Is Transformation Really Failing… or Are We Just Measuring It Wrong?

I’ve lost count of how many articles, LinkedIn posts, and glossy whitepapers I’ve seen recently claiming that 70–75% of transformation initiatives fail. It’s become the go-to line for just about every consultant, advisor, and keynote speaker talking about change.

Now, cards on the table: I’m guilty of it too. I’ve leaned on that statistic in one of my earlier blogs to make a point about how to deliver successful transformation. But seeing it everywhere lately made me stop and think—where does this figure actually come from? And more importantly, is it even true?

So, I decided to do a bit of digging.

The Famous 70% Failure Rate — Fact or Fluff?

The root of the statistic lies in the work of John P. Kotter, a professor at Harvard Business School and something of a legend in the leadership world. In 1995, he published a book titled “Leading Change”, followed by an article of the same name in the Harvard Business Review. In it, Kotter estimated that around 70% of major transformation efforts fail.

Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail

But here’s the thing: there’s no formal dataset behind that number.

Kotter based it on his own experience and observations, working with organisations undergoing change, particularly those who turned to Harvard or consulting firms for guidance. In other words, he saw a lot of struggling organisations, which probably coloured the estimate. But let’s be honest—people don’t usually show up to Harvard for a quick pat on the back. They go because something’s broken, and they need help fixing it. It’s a bit like assuming a country’s health is in crisis because the hospital is full. That’s not how public health data works—and it probably shouldn’t be how we measure transformation success either.

What Does "Success" Even Mean?

That leads us nicely into the next issue: what does it mean for a transformation to “fail”?

Are we talking about missed financial targets? Failure to hit KPIs within a 12-month window? Or something more intangible, like employee disengagement or cultural stagnation?

Transformation isn’t a simple journey from A to B. It’s not a neatly plotted train ride—it’s more like hiking across unpredictable terrain in the fog. Sometimes you change direction mid-way. Sometimes the goal evolves entirely. And sometimes, just staying in motion—keeping people engaged and moving forward—is a success in itself.

In one case I worked on with Green Tourism, an environmental standards organisation, success wasn’t defined in terms of increased revenue or market share. It was about building an organisational mindset around ongoing, purposeful change. The transformation was measured by how committed the team remained to adapting, learning, and evolving—not by whether they ticked every box on a Gantt chart.

You can read the case study here: Engagement: The key to transformational success - Woodward Consulting

Home - Green Tourism

Time Frames and Flexibility Matter

Another huge issue with the “failure” narrative is timescale. Transformations often take years to truly embed. In that time, market dynamics can shift, new technologies emerge, leadership teams change, and global pandemics throw spanners into even the best-laid plans.

The Project Management Institute (PMI) found that initiatives with the ability to adapt their scope and respond to unexpected change were 50% more likely to succeed. That’s a huge difference—and a reminder that rigid planning kills agility, which is essential in the real world. Home of Project Management | Project Management Institute

Is Kotter Outdated?

To Kotter’s credit, he does admit that his original article is a simplification of a very complex issue. His 8-Step Model remains one of the most influential frameworks out there, particularly for understanding the role of leadership and vision.

But it’s worth noting that his model reflects a very top-down view of change—focused on strong leadership, clear communication, and sponsorship from above. That’s all still important, but it doesn’t reflect newer, more inclusive approaches to transformation that focus on engaging people at all levels of the organisation.

For example:

• Prosci’s ADKAR model looks at transformation as a series of individual change journeys: Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement.

The Prosci ADKAR® Model | Prosci

• Appreciative Inquiry, developed at Case Western Reserve University, focuses on strengths-based, participatory change, rather than problem-solving from the top. Appreciative Inquiry | Fowler Center | Case Western Reserve University

 

In short, leadership still matters—but it's not the whole picture.

Top 5 Reasons Transformations Actually Fail

So, what really goes wrong when transformations fall apart? Based on research from McKinsey, BCG, Prosci, and others, here are the five most common culprits:

1. No Clear Vision or Strategic Alignment

• Teams don’t know what they’re aiming for or why it matters.
• Different departments interpret the goals differently.
• Strategy is set once and forgotten, even as conditions change.

McKinsey found that only 42% of employees understood their organisation’s transformation objectives.

2. Weak Leadership and Inconsistent Sponsorship

• Leaders fail to show up or walk the talk.
• No cohesive leadership team driving the change.
• Sponsors vanish after launch—what Prosci calls "drive-by sponsorship."

Prosci says strong sponsorship is the #1 predictor of success across thousands of projects.

3. Failure to Engage and Empower Employees

• People feel change is being done to them, not with them.
• Middle managers are often overlooked, even though they’re key.
• Employees aren’t involved in shaping the journey.

BCG reports that engaging employees early doubles the chances of success.

4. Poor Execution and Weak Change Management

• No communications plan. No training. No coaching.
• Overfocus on tech or process, and not enough on the human side.
• Progress isn’t tracked or adapted when things go off course.

McKinsey: Projects with robust execution plans are 3.5x more likely to succeed.

5. Inability to Adapt Scope Mid-Way

• Projects cling to their original scope like a life raft.
• Teams don’t adjust goals based on learning or new realities.
• Competing priorities and poor decision-making sap momentum.

PMI: Over 50% of failed change initiatives suffer from scope creep or rigidity.

So… Is It All Doom and Gloom?

Honestly? No. The idea that three out of four transformations fail is misleading at best and harmful at worst. It ignores the messy, iterative nature of real-world change and assumes a binary outcome: success or failure. But the reality is far more nuanced.

Yes, many transformation efforts don’t hit their original targets. But that doesn’t mean they failed. Sometimes they evolve into something more valuable. Sometimes they build long-term cultural resilience. Sometimes they simply spark a much-needed conversation that shifts how a company operates for years to come.

Final Thoughts

Kotter gave us an important and enduring model—and he rightly put leadership at the heart of transformation. But today’s environment calls for a more inclusive, adaptive, and human-centred approach. We need to move away from binary thinking (“success or failure”) and towards understanding change as an ongoing state of learning and iteration.

Instead of measuring transformation by whether it ticked every box on a plan made two years ago, maybe we should ask:

• Are people more engaged?
• Is the organisation more adaptive?
• Has trust improved?
• Are we better prepared for what’s next?

If the answer’s yes—even if the spreadsheet says otherwise—maybe that’s not failure at all.