Transformation Should Be a Learning Journey
Corporate transformations fail less because of poor execution than because leaders set a single monolithic goal that gets destabilized by a shifting environment — treating transformation as an iterative learning journey should reduce the initiative fatigue and fragmentation that undermine most change programs.
Summary
Kaganer and Loch (IESE) argue corporate transformations fail less from poor execution than from being managed as fixed-goal, top-down programs whose assumptions get destabilized by a changing environment — the fix is treating transformation as a learning journey with an evolving vision. Drawing on consulting research across 10+ large transformations, they contrast DBS Bank's cumulative, multi-decade journey (RED service → 'Make banking joyful' → 'best bank for a better world', with vision pivots driven by bottom-up learning from initiatives like the 2016 Digibank India pilot) against GE's more traditionally managed and ultimately unsuccessful shift toward software (Predix/GE Digital), which scaled before validating assumptions and never reconciled Predix with its FastWorks culture-change program. They propose sequencing transformation initiatives into four types — pilots (test assumptions), options (build capabilities), established business improvements (near-term ROI), and ventures (scale only once validated) — and three leadership practices to sustain coherence: providing portfolio discipline, welcoming bottom-up ideas, and building pivots into evolving scorecards (DBS grew its transformation-KPI weighting from 15% to 40% over eight years).
Editor's opinion
The core idea — treat transformation as a portfolio of options rather than a fixed roadmap — isn't new; it's real-options and discovery-driven-planning thinking applied to change management, and DBS-vs-GE case comparisons are common ground in the transformation literature. What's useful is the operational detail: DBS's four-way project taxonomy (pilots to test assumptions, options to build capabilities, established-business improvements for early wins, ventures to scale only once validated) and its use of an evolving scorecard to signal shifting priorities as the transformation matured. GE's failure is instructive mainly as a specific illustration of a familiar mistake — scaling before validating — rather than a genuinely new insight.
Key concepts
Transformation fatigue · adaptive change · learning journey