Decision-makers ask. I answer.
For more than 25 years, I have been supporting companies through challenging and special situations—as an interim executive and management consultant. What sets me apart from many others is that, even in permanent positions, I never held a traditional line management role. At DAX-listed corporations such as Deutsche Telekom and Deutsche Post DHL, I consistently reported directly to divisional or group executive board members, prepared decisions, and assumed responsibilities that extended far beyond my own area of expertise. During this time, I worked closely with all major, globally active management consulting firms —and in the process, I learned what top-tier consulting performance means and where its limits lie. This proximity to the decision-making level and to the world of consulting at the highest level is not just interim experience—it is my starting point.
Today, I’m a hybrid: I can step into an operational role and take responsibility for results—I bring top-tier management consulting experience to the table—and I can provide consulting at the same level that clients expect from top management consulting firms. Both from a single source, depending on what the situation requires.
Here you’ll find direct answers to the questions I’m most frequently asked by members of supervisory boards, shareholders, advisory board members, and private equity investors.
Can’t find your question here? Let’s talk directly.
TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT. Stabilize before it's too late.
In my experience, there’s never a perfectly right time—and that’s not an excuse, but an honest observation. Anyone who raises the alarm too late has already lost valuable time and room to maneuver. Those who call too early—when the problem is evident but the pressure isn’t yet great enough—risk something else: a lack of backing from the organization, the owner, or the board of directors to really make a difference. That, too, is the wrong time. A specialist without organizational support cannot deliver what the situation demands.
The decisive factor, therefore, is not just the timing—but the will to change. If that will is there, and the warning signs are taken seriously before the crisis escalates, then that is the right moment. My experience shows that this moment almost always comes sooner than management anticipates—but it takes courage to actually seize it.
To be honest, the analysis begins even before the first on-site meeting. After 25 years of dealing with special situations, I already have initial, reliable hypotheses about where the actual problems lie during my initial discussions with shareholders or supervisory board members. The basic pattern is almost always the same: a lack of transparency, unclear structures, and processes that don’t work or were never properly established in the first place. What varies is the company-specific context—its history, its people, and its industry.
By this, I don’t just mean organizational structures. A lack of transparency manifests itself in unclear processes just as much as in an IT landscape that doesn’t accurately reflect the management model. When the ERP system doesn’t deliver what management needs, IT isn’t a technical problem—it’s a control problem. If you really want to understand structures and processes, you have to look here as well.
Once I’m inside the company, I verify these hypotheses very quickly. I look at the numbers and the liquidity trends—thanks to my financial background, I can quickly spot in a set of figures where results are lacking, where liquidity is leaking away, and where structures are no longer sustainable. At the same time, I talk to the people who bear day-to-day responsibility, not to those who give presentations. Numbers and people together paint the complete picture—and usually confirm what I had already suspected.
If the diagnosis is correct—a lack of transparency, flawed structures, dysfunctional processes—then the answer is not a cost-cutting program. Cutting costs is the easiest thing to do. It addresses the symptom, not the cause. Those who focus solely on cutting costs are merely buying time—but they aren’t solving anything.
A true turnaround begins with an uncomfortable question: Is the business model even viable anymore? And if so—is the entire organization consistently aligned with it? Structure, processes, IT, leadership, workforce—everything must contribute to the business model. Anything that doesn’t contribute must be changed. That is the core. Everything else—securing liquidity, stakeholder communication, financial restructuring—follows from this clarity, not the other way around.
This isn't a sequential task. It all happens at the same time, under pressure, with limited resources, and often in the face of resistance. That's exactly why you need someone who combines financial expertise and strong leadership in one person. Anyone who has only one of these qualities wastes time—time you simply don't have in a crisis.
"My Finance DNA turns numbers into decisions—and decisions into results."
Carsten Stich, Interim Executive and Management Consultant
FINANCE DNA: Numbers as a Management Tool.
Every company tells its story through numbers—you just have to know how to read them. To me, finance DNA isn’t about bookkeeping. It means understanding a company through its economic logic: Where is value created? Where is it destroyed? Where do processes waste resources that are lacking elsewhere? Are the business model and the Target Operating Model (TOM) still viable—and if so, is the entire organization truly aligned with it? No organizational chart or strategy document can answer these questions—only the numbers can.
