How One Company Achieved a Bold Transformation—Despite Major Unknowns

The mood in the room was tense. It was 2020, and the executive team of a company we’ll call Pharma Global (PG)*, the non-U.S. division of a leading pharmaceutical company, had gathered in Frankfurt for their annual retreat. For two years, they had debated a bold transformation—one that would fundamentally change how decisions were made, flatten the organization, and empower employees. Yet, despite endless discussions and extensive analysis, they had failed to make the leap. During a coffee break, Gerrick, the head of PG, turned to his colleague Giorgio, who led seven affiliates, and asked: “What if we just go ahead and do it? What would happen?” It was a simple question, but one that would transform the discussion and propel the organization forward. Gerrick and Giorgio were facing a dilemma that many executives encounter: How do you take a leap into the unknown when there’s no clear data, no well-worn path, and no guarantee of success? What if the change you’re considering is uncharted territory, but waiting for certainty means standing still? Over the years, we’ve seen many organizations struggle with these questions. Through our five-year study of PG’s transformation, we uncovered key insights into how executive teams grappling with a high-stakes and uncertain change can navigate it. Here’s what we learned from PG’s experience about the common traps and critical leadership shifts needed to move forward with conviction. Trap #1: Overthinking the Leap By the 2010s, PG was undergoing a profound business shift. Like its competitors, it had long relied on a few blockbuster drugs. But as a major acquisition expanded its R&D pipeline, the company’s commercial team faced a new challenge: managing an increasingly complex and expansive portfolio. Unfortunately, PG’s longstanding top-down culture and bureaucratic rules presented a barrier to the agility it now needed. Heavy compliance and coordination mechanisms, intended to ensure efficiency, instead created bottlenecks that slowed decision-making. To build the case for transformation, PG’s executive team engaged two top consulting firms. Their recommendations were consistent: PG needed a major reorganization to become more agile. Yet, two years after the consultants presented their assessments, the executive team was still requesting more data, more benchmarking, and more risk assessments. The hesitation was understandable. Leaders wanted to ensure that they fully understood the potential risks before making such a high-stakes decision. But they overlooked an important factor: the nature of the problem they were trying to solve. Traditional organizational changes are technical problems with clear, well-defined solutions. But PG’s transformation was an adaptive problem. While the direction was clear, the specific solutions had to emerge from within the organization. Instead of a single structural fix, multiple interconnected decisions had to be made by different teams. What’s more, there were no direct industry benchmarks or large-scale pharmaceutical models to follow. PG would be the first to implement this approach at its scale. Escaping the Trap: Assume Change, Justify Inaction The Frankfurt meeting made one thing starkly clear: No amount of analysis could offer the certainty the executive team was used to. So, Gerrick and Giorgio reframed the discussion. Instead of asking for more proof that change was necessary, they posed a different question: Why shouldn’t we change? The shift was subtle but powerful. Rather than seeking comfort in more data, the team recognized that the real risk lay in maintaining the status quo. Once they shifted their thinking, the executive team quickly aligned, embracing a new ambition: PG would become the first large pharmaceutical firm to flatten its organizational design. The risk was worth taking because it would send a powerful message to employees that leadership was serious about purpose-driven and empowered ways of working. And by being first, PG could scale the learning curve and shape the playbook for a new kind of organization—one that could become a competitive advantage in itself. If you find yourself overthinking the leap, ask a few key questions: Are we trying to solve a technical problem, where risks can be assessed and mitigated? Or are we facing an adaptive challenge, which involves uncertainty that must be navigated rather than eliminated? Are we reducing risks, or are we avoiding uncertainty? What are the risks of not changing? What are the benefits and costs of being the first to experiment with the transformation? What would be the consequences of competitors successfully developing a proof-of-concept first? Trap #2: Waiting for a Full Roadmap A second hurdle PG had to overcome was its desire for a perfect plan. In PG’s prior change efforts, a detailed step-by-step roadmap with clear roles and responsibilities was typically seen as essential, as is common at other similar-size organizations. However, given the adaptive nature of the problem and inherent ambiguity in the transformation process, only the initial stages of the change could be mapped out. Subsequent stages would need to evolve based on early actions and results. Escaping the Trap: Visualize the Destination While PG’s executive team understood this logic, they were used to a