CMO vs CRO Conflict: Why Marketing and Sales Misalign
April 22, 2026
The Talent Magnet: How One Executive Hire Attracts More
April 27, 2026
Executive Contract Extensions: When Timing Gets It Wrong
Sergio Pérez and the Long-Term Contract Trap: When Yesterday's Performance Becomes Tomorrow's Problem
Red Bull extended Pérez at his peak. Six months later, they needed a way out.
Nothing about the driver changed. The conditions did.
In June 2024, after Sergio Pérez achieved podium finishes in four of the first five races, Red Bull announced a contract extension through 2026. The decision made sense by every conventional measure. Pérez was performing at his highest level. The team was dominant. Locking in a known quantity alongside Max Verstappen provided stability and continuity.
Then the performance collapsed.
After the contract announcement, Pérez failed to secure a single podium in the next eleven races. He finished the 2024 season eighth in the drivers' standings, 285 points behind Verstappen. By December 2024, Red Bull and Pérez mutually agreed to part ways, roughly six months after signing a two-year extension. Christian Horner acknowledged publicly that the early extension "didn't work."
The most expensive contracts aren't wrong hires. They're right hires, locked at the wrong time.
Performance peaks are the most dangerous moments to commit.
What Happened
Pérez didn't decline. The car moved. Red Bull's development direction evolved throughout 2024 in ways that suited Verstappen's driving style and increasingly didn't suit Pérez's. The car became more sensitive to setup variations. The performance window narrowed. Verstappen, with his extraordinary adaptability, continued extracting performance. Pérez, whose driving style required a more stable rear end, found the car increasingly difficult to manage.
His calibration, which had produced podiums in the first five races, also produced eighth-place finishes in the final stretch. He didn't change. The conditions did.
The contract priced the performance. It ignored the conditions that produced it.
Conditions shift faster than contracts.
The Contract Mistake Companies Make
I've seen this movie across functions.
The VP of Sales who crushed quota during a favorable market cycle and signed a three-year deal just before the market shifted. The conditions that produced the results, strong inbound demand, a favorable competitive landscape, and customers with budget, were transient. The contract was not.
The CFO who managed a successful IPO and negotiated a retention package just before the company entered a phase requiring completely different financial leadership. The IPO required investor communication, regulatory compliance, and public market preparation. The post-IPO phase required cost management, operational finance, and board governance. Same person. Different requirements.
The CMO who built a successful brand campaign and was rewarded with a long-term commitment just before the CEO decided the company needed demand generation, not brand building. The CMO's calibration didn't change. The company's needs did.
In each case, the company locked the past. And had to operate in the future.
Why Companies Keep Making This Mistake
The Retention Instinct
The instinct is right. The instrument is wrong.
The company sees strong performance and fears losing the person producing it. The market for executive talent is competitive. The cost of replacement is real. All of this is true — and none of it justifies a long-term fixed commitment as the response.
Retention fear produces rigid contracts. Rigid contracts fail when conditions move.
The Attribution Instinct
Companies over-attribute performance to people. And underweight, the conditions around them. They reward the driver. They ignore the car.
Pérez didn't produce podiums in the first five races purely through individual effort. He produced them in a car that suited his driving style during a phase when the car's characteristics aligned with his strengths. Red Bull attributed the performance to Pérez. The performance was a product of the Pérez-car fit.
The same dynamic plays out in every executive extension decision. The attribution goes to the person. The conditions that enabled the performance are treated as a permanent backdrop rather than a transient context.
What Condition-Based Contracts Look Like
There's a cleaner way to structure this.
Performance windows instead of fixed terms. Time-based contracts assume stability. Performance-based structures assume change. Instead of a two-year extension, structure the commitment around performance thresholds. The contract continues as long as the defined conditions are met. This protects both sides: the leader has security as long as they perform, and the company has flexibility if conditions shift.
Calibration reviews at defined intervals. At every six- or twelve-month checkpoint, both the company and the leader assess whether the leader's calibration still aligns with the company's conditions. This isn't about performance. It's about fit under current conditions. A strong leader in mismatched conditions isn't underperforming. They're miscalibrated. The conversation is different.
Transition provisions, not just termination clauses. If you don't design the exit early, you'll pay for it late. Pérez and Red Bull needed six months to navigate a situation the contract should have anticipated. A well-designed transition provision would have made December's outcome available in September.
