Quick Wins & Low Hanging Fruit — Are They Slowly Ruining Your Organization?
It’s a long-standing tradition—and a widely accepted mantra—that new leaders should pursue quick wins or "low hanging fruit" early in their tenure. The goal is usually to build credibility with senior leadership, generate early momentum with their teams, and demonstrate decisiveness—a way of signaling that there’s a new captain at the helm. For many leaders, especially those grappling with imposter syndrome, these early victories provide a much-needed confidence boost.
Of course, quick wins have their place. But when they are overemphasized—or elevated into a kind of leadership doctrine—they can cause long-term strategic harm to the organization. Unfortunately, many leaders fall into this trap. Their actions are often driven by tactical expediency (“the boss wants results now!”) and a broader culture of short-termism—whether it’s driven by external pressures (Wall Street, earnings calls), personal ambition (eyeing the next role), or structural realities (interim positions or term-limited mandates).
This may not seem catastrophic. But zoom out, and the risks become clear. If every successive leader in a given role adopts the same quick-win approach, the cumulative impact becomes problematic—and it's more common than you might think. Consider any role that has experienced high turnover in recent years.
Now take a broader view of the organization. With each restructure or reshuffle, you introduce a wave of new leaders—each eager to prove themselves and each chasing early wins. Layer this on top of the widely adopted (and arguably dystopian) Welchian ideal of constant restructuring, and you get a perfect storm: the low-hanging fruit has been picked clean, the quick wins exhausted, and no one has the time, appetite, or imagination to buy a ladder—let alone plant new trees.
Consider this real scenario:
A newly appointed leader inherited a deal in the company’s largest market. The local in-country executive had already negotiated an agreement in which the distributor would double its annual purchases and commit to 5% year-over-year growth for at least two years. The catch? In return, the distributor wanted to take full control of the market, replacing the existing 50/50 account split with a single-channel model.
At first glance, it looked like a classic quick win: guaranteed growth in a key region, reduced overhead in sales and marketing, and strong internal optics. The deal was complete—ready to go. All the new leader had to do was approve it and enjoy the results. The business would pretty much be on autopilot for the next two years.
Instead, he started asking questions.
“Why is the distributor doubling its purchases? Why are we ceding full control of the market? Are we giving away the baby with the bathwater?”
What he uncovered was telling. The distributor was sitting on excess inventory and needed to justify its high stock levels. By committing to higher revenue through increased coverage, the distributor could make its existing inventory appear more efficient. (For example, if it held 12 months’ worth of stock for $50M in revenue, but projected $100M instead, it could reframe that same stock as just a six-month supply.)
But why were they overstocked in the first place?
As it turned out, the distributor wasn’t actively promoting the product. Its teams were focused on more profitable lines, and there were no internal incentives to grow share or deepen customer relationships.
The deal was a textbook bilateral quick Win-Win. The distributor addressed its inventory problems with a cosmetic solution, and the company secured headline growth via guaranteed orders.
But fundamentally, it was a long-term Lose-Lose. The 5% annual growth wouldn’t come from the market—it would sit in the distributor’s warehouse. The region would remain underdeveloped, and the inventory issue would inevitably resurface, just a few years down the road.
Rather than rubber-stamping the deal, the leader pushed back. He ultimately renegotiated sustainable terms that aligned with the long-term goals of both organizations.
So, What Can Be Done?
1. Clarify the Mandate Set expectations from the start: your role is to build a strong, resilient business—not just deliver short-term optics. Quick wins are useful if they’re real and meaningful, but they are not the main course.
2. Reframe the Narrative You still need to build credibility and generate momentum. The key is to craft a thoughtful strategic roadmap, align broadly with your stakeholders, and set clear, time-bound milestones. Those milestones—when achieved—become your wins.
3. Communicate the Why In the earlier example, the most difficult part wasn’t saying no—it was explaining why. The leader risked being seen as obstructionist. But by clearly articulating his rationale and backing it with data, his decision to reject the deal became a win in itself.
Conclusion
Quick wins can provide a valuable boost—but when they become leadership’s default mode, they promote superficial thinking, weaken strategic discipline, and leave deeper organizational challenges untouched.
Does this resonate with you? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments!
If you’re reevaluating leadership strategy or tackling deep organizational transformation, I’d be happy to have a conversation. You can message me directly on LinkedIn or reach out via the contact button below.
