Not enough time to read the full article? Listen to the summary in 2 minutes.

Nearshoring to Poland has become one of the defining industrial strategies of the past five years. Western European manufacturers, automotive suppliers and private equity platforms have moved production east to protect margins, shorten supply chains and regain control over cost volatility.

From a strategic perspective, the logic is clear. Poland offers a deep industrial base, strong engineering capability, reliable infrastructure and full EU regulatory alignment. Many relocation projects launch successfully. Production lines start running, capacity expands and customers continue to be served.

Yet twelve to twenty-four months later, performance often trails the original thesis.

Nearshoring to Poland rarely fails at the level of strategy. More often, underperformance emerges because leadership structures and control systems do not evolve with the same rigor as the physical relocation of production.

Strategy Is Clear. The Operating Model Often Is Not

Most nearshoring decisions are built on a disciplined financial case. Executives typically evaluate several predictable advantages:

• lower labor cost structure compared to Western Europe
• stronger logistics positioning inside the EU market
• increased manufacturing capacity
• improved supply chain resilience

The capital expenditure is approved, the relocation project is executed and production begins.

What often receives less attention is the operating model that will govern the new plant once the transfer is complete.

Nearshoring is not simply the movement of equipment. It requires a redesign of how authority, reporting and performance control operate across borders. When that redesign remains incomplete, the factory may run efficiently from a technical perspective while the management structure behind it remains fragile.

The weakness is rarely visible on day one.

The Leadership Gap That Business Cases Rarely Model

Most nearshored facilities operate inside a dual structure.

Local management in Poland is responsible for daily execution while headquarters retains strategic oversight and financial expectations. The assumption is that both layers will naturally align around common objectives such as cost discipline, service reliability and quality stability.

In practice, ambiguity often appears quickly.

Operational teams begin to face questions that were not fully defined during the relocation decision:

• Who ultimately owns cross-border production planning?
• Who resolves trade-offs between delivery reliability and cost targets?
• Who holds final authority when local operating realities conflict with headquarters expectations?

During the early ramp-up phase these tensions remain manageable because management attention is high. Senior executives visit frequently, reporting discipline is tight and communication across sites is constant.

As the initial transition stabilizes, however, structural gaps begin to surface.

Supervisory layers in the Polish facility may carry broader spans of control than legacy Western plants. Mid-level managers may have less experience navigating multinational reporting environments. Financial controllers often find themselves reconciling local operational realities with group margin expectations.

These challenges rarely reflect weak talent. In most cases they reveal gaps in leadership structure and operating governance.

Operational Drift: The First Signs

When leadership density and control architecture are not aligned with operational complexity, a predictable pattern begins to emerge.

Common warning signals include:

• OEE performance falling below modeled assumptions without clear ownership of root causes
• Working capital expanding as safety stock levels increase
• additional capex required to correct operational imbalances
• quality fluctuations that require containment actions
• KPI interpretations drifting between headquarters and the Polish site

None of these indicators signal a dramatic failure. Instead, they signal gradual drift.

Nearshoring business cases often assume that once production stabilizes, efficiency will naturally converge toward the modeled targets. In reality, efficiency requires continuous alignment between strategy, leadership and operational discipline.

Without that alignment, production continues but margin improvement stalls.

Why Underperformance Often Appears in Year Two

One of the most common misconceptions about relocation projects is that success can be confirmed within the first six months.

The early stage of a transfer absorbs visible turbulence. Commissioning delays, supplier adjustments and workforce onboarding dominate management attention. Executive visits are frequent and operational reporting remains intense.

The real test often begins later.

1. Ramp-Up Phase

During the first year, organizations focus heavily on stabilizing output. Production volumes are protected and management involvement remains high.

2. Stabilization Phase

Once operations appear stable, leadership attention gradually shifts toward other priorities across the group. Headquarters may assume the Polish facility is fully embedded within the manufacturing network, and local management gains more autonomy.

3. Drift Phase

Over time, small inefficiencies begin to settle into everyday routines. Overtime becomes structural rather than temporary. Inventory buffers grow as protection against uncertainty. Coordination challenges between sites persist longer than expected.

Because production volumes remain stable, the gradual erosion of margin often remains hidden for several reporting cycles.

By the time performance gaps appear clearly in consolidated financial results, the issue is no longer ramp-up turbulence. It is operating system misalignment.

Nearshoring Requires Governance, Not Only Investment

Poland itself is not the weak link in nearshoring strategies. The country continues to offer one of the strongest industrial ecosystems in Central and Eastern Europe, supported by skilled labor, experienced suppliers and strong logistics infrastructure.

What determines long-term success is governance depth.

Sustainable nearshoring programs typically establish five structural elements:

i. Clear cross-border decision rights between headquarters and local management

ii. Defined KPI ownership across plants and functions

iii. Strong integration between financial control and operational execution

iv. Explicit authority structures for resolving cost versus service trade-offs

v. Adequate supervisory capacity during the stabilization phase

When these governance elements are not designed deliberately, leadership gaps can emerge even in technically capable organizations.

At this stage boards often revisit their original assumptions. The discussion shifts from evaluating whether the strategic move was correct to determining whether the organization has sufficient leadership capacity to control what it has built.

In complex manufacturing environments companies sometimes reinforce governance with experienced interim executives during periods of operational drift. An interim COO, plant director or operational stabilization leader can concentrate accountability and restore execution rhythm while permanent structures mature.

The goal is not to redesign the strategy. The goal is to ensure that the strategy delivers.

Poland Is Not the Risk. Operational Drift Is.

Nearshoring to Poland remains a rational and often necessary response to industrial pressures within Europe. The opportunity is real and continues to attract investment from manufacturers across multiple sectors.

However, strategy without strong governance remains vulnerable.

When leadership authority is fragmented and performance control is thin, operational drift gradually replaces margin improvement. By the time the problem becomes visible at board level, the gap is harder to correct.

Nearshoring failures rarely appear as dramatic collapses. More often they take the form of slow deviations from the original thesis, driven by leadership and control gaps rather than by weaknesses in the location itself.

Organizations that succeed are not those that relocate production the fastest. They are those that rebuild governance and leadership structures with the same discipline that they apply to moving machines.

That is what ultimately turns nearshoring into a durable competitive advantage rather than a strategic experiment.