For decades, organizational leaders have grappled with a persistent and often demoralizing reality: the high failure rate of change initiatives. Despite meticulous planning, robust resource allocation, and enthusiastic initial buy-in, a significant percentage of transformations falter, disappearing into the corporate ether or languishing in perpetual discussion. While common explanations like unfavorable market conditions, insufficient budgets, or logistical hurdles are frequently cited, a seasoned CEO and executive coach with nearly 30 years of experience offers a starkly different perspective. The fundamental impediment, he contends, often resides not within the organization’s structure or external environment, but within the leader themselves.
This assertion stems from extensive observation across numerous industries, witnessing firsthand how well-intentioned change efforts lose momentum. McKinsey & Company’s research consistently highlights this challenge, with estimates suggesting that up to 70 percent of organizational change initiatives fail to meet their objectives. The author’s journey from operator to CEO and then to executive coach has provided a unique vantage point to dissect these patterns, moving beyond superficial justifications to uncover the deeper, more human-centric reasons for stagnation.
Early in his tenure as CEO, the author admits to a tendency towards indecisiveness, driven by a desire to maintain consensus and avoid disruption. This caution, he reflects, was a misinterpretation of organizational readiness, mistaking personal discomfort for a lack of preparedness within the company. He recounts making difficult, even disruptive, decisions, such as a significant carve-out transaction, which, while uncomfortable and impactful for those involved, ultimately proved to be the more prudent course than inaction. The underlying lesson is clear: the risk of stagnation often far outweighs the risk of necessary change, however challenging it may initially appear.
The patterns of stalled change are deeply human and readily rationalized, according to the author. He identifies three primary culprits: straightforward delay, activity mistaken for progress, and adherence to outdated leadership playbooks.
The Specter of Delay and Activity Masquerading as Progress
Straightforward delay involves leaders who recognize the necessity of change but perpetually find reasons to postpone action, citing the need for more data, waiting for a more opportune moment, or hoping the situation will resolve itself. The cost of such delays is insidious, not immediately visible on a profit and loss statement, but compounding week after week. This is compounded by activity that is mistaken for progress. Meetings are convened, updates are shared, and reports are generated, creating an illusion of movement. However, nothing fundamentally shifts because the leader avoids the uncomfortable decisions that are the bedrock of genuine transformation. The leader is managing the appearance of progress rather than driving tangible change.
A particularly poignant example of this phenomenon is the challenge of succession planning and managing underperforming long-tenured employees. The author notes that leaders often delay difficult conversations or decisive actions regarding individuals who are no longer performing at the required level, but who have demonstrated loyalty. This avoidance is frequently rooted in concerns about how such decisions will be perceived by others within the organization, or a misplaced sense of personal loyalty. The hope is that the situation will improve organically, or that the employee will eventually self-correct. However, the delay often exacerbates the problem, leading to a more significant performance gap and a more difficult resolution when it can no longer be postponed.
Navigating the Legacy of Past Successes
The third significant impediment is leading from a playbook that no longer fits the current context. The author shares his personal experience of succeeding a founder whose leadership style was deeply authentic to his personality and the company’s early stage. While honoring the founder’s legacy was important, replicating his exact approach would have been a disservice to the organization’s evolution. Internalizing this distinction—leading authentically to one’s own style while upholding core values—took years. This highlights a common challenge: leaders can become so entrenched in what worked previously that they fail to adapt their approach to new realities and evolving organizational needs. The temptation to adhere to familiar methods, even when they are no longer effective, is a powerful force.
The implications of this stalled change are far-reaching and detrimental to organizational morale. When change initiatives falter, uncertainty becomes a pervasive undercurrent. Employees, particularly high-performers, begin to notice the lack of decisive leadership. Small frustrations accumulate, leading to a perception that obstacles are insurmountable rather than solvable. This can result in disengagement or attrition, as talented individuals seek environments where progress is tangible and leadership is decisive. While the leader may believe they are exercising thoughtful deliberation, the team often interprets these actions as indecision or, worse, a lack of commitment to the organization’s future.
The Inner Compass: Self-Awareness and Organizational Absorption
The author’s reflection extends to his own natural inclinations, as revealed by the Kolbe A Index assessment. His high "Quick Start" score indicates a strong orientation towards initiating action and navigating uncertainty. Yet, even with this predisposition, he acknowledges moments of stagnation, where he delayed action or conflated activity with progress. This highlights that innate traits are not a panacea; self-awareness and conscious effort are crucial.
