An uncomfortable question that changes everything
The phrase wasn't conceived in a committee meeting or during a presentation.
It was born where real questions arise, in the face of a company that has no room for frills. A company that has gone through bankruptcy—or something nearly as drastic—doesn’t let you “manage” things as usual. It forces you to respond. It forces you to make decisions with incomplete information, to face an uncomfortable truth, and to remember—sometimes brutally—that a company isn’t saved in Excel. It’s saved in the cash flow, in the rhythm, in the credibility, and in the dignity with which you weather the storm.
I remember the moment clearly: as our CEO was wrapping up a marathon strategy meeting, he said—with that perfect blend of exhaustion and clarity that only comes when your ideas have been tested against years of experience in identical situations—a phrase that encapsulated a profound insight:“What if we rewarded failure?”
It wasn't just a whim; it was an honest—albeit risky and ingenious—way of putting a name to a phenomenon we see time and again when recruiting executives for operating holding companies and for acquired companies in difficult situations: the run-of-the-mill executive, who fails not because he is mediocre, but because he is often not cut out for that kind of battle.
And here's the key point: in high-pressure environments, the problem isn't talent. It's a good fit.
When the ground shakes, an organization doesn’t need someone who shines; it needs someone who holds things together. And in these companies, holding things together means very specific things: finances, rhythm, order, integrity, difficult decisions made in a timely manner, conversations no one wants to have, and, above all, the ability to live with the mud without falling in love with it—or maybe you do.
At Cap Capital, we aren’t looking for “tough people.” We’re looking for genuine people. And that means telling the whole truth: it’s not about glorifying failure. It’s about recognizing the leadership that is forged when failure forces you to learn the hard way.
Europe needs industry again, and industry needs character again
What some see as a trend is beginning to become a strategic necessity for Europe.
European institutions have once again brought to the forefront a set of terms that for years seemed outdated: competitiveness, industrial capacity, resilience, technology, security, and sovereignty. The European Commission itself has presented its 2024–2029 agenda as a plan to boost competitiveness, simplify regulations, and support industry through initiatives such as a Clean Industrial Deal, in addition to strengthening technology dissemination and ambition in AI.
At the same time, Europe has made it clear that the defense industry can no longer be treated as “just another sector”: it must be a capability that is available when needed, in sufficient quantity and at the right time; that is why a Europe-wide defense industrial strategy is being proposed.
Behind that institutional rhetoric lies a much more concrete reality: Europe has finally realized that competitiveness cannot be sustained by regulation alone, nor by capital, nor by rhetoric. It is sustained by industrial capacity, applied technology, critical infrastructure, energy, defense, robust supply chains, and execution. This combination—competitiveness and critical industry—has a direct consequence for the corporate world: pressure is mounting to acquire, integrate, restructure, and professionalize real companies, often in environments where capital demands speed and the market does not forgive improvisation.
And that is exactly the conversation in which Cap Capital.
Our Future Plan 2026–2029 does not describe a mere holding company. It describes a European industrial operator that has decided to concentrate capital, methodology, and execution capabilities on three major fronts: robotics and artificial intelligence; energy and critical infrastructure, particularly telecommunications; and aerospace and defense. We are not building a portfolio of subsidiaries to simply observe from afar. We are building a system to analyze, acquire, integrate, structure, and grow real companies—often in areas where others see only decline or complexity.
That is why this reflection is not merely an exercise in abstract thought. It is a business necessity. If Europe truly wants to reindustrialize, strategy and funding alone will not suffice. It will require operators capable of stepping in to struggling companies and breathing new life into them.
Turnaround and M&A: Why the Market Keeps Hiring the Wrong Kind of Candidate
The M&A world has learned—sometimes the hard way—that closing a deal isn't the end; it's just the start of the real work.
The Boston Consulting Group put it bluntly: in transactions requiring a turnaround, the most critical factor is the willingness to act quickly. According to their analysis, launching the turnaround within the first year after the deal closed generated 12 percentage points more in TSR than waiting did.
There is something almost moral about that figure: it doesn't reward rhetoric; it rewards thoughtful action.
When it comes to execution, the question isn’t “Who’s brilliant?” The question is: Who can act without putting on a show when everything is urgent?
