In a world where organizations must learn to transform themselves almost continuously, one question looms large: Why do our transformations still fail so often—and what difference can effective governance really make?
This is not a theoretical question. It is the one asked every day by program directors, transformation leaders, and Chief Transformation Officers who are driving these initiatives in environments marked by high complexity, rising expectations, and multifaceted pressures. Transforming quickly, effectively, and without disrupting the organization: this is the challenge shared by all large corporations and mid-sized companies today.
To shed light on this issue, the first session of TransfoLab by FocusTribes was held—a confidential workshop bringing together transformation leaders from various sectors. Two executives came to share their insights from particularly demanding contexts: Ubisoft’s Head of Operational Transformation, who is leading a major restructuring in response to an oversaturated video game market, and the Director of Strategic Transformation at Coty, a global leader in the beauty industry listed on both the NYSE and Euronext.
I. The six reasons why transformations still fail so often
If we had to summarize the lessons learned from Ubisoft and Coty in six words, they would be these: culture, capacity, fragmentation, politics, metrics, and preconceptions. Six blind spots capable, on their own, of derailing a program—even one that is well-designed and well-funded.
Culture: The invisible force that can block everything
Corporate culture isn’t a presentation slide. It’s what happens between meetings, in a hallway, within a team that doesn’t understand why it should do things differently tomorrow than it did yesterday. In some organizations, the DNA is so deeply ingrained that any innovation is perceived as a threat. In others, the culture is simply not ready to embrace standardization, integrate AI, break down long-standing silos, or even imagine that the business could operate differently.
One participant’s account sums up this disconnect with disarming precision: “At one point, we realized there was a real disconnect between what the transformation was trying to drive and what the teams were experiencing on a daily basis.”
A program can move forward with its projects and messages, but those on the ground receive conflicting signals and eventually lose traction. Culture is never neutral. It is the foundation upon which transformation stands—or crumbles.
Capacity: the illusion that “the organization will follow”
The second obstacle is also the most brutal: the organization’s actual inability to absorb the transformation. It’s not just a matter of resources. It’s also a matter of skills—which sometimes left along with the people.
One specific case made a strong impression on the participants: “We had everything: the target system ready, the system ready, the processes ready… except that we’d let go of the only person who knew the legacy system. The result: it was impossible to migrate the data.”
Capacity also involves the human reality of already overburdened teams, exhausted managers, and the loss of critical expertise. Every transformation requires energy that the organization doesn’t always have. And that’s when everything slows down, grinds to a halt—or explodes.
Scattergun approach: when everyone is transforming everything, everywhere, all at once
In many companies, transformation has become a trend: HR is transforming, finance is transforming, IT is transforming, business units are transforming, and a “central transformation” program is vaguely trying to keep up. The result: programs that collide, contradictory effects, widespread burnout, and above all, a total loss of clarity. When everything becomes a priority, nothing really is. Scatter is the fog into which transformation sinks without even realizing it.
Politics: the underlying force that derails all paths
It’s impossible to talk about transformation without talking about politics. It’s the part no one wants to discuss officially—but that everyone brings up off the record. Political obstacles take a thousand forms: circumvention of governance, power plays, historical rivalries, failing leadership, departments defending their turf, and decisions that aren’t really decisions at all. One case perfectly illustrates this trap: “We had two governance structures. One on the market side, the other on the supply side. Two visions. Two agendas. The project was headed straight for a wall.” Politics isn’t an accident: it’s a structural component of the playing field.
Measurement: when you navigate without a compass (or with too many slides)
Transformation rarely fails due to a lack of effort. It often fails due to a lack of evidence. Two extremes coexist dangerously: too little measurement, and we move forward without understanding the real impact; too much measurement, and we spend more time producing slides than actually transforming. Steering committees turn into reporting meetings where KPIs pile up without a single decision emerging. The lack of a “single source of truth” is one of the biggest factors leading to drift.