Conversely, a leader who is naturally inclined towards rapid initiation can also create challenges. The cautionary tale of Jeff Bezos, warned by an executive about an overwhelming volume of ideas that could potentially "destroy Amazon," serves as a critical lesson. This experience led to a disciplined approach of releasing new ideas at a pace the organization could realistically absorb and execute. The core issue, whether stalling or over-initiating, lies in a disconnect between the leader’s perception and the organization’s capacity. Bridging this gap, the author asserts, is the true essence of leadership.
Most leaders are aware of what needs to change. The critical question, therefore, is not about identifying the need, but understanding the internal barriers that prevent action. The answer, almost invariably, points back to the leader’s own mindset and behaviors. The sooner these are honestly confronted, the sooner meaningful change can begin.
Four Questions That Help Leaders Get Moving
To facilitate this critical self-reflection, the author proposes four probing questions designed to foster the honesty required to move stalled initiatives forward. These questions are not about gathering more information, but about confronting the personal reasons behind inaction.
What Am I Avoiding?
This question moves beyond identifying what needs to change to pinpointing the specific decision or conversation that is being deferred and, crucially, the underlying reason. The author asserts that these avoidances are almost always relational. They stem from the fear of upsetting someone, straining a relationship, or feeling disloyal to an individual who has contributed significantly. By naming the specific avoidance and its root cause, its power tends to diminish.
A common manifestation of this avoidance is the inability to address the performance of a long-serving employee who is no longer meeting expectations. The leader may rationalize the delay by citing the employee’s loyalty or the potential negative perception of letting them go. The author points out that holding onto hope and delaying the inevitable only allows the performance gap to widen, making the eventual decision even more difficult and the outcome potentially worse than initially feared.
What Is Actually Moving?
This question demands brutal honesty about tangible progress. The litmus test is whether anything has fundamentally shifted in the preceding 90 days, not merely discussed, planned, or placed on a roadmap. If the honest answer is that nothing significant has changed, then the ongoing activities are likely serving a need for perceived productivity rather than genuine organizational evolution.
The author cites leadership meetings as a prime example. What may have begun as a forum for problem-solving and driving key initiatives can devolve into a series of status updates and "good news" sharing. His own team experienced this, leading to a strategic shift towards pre-shared good news and reserving meeting time exclusively for addressing "yellow" and "red" items. This resulted in a halving of meeting time, with a significant increase in actual progress.
What Will Not Get Me Forward?
This question challenges leaders to identify elements that were once effective but are now impediments to current progress. The difficulty lies in letting go of familiar strategies, especially when they are associated with respected individuals. However, clinging to past successes out of comfort, rather than strategic necessity, is not loyalty; it is a form of self-deception that comes at a cost the leader is often the last to perceive.
A prevalent example is designing organizational structures around existing personnel rather than the future needs of the organization. If the process of building a future org chart begins by anchoring it in the current state, it signifies an unwillingness to shed the past. The correct approach, the author advises, is to first design the ideal future structure and then assess whether current individuals are the right fit for those roles, developing plans for development or recruitment accordingly.
Do the People Around Me Know Where They Stand?
When change initiatives stall, employees do not experience their leader’s patience; they experience profound uncertainty about their own futures. The question is not about a leader’s genuine care for their team, but about the clarity they provide regarding expectations, the nature of the changes, and their personal impact. Silence from a leader, regardless of its benevolent intent, is rarely perceived as thoughtfulness. Instead, it is typically interpreted as indecision or, more detrimentally, avoidance.
A simple yet effective test is to ask direct reports whether they understand how they would be evaluated on a scale of one to ten for both performance and behavior. If there is alignment, the leader has succeeded in providing clarity. If not, the responsibility lies with the leader to own this gap, share their evaluations transparently, and actively support their team’s improvement. This direct communication fosters trust and allows individuals to navigate change with a clearer understanding of their role and future within the evolving organization.
The author’s overarching message is one of empowerment. By shifting the focus inward, leaders can unlock the potential for genuine transformation. The persistent challenges in achieving organizational change are not insurmountable external forces, but often deeply ingrained leadership behaviors that, once identified and addressed, can pave the way for sustained progress and success. The journey of change begins with the leader’s willingness to look in the mirror.
