend on an untested assumption: that the leadership team has the capabilities, capacity, and authority to deliver it. Revenue targets are challenged. Capital requests are debated. The demands those commitments place on executives deserve the same scrutiny.

Before approving the plan, boards and CEOs should identify what their leaders will need to do differently, what evidence supports their readiness, and where additional support is required. That discussion belongs inside the planning process, while there is still time to change priorities, develop people, or recruit against a specific need.

Growth plans face different operating conditions

Recent evidence gives leaders reasons to plan for growth. In Business Roundtable's Q3 2026 survey, 83% of responding CEOs expected sales to increase over the next six months, and 52% planned higher US capital spending. The survey covered 174 CEOs and was conducted from August 31 through September 11. These are expectations among the participating companies, rather than realized results or a forecast for every business. [1]

Growth ambitions coexist with difficult operating decisions. In PwC's August 2026 survey update, roughly 70% of 351 CEOs reported higher energy and non-energy costs arising from global shocks. Pricing decisions had become substantially more challenging for 27%. That global survey was conducted from May 15 through June 22. [2]

Private equity adds another timing consideration. PitchBook's Q2 2026 US PE Middle Market Report shows that estimated middle-market exit value fell 19.5% from Q1 to $24.7 billion, even as exit count rose 2%. Across the broader US PE portfolio-company universe, 28.9% of companies had been held for more than five years. These are June 30 measures from a report published in September. Longer ownership alone does not establish underperformance. [3]

The planning implication is to test the conditions that matter to the business itself. A company pursuing expansion, an owner preparing for a transaction, and an organization rebuilding margins may need different leadership capabilities. The following four tests make those requirements explicit.

Identify the capability each commitment requires

Start with the few outcomes that matter most to the plan. For each, describe what must change in the business and what the accountable executive must be able to do. A target for higher revenue could depend on better performance in existing accounts, entry into a new channel, or a different commercial model. Each presents a different leadership task.

Consider a hypothetical manufacturer planning to expand through distributors. Its commercial leader may have an excellent record with direct customers. The planning question is how well that experience translates to recruiting channel partners, setting incentives, and managing possible conflicts with the existing sales force. The answer could support the current leader, identify a development need, or reveal a requirement for additional expertise.

Assess evidence at that level of specificity. Which comparable decisions has the executive made? What changed as a result? How much support was available? Where does the next assignment introduce unfamiliar complexity? Past performance is useful when the board understands how it relates to the work ahead.

Check whether responsibility comes with authority

A plan can assign an accountable executive while leaving the decisions needed to deliver it scattered across the organization. Review where an outcome depends on several functions and identify who can resolve competing priorities.

For example, a growth initiative may require Sales to win new customers, Operations to reserve capacity, and Finance to fund inventory. If each function optimizes its own measures, the business can secure revenue that strains cash or displaces more profitable work. An effective leadership review asks who can make that trade-off and which measures the team will use together.

The CFO has a useful role in making the economics visible and helping colleagues choose between competing uses of resources. The CEO must ensure the relevant leaders can act on those choices. A recurring meeting will add little if participants still need separate approvals for every material decision.

Before diagnosing a talent problem, check the role design. An executive may need clearer authority, better information, a stronger team, or fewer competing objectives. Recruiting another person into an unchanged set of constraints can reproduce the same problem.

Examine judgment when the base case changes

Use a small number of scenarios tied to the company's actual exposures. A business expanding capacity might test slower demand. An acquisition-led platform might consider a delayed transaction. A company preparing for sale might examine what another year of ownership would require. These are planning exercises, rather than predictions about the market.

Ask the team what it would do, what information it would need, and when it would act. If demand softened, which investments would continue because they protect the company's position? Which would be deferred? Who would decide, and what evidence would trigger that decision?

The discussion can reveal whether executives understand the dependencies across the plan. It can also expose disagreement over acceptable risk before that disagreement slows an urgent response. Strong answers explain the choices and their consequences, including effects on customers and the ability to deliver later commitments.

Boards should evaluate how the team reasons together. One executive may recognize an early warning while another sees why the proposed response would create a larger problem elsewhere. The objective is a shared understanding of when and how to adjust. A revised forecast should lead to decisions the organization can carry out.

Put leadership capacity on the business calendar

Translate any capability gap into an action and a date. Work backward from the milestone that depends on it. A leader needed for a major launch must have enough time to understand the business, build relationships, and make the decisions that precede launch day.

Capacity deserves separate attention from capability. An executive may be well suited to lead an integration and still lack the time to do it while running a demanding operating role. Adding the assignment without changing resources or priorities leaves the plan dependent on effort the organization has not actually made available.

Responses can include developing an incumbent, appointing a deputy, redesigning responsibilities, adding temporary expertise, or recruiting. Choose the response based on the size of the gap and the time available. Where development is the answer, define the experience and support the leader needs, along with evidence of progress. Where recruitment is required, include selection and onboarding in the timeline.

If the capability cannot be in place soon enough, revisit the business commitment. Changing the sequence of initiatives may produce a more credible plan than asking the same team to deliver everything at once.

Bring the leadership assumptions into the approval discussion

For each critical priority in the 2027 plan, the board and management team should be able to answer five questions:

1. What outcome must be achieved, and by when?

2. Who owns it, and which decisions can that leader make?

3. What evidence shows that the leader and supporting team are ready?

4. What gap in capability, capacity, or resources remains?

5. What action will close that gap before it threatens the plan?

These answers give directors and executives a clearer basis for approving both the financial commitments and the organization expected to deliver them. They also create a useful reference for reviewing progress as conditions change.

Before the next plan is approved, ask which commitment depends most heavily on a leadership capability the business has not yet demonstrated. Addressing that question now gives the team time to build what the plan requires.

About the Author

Tyler Peitzmeier

Head of Business Development

Tyler Peitzmeier leads business development at Morgan Samuels, driving the firm’s growth strategy across private equity sponsors, portfolio companies, and corporate clients. He partners closely with investors and executives to align leadership decisions with execution priorities and long-term value creation.

With a background spanning executive sales leadership and go-to-market strategy, Tyler brings a practical, operator-informed perspective to how organizations build leadership teams during periods of growth and transition. His work focuses on translating market dynamics into actionable leadership insight for boards and management teams.

This perspective reflects patterns observed across ongoing conversations with private equity firms, portfolio leadership, and corporate executives navigating an evolving market environment.

Sources

[1] Business Roundtable Q3 2026 CEO Economic Outlook

Fieldwork August 31 to September 11, 2026; 174 participating CEOs. Sales and spending figures are expectations for the next six months. This sample is not a measure of all companies or executive hiring.

[2] PwC CEO Survey Snapshot August 2026

Published August 4, 2026. Fieldwork May 15 to June 22, 2026; 351 returning CEOs across 59 countries and 27 sectors. Figures refer to this global follow-up sample.

[3] PitchBook, Q2 2026 US PE Middle Market Report. Published September 14, 2026. Page 12 covers the broader US PE-backed company inventory; page 14 covers middle-market exit activity. The cited measures are as of June 30, 2026. Exit activity figures are estimates.

The leadership tests and recommendations are Morgan Samuels' analysis. The surveys and transaction data provide market context; they do not measure the adequacy of any particular leadership team.