I dissect companies based on their numbers—and rebuild them. It’s a charming way of putting it, but it accurately describes what I do. I bring this perspective to every leadership role—whether as CEO, CFO, or CRO. And it’s the reason why I can quickly get my bearings in complex, unusual situations while others are still analyzing them.
To be honest, the question may be framed incorrectly—because anyone who truly thinks like an entrepreneur doesn’t separate these two roles at all. An entrepreneur leads and manages finances at the same time. He doesn’t make strategic decisions without knowing their economic consequences—and he doesn’t look at the numbers without immediately asking: What does this mean for leadership, for the organization, for the next step?
In large organizations, the artificial distinction between CEO and CFO arises out of necessity. In exceptional situations where speed and clarity matter, it often becomes an obstacle. I combine both roles in one person—and think like an entrepreneur: holistically, consistently, and always with an eye on the results.
To me, numbers have two aspects—and both are important.
First, oversight: A consistent reporting system shows me whether the organization is operating properly, whether deviations are systemic or one-time occurrences, and whether commitments are being honored. This isn't a matter of mistrust—it's the art of leadership.
Second, navigation: Those who truly understand the numbers can use them as a basis for decision-making—regarding priorities, resources, and changes in direction. In every engagement, I establish this dual transparency early on: control and guidance based on a single data source. Not two separate systems—but a shared view that supports the entire leadership team.
Historical data is the starting point—but not the goal. In a world of increased market volatility and exogenous shocks that are becoming faster and more unpredictable, looking in the rearview mirror isn’t enough. That’s why I work with scenarios from day one: What happens if the market moves in this direction? What if an external shock occurs? What levers do we need to pull then? Anyone who reacts only to actual figures today is always one step behind. Those who think in terms of scenarios can act proactively—and keep the company successful in the market even in uncertain times.
Today, modern AI tools offer excellent support in this regard—whether it’s pattern recognition in large data sets, the simulation of scenarios, or the distillation of complex information into insights relevant to decision-making. I make targeted use of these capabilities—as a tool for improving the basis for decision-making, not as a substitute for entrepreneurial judgment.
INTERIM CEO / CFO / CRO. Why not a permanent employee or a consultant?
The difference lies not in what they offer, but in how they apply it. Throughout my career, I have worked closely with all the major global management consulting firms—and I know how they operate from personal experience, both from my time as a full-time employee and from my own consulting work.
What I learned from this: A consultant can only go so far in terms of detail. They analyze, organize, and make recommendations—but they aren’t involved in day-to-day operations. An interim executive is. This allows me to see problems that don’t appear in the consulting report: how decisions are really made, where processes break down in day-to-day operations, and what the numbers don’t show but people know.
And sometimes this reveals something uncomfortable: that a consulting concept that made sense on paper comes to nothing in the reality of operations—because it never felt the ground beneath its feet. In those moments, the concept isn’t simply implemented—it’s reimagined. This isn’t a criticism of consulting—it’s the logical consequence of the fact that operational depth creates a different perspective. Consulting provides the blueprint. I deliver the result—and bear the consequences personally.
Whenever speed is of the essence, the situation calls for specialized expertise, or the task has a tight deadline. It takes a full-time employee months to get up to speed and build trust. I’m ready to start working in just a few days, bring relevant experience from similar situations right away, and have no interest in the company’s internal politics. That makes me more independent and often faster.
And sometimes that’s exactly what’s needed: a breakwater. Someone who can overcome internal resistance, make difficult decisions, and implement changes that an internal employee—out of consideration for relationships, hierarchies, or their own career—could not or would not make. This independence is not a disadvantage of interim management. It is one of its greatest advantages.
I rarely have to ask the same question about the daily rate twice. What decision-makers report afterward is that the cost of the engagement was a fraction of what inaction would have cost—whether it involved securing liquidity, freeing up tied-up assets, or saving an SAP transformation. The daily rate is the wrong metric. The right one is: What would have happened without this effort?
