Leadership as a Success Factor in Transformation: Myth or Reality?

Leadership is on everyone's lips and is often touted as a panacea for transformation. But is that really the case? This article examines myths, technically sound truths (until newer findings are available), and interactions.

Leadership. Cultural change. Strategy. Holistic transformation.

These four dimensions form the foundation of successful transformations—and are at the heart of transformind's positioning. But how crucial is leadership really?

Myth: Leadership as a panacea for transformation

Numerous studies show that without effective leadership, around 70% of all change initiatives fail. I also wrote about this in my last blog post, “Transformation begins at the top...”. John P. Kotter emphasizes: “Without a sense of urgency and a leadership coalition, change often gets stuck.” Peter Senge adds: “A shared vision is essential so that change is not just ordered, but lived.” I also experience this in my daily consulting work: as soon as a transformation receives guidance, support, and urgency from company management, it has a significantly higher chance of success.

• Managers provide direction, meaning, and structure.

• They shape the culture by setting an example.

• They create psychological safety and motivation. 

• Studies show that active leadership correlates strongly with successful transformation. 

Truth: Leadership is important—but not alone

A transformation is much more than a project that simply needs to be implemented or delivered. A transformation is a profound change in cross-functional business processes, business models, and/or the culture of leadership and collaboration—including with customers or suppliers. In other words, the old saying “wash me but don't get me wet” also applies here: a company cannot transform itself sustainably without also putting its corporate culture to the test, because ultimately this must serve the company's purpose, the living of relevant values, and the achievement of its vision.

• Frédéric Laloux warns against the “myth of heroic leadership.”

• Without the involvement of middle management and the workforce, leadership fizzles out.

• Cultural change requires more than instructions—it requires participation.

• Leadership must be institutionally anchored, otherwise there is a risk of relapse.

• Leadership effects are context-dependent: studies show that in government organizations, there is no significant correlation between leadership and willingness to change.

Interdependence: Leadership, Culture, and Structure

Leadership does not operate in isolation and only unleashes its power when combined with cooperation, culture, strategy, and the desire to achieve something together for the organization. I often experience this interaction as a kind of seesaw movement between the different dimensions. If you change one, you quickly realize that you have to readjust another area because either motivation declines, resistance or conflicts arise, or friction losses occur in content discussions due to a lack of strategic clarity.

• Culture: Managers shape values and behavior, but everyone must live by them

• Strategy: Transformation requires clear direction and priorities—these only take effect when they are understood and accepted. A strategy paper in a drawer has no value. Added value from strategies only arises through their implementation and results

• Structures: Sustainability arises through institutional anchoring, not through individuals

Conclusion: Leadership as part of a larger whole

Leadership is a key lever—but it is not enough on its own. Transformation, and indeed leadership, succeeds when managers create spaces in which others can help shape and grow. That is exactly what transformind stands for: Leadership. Cultural change. Strategy. Holistic transformation.