The decisions made by LEGO management from 1993-2004 led to companywide volatility. This instability, coupled with management team’s lack of accountability, created the environment Jorgen Knudstorp stepped into. The poor management decisions displayed during “the growth period that wasn’t” (1993-1998) and “the fix that wasn’t” can be compiled into two main categories unsupported growth techniques and lack of proper management structure. These two classifications are intertwined at the core of LEGO’s issues.

LEGO management made a choice in 1993 to pursue exponential company growth as they responded to the market change from small local retail stores to large discount supercenters. LEGO incorrectly identified its competitive market towards competing with companies such as Disney and Nike instead of the toy brands in which its sales directly contested. Therefore, LEGO attempted to catchup to the several of the largest companies in the World. In doing so, it created an environment in which management, salesmen, and retailers selling product were never on the same page for over a decade. This improper growth rate was compounded by not focusing on the profit margin and inventory rates. While many of the growth projects were failures there were ideas which led to a positive direction for the company. LEGO expanded to many untapped markets, created Lego land, and began to place itself ahead of the technology curve by creating a web presence. If the focus had been on linear sustainable progress these three projects could have crafted a foundation for LEGO to build on.

While the selected growth pattern was a major factor, the largest contributor to company volatility was the management choices of Poul Plougmann. Plougmann made an executive decision to move around managers on a yearly basis. While the idea to keep managers constantly thinking is positive at its core,