Preconceived notions: those ready-made ideas that sabotage progress before it even begins
Organizations are rife with invisible beliefs—sometimes naive, sometimes dangerous: “The business doesn’t need us to transform itself,” “IT will inevitably slow things down,” “AI won’t replace anything,” “People will never accept this.”, “Transformation is just another project.” And the most toxic of all: “It’ll blow over,” or “Go ahead, but you’re going to fail.” Preconceptions don’t block transformation. They steer it in the wrong direction.
Transformation rarely fails for just one reason. It fails because these six forces combine, intertwine, and reinforce each other—creating gaps that even the best teams cannot bridge on their own.
Do you recognize some of these obstacles in your current programs?
Culture, fragmentation, politics: FocusTribes consultants support transformation leadership teams in diagnosing and structuring their programs—before these blind spots derail the project
II—How does strong governance truly make a difference?
What stands out in the stories of Ubisoft and Coty is that governance is never presented as a methodological tool. It is described as a survival strategy—pragmatic, built in a hurry, and often painful to implement. And yet, when it is well thought out, it can change everything.
Unity: when the entire company finally speaks with one voice
If there’s one point on which all participants agreed, it’s this: unity is not a methodological luxury—it’s a condition for survival. And yet, it’s often what’s missing the most. Many described programs where different parts of the company were each moving forward with “their own transformation,” as if the organization could support multiple backbones at once.
Unity does not mean concentrating power. It means refocusing attention. Once everything goes through the same governance structure—and only that structure—teams stop trying to circumvent it. They understand that if it isn’t approved there, it isn’t approved anywhere. Unity acts like a magnetic field, a framework: it aligns decisions, reduces conflicts, streamlines decision-making, provides teams with a single direction, and eliminates the gray areas where resistance thrives.
Tight-knit sponsorship: leaders who are truly aligned
One point comes up strongly in both testimonials: sponsorship that is too broad or too hesitant immediately undermines the transformation. The more sponsors there are, the greater the chance they’ll publicly contradict each other—and every public contradiction erodes the program’s credibility.
This focused sponsorship enables rapid decision-making, a clear direction, zero discordant statements, and, above all, no room for political doubt. The lesson is counterintuitive but robust: a strong sponsor isn’t the one you see the most. It’s the one who stands firm.
The rules of escalation: the end of back-channel negotiations
A classic corporate scenario: when someone doesn’t like a decision, they look for the right person to bypass the process. Strong governance puts an end to this game.
“Once the teams understood that anything that went through the governance process was approved—and that anything that didn’t go through it wasn’t—the workarounds disappeared.”
Escalation rules create a clear path, a clear timeline, and a clear level for raising an issue or seeking a decision. And above all, they prevent wasting weeks navigating the informal channels.
The stable framework: a safe space in a world that moves too fast
“Stable” does not mean “rigid.” Stable means predictable, in a context where everything else is not.
"In sectors where innovation is constant, the risk is launching a new transformation before the previous one has even been fully implemented."
A stable framework shields teams from ambient noise, prevents constant overactivity, stops roadmaps from being constantly reconfigured, and keeps the course even as business priorities shift. In an unstable world, a stable framework serves as a psychological safety net as much as it does a management tool.
III- How can we practically organize effective transformation governance?
What emerges from our discussions with Ubisoft and Coty is that governance never works by chance. It relies on four very concrete mechanisms that make all the difference.
A lean transformation team, supported by a network of enablers
In complex organizations, transformation cannot be entrusted to a sprawling team. A transformation works best when its core is small but strongly supported by expert enablers.
A prime example: “In a global BPO project, there were only four of us at the core: the CFO, the CHRO, the CIO, and me. Four. And it moved forward because no one contradicted each other.”
This core is surrounded by a network of enablers from support functions: Legal to ensure compliance, Finance for value creation, HR for headcount management, IT for data and architecture, PMO or Project Manager for structuring, and Communications for buy-in. "The transformation core is the engine. The enablers are the oil. Without them, it breaks down."