In complex integrations, even before the deal closes, planning and the ability to work with limited information can determine the actual pace at which synergies are realized. McKinsey has described how "clean teams" can accelerate critical integration tasks and, in doing so, accelerate the realization of synergies.
In times of financial distress, a figure emerges that the market is familiar with but does not always fully understand: the CRO (Chief Restructuring Officer). Roland Berger emphasizes that the complexity of restructuring is increasing and that, due to a lack of in-house expertise, companies are increasingly turning to CROs—not merely to “offer opinions,” but to take action.
And Alvarez & Marsal translates this into operational terms: stabilization, a focus on liquidity, reporting schedules, and, when necessary, interim CRO roles to help the organization regain control and restore stakeholder confidence.
So far, it all sounds technical. But the hardest part isn't technical.
The hardest part is the human aspect.
Professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter made this clear in one of the classic texts on turnarounds: a company in decline needs more than just a financial or strategic fix. It needs a psychological turnaround. Because when an organization falls, it’s not just the margins that take a hit. Confidence, clarity, open communication, and the ability to speak the truth in a timely manner also suffer. Secrecy, avoidance, blame, cynicism, and endless meetings take hold. Reviving the company means restoring internal trust before seeking external trust.
That’s where the “textbook manager” falls short: when they realize that the real work isn’t about optimizing a system, but about rebuilding a community.
And that, more often than not, is where turnover begins. Not because of a lack of intellectual ability, but because of a lack of “skill.”
What the research says about failing well
It’s important to guard against the simplistic version of this idea. Failure, in and of itself, doesn’t make anyone better. Sometimes it just leaves you with wounded pride, exhaustion, or a convenient excuse not to take risks again.
But there is a different, much more demanding question that does reveal character: What did that person do with failure?
At HBS, I was fortunate enough to explore this theory with Amy Edmondson, my professor in the Leadership and Management course. I remember it not for its academic value, but for its practical application: Amy didn’t teach us to “celebrate” mistakes; she taught us to categorize them, to distinguish between what is avoidable and what is inevitable, and to build organizations that learn without deceiving themselves.
That is the core message of *The Right Kind of Wrong*: not all failures are the same. Edmondson distinguishes between basic, complex, and intelligent failures. The first type is usually preventable. The second arises from the interaction of multiple variables. The third occurs when an organization explores new territory and, precisely because of that, learns.
Her most transformative—and most misunderstood—contribution is psychological safety. In her research, she defines it as the shared belief that the team is safe to take interpersonal risks: asking questions, disagreeing, admitting a mistake, pointing out a risk. This isn’t “do-goodism.” And she herself has made it clear time and again: psychological safety isn’t about being nice; it’s about creating an environment where you can give honest feedback, acknowledge mistakes, and learn quickly.
What’s fascinating is that this idea, which originated in business school, became widely adopted when Google studied team effectiveness and concluded that it mattered less “who is on the team” and more “how the team works”; the first dynamic was psychological safety.
And here we come to a concept that is of direct strategic importance to operating holding companies and portfolios undergoing integration: teaming. Edmondson describes it as the ability to collaborate seamlessly within changing structures, where teams are not static and execution and learning occur simultaneously. It is not about designing “the perfect team,” but rather about leading real collaborations that learn as they execute.
Now then: What does this have to do with “rewarding failure”?
Everything, if we're honest.
Because a company in distress tends to foster the opposite of psychological safety: silence, fear, back-channel communication, and endless meetings. And that stifles learning, distorts information, and makes every decision more costly.
That’s why a leader who has experienced a setback and truly learned from it usually brings three things that are invaluable during a turnaround:
- First, less vanity and more reality.
- Second, more speed to prioritize.
- Third, greater respect for operational truth.
Economic evidence, moreover, also calls for a more nuanced view of this narrative. The National Bureau of Economic Research has shown, for example, that entrepreneurs with a track record of success tend to be more likely to succeed in the future than those who have failed before; there is learning involved, yes, but “prior failure” is not an automatic mark of quality.
So why keep bringing it up?
Because what we're looking for isn't failure. It's the scar that serves a purpose.
In fact, Europe is attempting to institutionalize this maturity through explicit “second chance” policies: the Commission speaks of offering honest entrepreneurs a second chance after bankruptcy and of frameworks for preventive restructuring, and European regulations have established, for example, maximum periods for debt relief under certain conditions.
