The first thing to understand in turning a business around is that the people who got you into the mess most probably can't get you out of it. That is because lateral thinking is required, and senior managers are usually heavily invested in the status quo. This is one reason for giving senior managers golden parachutes, it makes it slightly easier for them to come to the conclusion that maybe they are part of the problem, not the solution, and that they had better go.
The second thing I think you can assume is that the review will not provide any tangible results beyond the useless "work smarter not harder" mantra. My guess is that the Board and senior managers are still following "the script", so the review has to follow it too.
What is required is a new Board and CEO chosen carefully to ensure that narcissist are excluded, followed by a careful weeding out of narcissists from all levels of management. I have yet to see this attempted, let alone succeed, in any business in the world - yet, although HR people are just beginning to wake up to this problem that I have been writing about for at least Five years.
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
http://www.dattnerconsulting.com/pre...narcissism.pdf
Youth increasingly narcissistic says psychologist Jean Twenge
You need a chairman who understands that his job is to make it possible for all managers and employees to succeed in the tasks they are given. You then have to drive that idea and thinking right through the organisation. It is the exact reverse thinking of the current Board and management of the company as far as I can tell. That type of thinking was implicit in that comment from Jackson, Dixon or some such that: "The Board has done more for the success of this company than any employee" - that type of thinking is poisonous.
I don't think any of this is going to happen. I think QF is going to be a basket case from which a few remnants might be saved. Oil prices are going to kill the LCC model.