A network of “transformation leads” across business units
No transformation succeeds if it remains confined to an ivory tower. Transformations that last are those that rely on business champions —operational leaders who drive the transformation from within their own teams.
One participant put it clearly: “I had 70 people on my governance team. Not a single one reported directly to me. And yet, they were driving the rollout program forward. They were my legitimate liaisons within the functions.”
The key: when the message comes from a consultant or the central transformation team, it remains theoretical. When the message comes from a business peer, everything changes—it shifts from a directive to a discussion. These champions act as catalysts for organizational maturity, capable of grounding change management in the realities on the ground.
A single source of truth: truth as the foundation for management
Sooner or later, all transformations run into the same pitfall: figures that don’t match, unstable baselines, and headcounts that are impossible to reconcile. Governance can survive delays. It can survive friction. But it never survives multiple versions of the truth.
Centralizing data in a Single Source of Truth has eliminated 80% of unnecessary discussions in the programs presented. It’s not just a tool—it’s a contract, an anchor, a guarantee of political stability.
Decision-oriented arbitration rituals—not reporting
This is probably the most underestimated—and yet the most decisive—pillar. Good governance exists only if it enables decisions to be made quickly, cleanly, and without detours. The rule adopted in several programs: “If no decision is scheduled on the agenda, the committee meeting is canceled. A committee meeting is not a place for reporting.”
The speakers distinguished between two clear levels: the Executive Committee (COMEX), which mediates, protects, resolves impasses, and sponsors initiatives; and the Board, which safeguards the overall trajectory and validates the course. Mixing the two creates confusion that paralyzes decision-making. And regarding time management: postponing is not a failure. It is often a strategic choice to avoid business disruption.
Several participants confirmed this with their personal experiences:
"We phased in the initiatives. If it was too risky this year, we’d slide it over to the next quarter. The goal isn’t to move fast, but to get it right."
“Disrupting the business to drive transformation is like burning down the house to replace the windows. Nobody wins.”
Structuring the governance of your transformation is the first step that sets the stage for all the others.
Transformation task force, business unit network, decision-making rituals: FocusTribes consultants support large corporations and mid-sized companies in designing and steering their complex transformation programs.
IV—What role should the transformation leader play?
Behind the tools, the trade-offs, and the governance, one key element remains: the person leading the transformation. What stands out when listening to the testimonials from Ubisoft and Coty is that transformation is a deeply human endeavor. A process that exposes you, challenges you, and can sometimes be exhausting. And one that demands a very specific mindset: staying the course, even when everything seems designed to make you lose your way.
Coming to terms with doubt: a constant companion in the role
The first admission, almost unanimous among the participants: doubt never goes away. Transformation leaders are often tasked with difficult, sometimes intractable challenges. The first step is to accept that you are not the “savior.” In a transformation, doubt isn’t a problem to be eliminated—it’s part of the landscape. The transformation leader doesn’t seek to erase it, but to press on in spite of it.
Resilience: that thick skin we build mission after mission
Transformation is a succession of waves. Some are creative. Others are brutal. One story particularly struck the audience: that of a leader who was steering a massive, multi-year cost-cutting plan, talking about cost-cutting from morning to night, about restructuring, and about layoffs. Resilience, in moments like these, isn’t about “being strong”—it’s about absorbing the pressure without breaking, about remaining professional without ceasing to be human.
Influence without authority: a political art, not a power
The transformation leader is almost always in a paradoxical position: they manage cross-functional challenges without having the hierarchical authority to impose anything. Transformation is the only role with a cross-functional scope comparable to that of the CEO—except that they don’t have the CEO’s power. You must influence, not direct. Challenge without crushing. Advise leaders on the impact of their decisions—sometimes better than they see it themselves—but with absolute humility; otherwise, you’ll get burned.