“Every company has an economic logic. Those who understand it can lead it, turn it around, or realign it — depending on what the situation requires.”
Carsten Stich, Interim Executive and Management Consultant
COLLABORATION. How I Work.
The first few weeks have a clear goal: to achieve 360-degree transparency regarding the company’s overall financial situation—including finances and liquidity, structures and processes, the IT landscape, and the workforce. It is crucial to develop this picture end-to-end, not in silos. The challenge lies in understanding the interconnections between finance, organization, and IT as a single integrated system—because problems almost always arise at the interfaces, not within the individual departments.
This transparency quickly leads to reliable working hypotheses—what the actual causes are, where the greatest need for action lies, and what must be addressed first. And because, based on 25 years of experience, the underlying structure of the problems is almost always the same, initial “quick wins” can be achieved in parallel. Not as a knee-jerk reaction—but because patterns become apparent even before all the data is available.
What is often underestimated here is that these hypotheses are not a fixed foundation, but rather a living, working tool. As the project progresses and transparency increases, they are constantly questioned, adjusted, and, where necessary, completely reevaluated. Exceptional situations are dynamic—new facts come to light, relationships shift, and priorities change. Those who refuse to allow for this end up solving the wrong problem. Flexibility in thought combined with consistency in action—that is the rhythm in which I work.
This can only be achieved through a collaborative partnership with the company's leadership. They understand the context; I bring an outside perspective and my experience. This combination leads to sustainable change—not against the organization, but in partnership with it.
Where others stop, I begin. The more complex and tangled the initial situation, the more at ease I feel—and the clearer my contribution becomes. Acute liquidity crises, stalled transformations, leadership vacuums at the executive board level, organizations that have lost their bearings—these are the situations in which I put my experience to full use. For me, difficult starting points aren’t a risk—they’re my element.
My focus is on medium-sized companies, corporate groups, Private Equity portfolio companies and subsidiaries in Germany and Europe. Industry sectors are secondary to me—my experience ranges from retail, e-commerce, and logistics to luxury goods and fashion, as well as media, chain restaurants, and the trade show and event industry. But ultimately, every company comes down to its financial performance—regardless of the sector. Either it performs well or it doesn’t. You can see that in the data. And that’s exactly where my Finance DNA comes into play.
To me, resistance isn’t a problem—it’s information. It shows me where there’s uncertainty, where interests diverge, or where communication has been lacking. I take resistance seriously, address it directly, and work to turn skeptics into active participants. It doesn’t always work—but it works more often than you might think.
CONSULTING. Operational experience meets strategic consulting.
A statement I heard during my professional career from a partner at a renowned management consulting firm has stayed with me to this day: “I’m afraid I can’t answer that question—I’ve never worked in operations.” This was not an isolated incident. It illustrates a structural problem with traditional consulting: It analyzes from the outside, but it lacks an understanding of the operational reality from the inside.
My approach to consulting is different. I start at the end of the problem—I understand the operational reality, the high-pressure decision-making situations, and the moments when theory collides with reality and fails. When I act as a consultant, I always see things through an operational lens. I work my way forward from the problem, not from a concept to a recommendation. That’s the difference.
If management is generally functioning well but there is a lack of external expertise, an independent perspective, or specific methodological know-how—then consulting is the better solution. Not every unusual situation requires a change in leadership.
What sets my consulting role apart from that of a traditional management consultant, however, is that I identify operational issues immediately—not after weeks of analysis, but from the very first conversation and the first glance at the numbers. And I can translate what I see directly into the language of management: clearly, in a way that’s ready for decision-making, and without resorting to abstract consulting jargon. First, I provide the executive board with an unambiguous assessment of the situation—what the problem really is and where it comes from. No sugarcoating. Only then do I present options for action—based on a foundation that is 100 percent sound. That is the difference between operational consulting experience and traditional consulting logic.
Am I the right partner for your situation?
If you need to stabilize, realign, or guide a company through a complex transformation—and are looking for an interim executive who combines strong leadership with genuine financial expertise— then let’s talk.