Is Transformation a Failed Concept?

Most organizational transformations do not fail in a dramatic way. They do not collapse under a single bad decision or an obvious misstep. Instead, they fade. Momentum slows, attention drifts, and eventually the work quietly dissolves back into “how things really get done.” Steering meetings become shorter and less frequent. Progress decks stop getting updated. Leaders move on to the next priority. Teams return to the work that actually keeps the business running. The organization declares success and moves on.

This pattern is so common that it raises an uncomfortable question: Is transformation itself the wrong concept?

Why are transformations flawed?

The issue is not the desire to improve. Most organizations genuinely want to be better, faster, more responsive, and more resilient. The problem lies in how improvement is framed. The word “transformation” implies a before-and-after, a finish line, and a new steady state that will hold once the effort is complete. Transformation initiatives are typically launched as programs, complete with timelines, roadmaps, rollouts, and governance structures. They promise that if the organization follows the plan, things will be different on the other side.

The problem is that there is no “other side.”

Organizations do not operate in stable conditions. Markets shift, customer expectations evolve, technology accelerates, leadership changes, and budgets tighten. Work does not pause during a transformation. When change is framed as a temporary program, it competes with reality. People continue to do their real jobs because the real job never stops. Transformation work becomes an additional burden layered on an already strained system.

This is where the transformation concept begins to break down. It does not fail because people resist change. It fails because it treats change as an event rather than as a capability. It assumes organizations can step out of normal operations, reinvent themselves, and then return to a stable state. That assumption no longer matches reality. When pressure increases, the “change work” is the first thing to be set aside.

One way to see this clearly is to ask a few simple questions.

What broke first — trust, flow, or focus?

In struggling organizations, one of these cracks almost always comes first. Trust erodes when leaders speak about change while continuing to reward the same behaviors and protect the same power structures. Flow breaks when work becomes trapped behind approvals, handoffs, dependencies, and internal politics. Focus collapses when everything is labeled urgent, priorities shift constantly, and nothing is allowed to finish. Once any of these breaks, transformation turns into performance. People learn the language, attend the ceremonies, and survive the program without changing how work actually happens.

What do teams need less of right now?

Most teams do not need more process, more tools, or another framework introduced as a universal solution. What they need is less noise. Less work in progress. Less interruption. Less churn. Less executive drive-by prioritization. Less urgency is placed on appearance than on necessity. When leaders keep adding more in the name of improvement, teams do not become more adaptable. They become more exhausted.

What is the constraint no one wants to name?

A common Agile example makes this visible very quickly.

An organization declares it wants “empowered, self-managing teams.” Teams are told to plan their own work, respond to customer feedback, and improve continuously. On paper, the teams look Agile. They run sprints, hold retrospectives, and manage backlogs.

But funding is still approved annually, down to specific projects and scope. Priority changes require executive approval. Dependencies across teams are resolved through monthly steering committees. Success is measured by delivery against original plans rather than learning or outcomes.

In this system, the constraint is not the teams’ ability to work in an Agile way. The constraint is the operating model wrapped around them.

Teams cannot truly adapt because the funding model punishes change. They cannot respond quickly because decision authority sits several layers above them. They cannot improve flow because work is batched, approved, and reapproved to satisfy governance designed for predictability, not learning.

Leadership says it wants adaptability, but the system demands certainty.

That tension is the real constraint. Until it is named and addressed, Agile becomes a performance rather than a capability. Teams appear busy. Leaders feel informed. But the organization itself does not get better at responding to change.

If the transformation model is flawed, what should replace it?

The answer is not another methodology or a better rollout plan. It is a shift in focus from change programs to building the infrastructure that enables continuous change. This infrastructure is human and organizational, not just technical. It defines how work enters the system, how decisions are made, how priorities are set, and how learning and adapting happen.

When organizations build this kind of infrastructure, improvement stops being something that requires a special initiative. It becomes part of normal work. Teams can learn quickly, adjust intentionally, and improve continuously without waiting for the next transformation to be announced. The focus shifts from optimizing individual teams to fixing the system that shapes their behavior.

This is why it is time to move past transformation as the dominant change approach. Episodic change creates exhaustion, theater, and dependency on the next initiative. It teaches organizations to wait for permission to improve rather than develop the ability to do so on purpose.

Organizations that achieve long-term success are not those that undergo a single transformation and proclaim success. Instead, they are the ones who can continuously adapt without requiring a formal announcement, initiation, or program to validate change. They cease waiting for the next transformation. By cultivating the capacity for ongoing adaptation, they distinguish themselves from organizations that consistently encounter the same failures every few years, thereby maintaining performance and growth.

---

If you're interested in hearing the perspectives, listen to this ACN Podcast: