Our managing partner, Jurjan Klep, explores why execution is the real risk in transformation programs and highlights four critical (and often underestimated) success factors. 

Executive summary 

Transformations are critical. But when poorly executed, they can do more harm than good. In today’s fast-moving world, businesses must adapt to stay competitive. Yet despite clear strategies and strong ambitions, transformations often fail, not because of bad ideas, but because of flawed execution.

This article explores why execution is the real risk in transformation programs and highlights four critical (and often underestimated) success factors: 

1. Align priorities between headquarters and the business 
2. Allocate sufficient resources; don’t stretch to the breaking Point
3. Create capacity for effective change management
4. Deliver with discipline: execution, execution, execution

If transformation is on your agenda, this is what you need to get it right. Or risk damaging the very business you’re trying to improve. 

Introduction 

Business transformations, especially in mature markets, are becoming a constant priority on the C-suite agenda. With the world changing at high speed, businesses can’t afford to lag behind. Rapid technological shifts, increasing (cyber) risks, geopolitical instability, evolving consumer behavior, regulatory pressure, and rising costs are just a few of the forces driving leadership to stay ahead of the curve to remain competitive.

But if the need for transformation is so obvious, and widely acknowledged, why do so many efforts still fail? Or worse, why do they sometimes end up damaging the business they were meant to improve?

This article is the first in a two-part series. In the second article, I will explore practical approaches and frameworks that can help mitigate the business risk of transformation.

The transformation journey

The journey often begins behind closed doors with a small group of executives aligned on the need for change. This could involve a new strategy, a growth program, a post-merger integration, or the introduction of a new operating model. 

External consultants are typically brought in to conduct a six-to-eight-week growth diligence review. After identifying the key levers and opportunities, an ambition is set. A transformation team is formed, a governance model is defined, and communication plans are prepared. On “D-Day,” the rollout begins. A top-down cascading approach is used to mobilize teams across the organization. So far, so good.

As implementation kicks off, teams are energized, despite the challenging tasks ahead. But fast-forward 6–9 months, and things begin to slip. Workstreams that were green turn amber or red. Timelines fall behind. Energy dips. Why?

Why is execution so difficult, despite all the research, frameworks, and lessons available?

There are many theories on why transformations fail. This article explores four often overlooked but critical factors that can make or break a transformation:

1. Align priorities between headquarters and the business

Headquarters typically focus on long-term competitiveness, using KPIs such as revenue growth, cost optimization, and cash flow. Strategic initiatives and transformation programs are designed to ensure shareholder return and future resilience.

Meanwhile, business units, operating companies or market organizations often deliver the annual budget tied to investor guidance. Their focus is necessarily short-term, based on 12–18 month forecasts and immediate performance.

In theory, a 50/50 balance between “running the business” and “moving the business” would be ideal. In reality, it’s often 20/80 at headquarters and 80/20 in the business. But transformation requires aligned priorities across both sides. Without that, strategic ambitions and operational realities will pull in opposite directions, and both will suffer.

2. Allocate sufficient resources; don’t stretch to the breaking point

Cost savings are often part of a transformation, and cutting management layers is a classic lever. Lower level managers are promoted, and critical responsibilities are retained, at lower cost. A key milestone is achieved quickly and visibly.

But what’s the downstream impact?

These newly promoted leaders must now operate at a higher level and take on more work in a leaner structure. It’s a stretch but one that seems manageable given their talent.

Yet the question is: can they lead the transformation on top of everything else? Were transformation capabilities part of the selection criteria? Managing a new team, new responsibilities, and a transformation, all at once, is a serious load.

Restructuring is often necessary. But timing is critical. Implementing it when the business is already under pressure can jeopardize both performance and transformation.

Leaders need capacity and not just ambition to deliver on both operational results and strategic change.

3. Create capacity for effective change management

Managing change is a leadership responsibility. Whether you use ADKAR, Kotter’s 8 Steps, or another framework, the success of change depends on those leading it.

The “why” is usually clear and well communicated. The challenge lies in the “how”, especially when newly promoted leaders are tasked with driving it. These leaders often have little time to apply formal change methods. They’re running day-to-day operations, managing new teams, and executing a transformation. Often simultaneously.

The result? Change management becomes deprioritized or skipped entirely. Not because of lack of intent, but because of overload.

This isn’t an HR failure, it’s a capacity issue in the business. If leaders don’t have the mental and practical space to lead change, the transformation will fail. No matter how strong the strategy.

Give leaders the capacity and not just the responsibility to drive change.

4. Deliver with discipline: Execution, Execution, Execution

Execution is often (wrongly) viewed as something that happens at lower levels of the organization. Strategy is for the top; execution is for the operators.

But without execution, even the best strategy fails. 

Effective execution requires: 

• Aligned priorities across HQ and business units
• Balanced focus on short-term performance and long-term transformation
• Rigorous governance and performance management
• Sufficient resourcing and adaptability
• Room to react when assumptions break down (as they always do)

Execution is often resource-intensive, especially early in the transformation process. Long-term success depends on short-term stability. If restructuring undermines business continuity, the transformation may collapse under its own weight.

Good execution is not accidental. It must be designed, supported, and continuously reinforced.

Conclusion

Most transformations fail not because of bad ideas, but because of poor execution.

Execution breaks down when:

• Headquarters and business units are misaligned
• Leaders are overstretched
• Change is poorly managed
• Timing and resources are misjudged

If you want to transform without breaking your business, don’t underestimate the execution risk. It’s not the final step. It’s the foundation. 

This article was written by Jurjan Klep.