A conversation with Nelson Trejo, President, Epiroc Parts & Services Americas
Epiroc’s Parts & Services Division (PSD) is a global organization operating across regions, business lines, and time zones. Following a major structural transformation, the formal organization was in place — yet questions remained around how leadership, decision-making, and collaboration worked in everyday practice.
About a year after the structural changes had been implemented, PSD invited Nordic School of Management to support a focused analysis of how leadership actually functioned in the new setup — and how management structures and agendas could be optimized for the next phase.
In this conversation, Nelson Trejo, President of Parts & Services North and South America, reflects on how listening, analysis, and dialogue led to concrete leadership decisions — and how those changes affected both ways of working and the people involved.
What made you decide to initiate this collaboration at that point?
From a formal perspective, the organization was already in place. But leadership is experienced in practice — in meetings, priorities, decision paths, and collaboration across boundaries. Personally, I felt that while people were committed and working hard, there was some uncertainty about where leadership focus should really be. I also sensed that we weren’t always spending our time on the most important questions together.
Rather than acting on assumptions, I wanted us to slow down and really understand how the organization was experienced across PSD. That’s what triggered the collaboration.
How did you go about building that understanding?
We started by listening — seriously listening. As part of the collaboration, NSM designed and conducted 20 in-depth interviews with leaders from different regions, roles, and parts of PSD. For many, it was the first time they were invited to reflect openly on how leadership and collaboration actually worked in practice.
NSM also integrated a science-based survey and analysis developed by WHOLE, grounded in research from Linköping University. The survey confirmed some things we already suspected, but it also revealed patterns we hadn’t fully seen — for example around informal leadership, role clarity, and engagement. What I appreciated was how this helped us move beyond gut feeling and anchor our discussions in both experience and research. Having brief input from the researchers behind the instrument also helped build confidence in the analysis. This wasn’t opinion — it was insight grounded in data and research.
What difference did that insight make?
It created a shared picture. Leaders could see themselves and the organization more clearly — and that made conversations both easier and more honest. Importantly, it helped us separate issues of structure from issues of leadership practice. Some things didn’t need another reorganization; they needed clarity, better agendas, or different ways of working together. That distinction saved us a lot of energy.
What concrete actions followed?
After each workshop, the NSM consultants shared their observations and recommendations, which helped turn insight into concrete decisions. We established a PSD Executive Team to replace the previous steering committee, clarified its mandate, agenda, and chairmanship, and revised leadership forums to reduce overlap and meeting load. We also worked on clarifying global roles and reporting lines, and on how the presidents collaborate across divisions while maintaining accountability for their own areas.
But just as important as the structural changes was what happened in the leadership teams themselves. The workshops gave us time to focus on the right questions together. People felt involved, listened to, and responsible for the outcomes — which increased engagement and commitment.
How did this affect collaboration and team dynamics?
There is a noticeable difference. Conversations are more focused, and collaboration feels more deliberate. Leaders are clearer about expectations and decision rights, which reduces friction. I’ve also seen higher trust across the leadership group. When people feel heard and understand why changes are made, they engage differently. That has strengthened our collective ability to deal with complexity — not by simplifying everything, but by working together more effectively.
Looking back, what stands out to you personally?
For me, the most important thing is that this wasn’t just a reflective exercise. Listening led to action — and the actions stuck. The balance between analysis, dialogue, and decision-making was key. We didn’t just talk about leadership; we improved how we lead, together. That has had a real impact on both performance and how people experience leadership in PSD.
And looking ahead — how does this position PSD for the future?
PSD operates in an increasingly complex and demanding environment. This journey with NSM has strengthened not only our structures, but our ability to lead together with clarity and intent as we move forward. For me, that is what positions PSD for future growth. Strong leadership practices, high trust, and clear priorities give us the foundation to move faster and make better decisions as complexity increases. Listening, in this sense, isn’t a pause in leadership—it’s a capability we will keep building as PSD continues to expand and evolve.