The Broader Lesson
Performance isn't a trait. It's an interaction. Same person. Different conditions. Different results.
Most contracts ignore that.
Pérez, in a car that suits his driving style, is a podium-caliber driver. Pérez, in a car that doesn't, finishes eighth. Same driver. Same talent. Same effort. The VP of Sales in a growth market is a quota-crusher. The same VP of Sales in a market contraction is a consistent miss. Same person. Same skills. Same effort.
The companies that treat performance as a personal trait will consistently misvalue leaders. The companies that treat performance as a person-conditions interaction will price risk more accurately on both sides of the commitment.
The Question
Before you extend any contract, answer one question:
Are the conditions that produced this performance likely to persist for the duration of the proposed commitment?
If the answer is yes, the extension makes sense. If the answer is "probably" or "I'm not sure," the extension should be structured with condition-dependent mechanisms rather than fixed terms.
If you can't answer clearly, you're guessing. And contracts shouldn't be built on guesses.
Red Bull signed Pérez for two years. Six months later, the conditions had changed enough to make the contract untenable. The talent hadn't changed. The conditions had. And the contract couldn't accommodate the difference.
Yesterday's performance proves alignment. Not durability. The risk isn't the person. It's assuming the conditions will stay the same.
Charlie Solórzano is a Managing Partner at Alder Koten, a boutique executive search firm specializing in C-suite and board placements across the U.S. and Mexico markets. He advises founders, investors, and boards on leadership transitions using The Race Conditions Model™, a proprietary diagnostic framework built on the thesis that leadership success is determined by conditions, not credentials.
About to Extend an Executive Contract?
The question isn't whether the executive performed. It's whether the conditions that produced that performance are likely to persist. If you're evaluating a retention commitment and want to pressure-test the timing, let's talk.
Schedule a Confidential ConsultationFrequently Asked Questions
What is the most common mistake companies make when extending executive contracts?
Committing at the peak. Companies see strong performance and move quickly to lock in the executive — but peak performance moments are often the most dangerous time to make long-term commitments. The conditions that produced the strong performance may be transient: favorable market cycles, organizational momentum, a product fit that existed at one stage but won't at the next. The contract prices the performance. It ignores the conditions that produced it.
What is a condition-based executive contract?
A structure that ties the commitment to ongoing conditions rather than fixed time terms. Instead of a two-year extension regardless of what changes, the contract continues as long as defined performance thresholds are met — and includes calibration review points where both the company and the executive assess whether the fit still holds. The goal is to protect the executive's security while preserving the company's flexibility when conditions shift. Time-based contracts assume stability. Performance-based structures assume change.
Why do companies over-attribute performance to executives rather than conditions?
Two instincts drive it. First, retention fear — the company sees strong performance and moves quickly to secure the person producing it, treating the commitment as the only retention tool available. Second, attribution bias — companies naturally credit strong results to the leader in the role, underweighting the market conditions, organizational momentum, and situational tailwinds that contributed to those results. They reward the driver and ignore the car. When conditions change, they're surprised the performance changes with them.
How does the Sergio Pérez contract situation apply to business leadership decisions?
Directly. Red Bull committed to Pérez at his performance peak, attributing the podium results to the driver without sufficiently accounting for the car-driver fit conditions that produced them. When the car's development direction shifted, the fit broke — but the contract remained. The same pattern plays out in every executive retention decision where a company extends a long-term commitment based on recent results without asking whether the conditions that produced those results are likely to persist. Performance isn't a trait. It's an interaction between a person and their conditions.
What question should a board ask before extending an executive's contract?
One: are the conditions that produced this performance likely to persist for the duration of the proposed commitment? If the answer is yes, the extension makes sense. If the answer is "probably" or "I'm not sure," the extension should be structured with condition-dependent mechanisms rather than fixed terms. If the board can't answer clearly, they're guessing — and contracts shouldn't be built on guesses.
What should executive contracts include to protect both parties when conditions change?
Three elements. Performance windows that tie the contract's continuation to defined thresholds rather than fixed time terms. Calibration reviews at regular intervals — not performance reviews, but fit reviews that assess whether the executive's operating style still matches the company's current conditions. And transition provisions that design the exit in advance rather than forcing a costly negotiation when the mismatch becomes undeniable. If you don't design the exit early, you'll pay for it late.