Managing emotions—your own and those of others
Transformation isn’t just about processes. It’s primarily about emotions: anxiety, a loss of bearings, resistance, hope, and sometimes anger. One participant put it with rare precision: before discussing architecture or planning, he asks the sponsor what they’re afraid of, what’s causing them anxiety. Until that’s addressed, nothing moves forward. Transformation isn’t driven solely by facts—it’s also driven by a keen understanding of emotions.
Thinking long-term: building a strategic plan, not just executing a project
Some speakers shared an ambitious vision of their role: not just managing projects, but shaping the company’s long-term transformation.
“Transformation shouldn’t be a dumping ground for everything that’s going wrong. It must become a strategic function —with a three-year plan for evolving the operating model.”
The goal: to be proactive, not reactive. To have projects ready, costed out, and aligned in advance. When a crisis strikes, to already have the answer.
Embrace solitude—and tap into your own resources
Many transformation leaders share the same feeling: loneliness. Loneliness in the face of difficult decisions, resistance, and pressure from the executive committee. The answer is not to ignore it but to actively manage it—by carving out space for oneself and cultivating a small circle of peers with whom to speak candidly, without posturing or politics. Transformation is a strategic endeavor. It is also—at its core—an internal journey.
V- FAQ — Frequently asked questions about transformation governance
What is business transformation governance?
Transformation governance refers to the set of structures, processes, and practices that enable a transformation program to be steered in a consistent and decisive manner. It includes defining decision-making bodies (Executive Committee, Board, steering committees), escalation rules, roles and responsibilities, shared monitoring tools, and management cadences. Strong governance is not a bureaucratic mechanism—it is a nervous system that ensures the transformation effort does not have to bear the full weight of change alone.
Why do corporate transformations fail so often?
Lessons learned from Ubisoft and Coty identify six main causes of failure: an organizational culture unprepared for change, a lack of real capacity to absorb the transformation, scattered initiatives without clear prioritization, political maneuvering that circumvents governance, the absence of shared and reliable metrics, and preconceptions that steer decisions in the wrong direction. These causes rarely occur in isolation—it is their accumulation that causes a program to fail.
What is the ideal size for a transformation team?
Feedback from past experiences points to one principle: a small core with broad support. The decision-making core must be small—sometimes as few as four people (CFO, CHRO, CIO, transformation leader)—to ensure alignment and rapid decision-making. This core is then supported by a network of expert enablers (Legal, Finance, HR, IT, PMO, Communications) and by a network of transformation leads across the business units. Size is not a guarantee of effectiveness; consistency and clarity of roles are.
How can you convince the Executive Committee to commit to a transformation program?
Executive Committee commitment cannot be decreed—it must be built. Lessons from the TransfoLab point to three key levers: sponsorship must be focused on a small number of executives who are truly aligned; governance rituals must focus on decisions and risks, not reporting; and executives must be supported in their role as sponsors—being a sponsor doesn’t come naturally, and some need coaching to sustain this role over the long term.
How can you measure the impact of a transformation program?
The key is to establish a Single Source of Truth —a reference point shared by all stakeholders—and to guide steering committees toward three essential questions: what has been delivered, what has created value, and what is actually holding things back. There are two pitfalls to avoid: a lack of measurement (moving forward without understanding the real impact) and an overabundance of metrics (spending more time creating slides than driving transformation).
Transformation Governance: The 5 Key Lessons from TransfoLab
Strong governance does not guarantee success—but its absence guarantees failure.Unity is essential for survival—a single governance structure, a single course, and no parallel bodies.
Sponsorship must be streamlined—few sponsors, but sponsors who are committed.
The Single Source of Truth is a political commitment—not just a reporting tool.
The transformation leader is a tightrope walker—moving forward amid uncertainty, immense pressure, and difficult decisions, but also with the conviction that the company can become better.
Solid governance cannot be improvised. It is built, sometimes painfully, often under pressure.
FocusTribes provides access to a community of over 1,000 accredited consultants
to support companies at every stage of their digital transformation projects or broader initiatives.