The world is saying, in different ways, the same thing: don’t romanticize the coup; learn to read the lessons it left behind.
CapCapital: Industry with a method, and a method with a soul
At Cap Capital, this conversation isn't a manifesto. It's an operational necessity.
We are an industrial and investment holding company focused on reindustrializing Europe through the acquisition and development of companies with growth potential, including those undergoing financial restructuring or generational transition. We do this by concentrating our investments in three sectors: robotics and AI; energy and telecommunications infrastructure; and aerospace and defense. Our investment capacity, our sector focus, and, above all, our engagement model place us in a very specific position: we are not purely financial investors. We are industrial operators.
That is why our approach matters just as much as our vision. We do not buy simply to accumulate. We invest to restructure, professionalize, and integrate. Our Future Plan 2026–2029 organizes this approach into very clear phases: analysis and decision-making; integration and restructuring; consolidation and growth. It also establishes a principle that, in these types of environments, is almost a law of physics: what isn’t reported doesn’t exist; what strays is corrected. And it establishes an essential principle to avoid the pitfalls of so many holding companies: we provide methodology, standards, monitoring, governance, and support, but day-to-day executive responsibility belongs to the CEO of each company. We help, drive, monitor, and provide a framework; we do not create dual leadership structures.
That's it for the strategy.
Now, let's take a look at our culture.
Cap Capital upholds an idea that is rare in a market saturated with sophisticated cynicism: growth is legitimate only when it is built on dignity, responsibility, and a sense of duty. We believe in an economy with a purpose, guided by faith, innovation, and responsibility. We believe that business can be a tool for the common good. And we believe, without reservation, that decent work remains one of the most effective ways to combat poverty. It is no coincidence that one of our most profound expressions is Companies Against Poverty.
And this ethical framework, paradoxically, does not make business easier; it disciplines it.
Because when a company faces pressure, leadership is revealed in what it protects. It protects the bottom line, yes. But it also protects its word, fairness, people’s dignity, the accuracy of data, the consistency of decisions, and the long-term vision.
Our values aren't just a list for show. They're our operating system.
- Judgment: the ability to make decisions based on incomplete information without distorting reality.
- Accountability, so that every problem has someone responsible for it and does not get lost in ambiguity.
- Right, so we can increase the detour in time.
- Strictness, so as not to confuse understanding with permissiveness.
- Dignity, to make tough decisions without humiliating others.
- Frame-mounted storage, offering freedom without inviting clutter.
- Execution, because ideas only matter when they become reality.
- Service through leadership, because leadership here does not mean seeking privilege, but rather taking on a burden.
- Restraint, because noise has never been synonymous with authority.
That’s what we strive to put into practice when a company enters the integration phase. We apply this approach when reporting systems need to be standardized, when cash flow management needs to be streamlined, when a management structure needs to be rebuilt, when a committee ceases to be merely symbolic and becomes a center of command, when a CEO needs real support rather than empty platitudes, and when a manufacturing plant can no longer survive on explanations alone and requires decisive action.
In our context, culture isn't just a department. Culture is a way of operating under pressure without losing sight of our goals.
Who is this article aimed at, and what discussion do we want to spark?
If you've made it this far, this text may have struck a chord with you for one reason: it doesn't describe a "job." It describes a life story.
This is not a call to those seeking office. It is a call to those who recognize the calling.
We are looking for N1 candidates (corporate executives managing portfolio divisions) and N2 candidates (executives and functional managers at portfolio companies) who are capable of taking the lead where others would merely offer advice.
But to put it that simply wouldn't do it justice. What we're really looking for can't be summed up in a job description.
- We are looking for people who paid their employees' salaries even when the treasury was running on a shoestring budget;
- That they have negotiated with suppliers and creditors, knowing that trust is earned through actions;
- who have made difficult professional or legal decisions without compromising their dignity in the process;
- who have learned to “see” the company from the inside—its finances, operations, and culture—without deluding themselves;
- and yet, they retain something that cannot be bought: the willingness to serve by helping to rebuild.
We don't reward failure. We reward what happens when someone falls, gets back up, doesn't make excuses, and returns with a clearer perspective, better skills, and less arrogance.
So, if this story sounds like yours, we have a conversation to have—and it’s well worth it. Tell us your story: Contact Cap Capital
José M. Del Río – Group CHRO