precise plan. To move forward, they made a second critical shift at the Frankfurt meeting: letting go of the need for a perfect plan, which simply did not exist. This realization altered the tone of the conversation. The executive team acknowledged that a period of organizational instability was inevitable. One executive recalled: “Our conversation shifted. ‘Expect chaos,’ we told each other. It is going to happen.” This collective acceptance had a powerful psychological effect, fostering calm and sparking collaboration. Freed from the expectation of perfection, the executive team was able to move forward. Instead of fixating on the structure, they visualized their desired outcome: an organization where individuals are empowered to make decisions with minimal approval, guided by a shared understanding of strategic priorities, decision-making criteria, and operational boundaries. Focusing on the envisioned outcome not only made the executive team feel less anxious, it energized them to move forward. They outlined critical success factors, including clear direction, clear roles and responsibilities, and transparent communication. To navigate the inevitable turbulence, they resolved to communicate the vision and direction consistently “over and over again.” This process built collective confidence that the transformation could succeed even without a predefined step-by-step plan. To build confidence amid uncertainty, consider the following questions: What should the future organization look like? How should it function? If chaos is inevitable, how can we make it productive? How can we reduce disruptions, stay agile, and support each other when unexpected challenges arise? What key values, behaviors, and commitments will help us navigate uncertainty, maintain momentum, and ensure the organization adapts effectively throughout the change? Trap #3: The Control Reflex After shifting their mindset on planning and uncertainty, the executive team recognized they had to move forward with the transformation. The next challenge: What did it mean to “lead” a transformation aimed at decentralizing decision-making? The traditional approach would have placed ownership squarely with Gerrick and the executive team. But they quickly saw two flaws in this strategy. First, they couldn’t possibly address all challenges at once—the scope of the transformation was too vast. Second, such a top-down approach contradicted the very purpose of the transformation, which was to trust employees and empower them to design an organization that truly worked for them. The answer was clear and unnerving at the same time—ownership of the transformation had to belong to employees. At the Frankfurt meeting, this realization sparked disbelief: “We all looked at each other. This has never worked before. Will it now? We don’t own anything?” Escaping the Trap: Build the Trust Muscle In reality, the executive team was not relinquishing all control. It owned the objectives, directions, and process of the transformation, and remained accountable for its success or failure. They decided that self-organizing teams—called “circles”—would own the analysis, recommendations, decisions, and implementation for each aspect of the transformation. This introduced a new dilemma. The executive team had to give up direct control over outcomes yet remained accountable to PG’s board. How could they relinquish their control with confidence? The answer came down to a single word: trust. “If we truly believe that our people are purpose-driven and want the best for our organization,” Gerrick challenged the team, “then what would they do if the transformation was not working?” Their answer: “They would tell us to stop.” This realization was pivotal. The executive team understood that their role wasn’t to dictate solutions but to support the process. They created an internal communication platform where employees could propose projects, form circles, share progress updates, and post recommendations. This system also supported the early detection of signs of failure, allowing for timely course corrections and careful interventions by the executive team when necessary. As the executive team empowered the circles, trust deepened on both sides. Within weeks, energy surged throughout the organization, and employees began to see the transformation as their own. They trusted the self-organizing process—and, in turn, the executive team trusted them more. With this came a greater willingness from the executive team to shoulder accountability while letting go of control. To prevent the control reflex and start building the trust muscle, think through these questions: Can ownership of the tasks (e.g., the change, the solution, and so on) be separated from ownership of the process? Who should own each aspect? What would make you comfortable relinquishing control? How can you remain accountable for outcomes without directly executing the transformation? How can you ensure strong information-sharing? What systems will allow you to monitor progress, detect weak signals of failure, and make timely interventions—without taking back control? Trap #4: One Foot In, One Foot Out The executive team still found themselves in an uncertain position: They were accountable for the transformation’s success but lacked the traditional levers of authority. This discomfort led to the instinct to hedge, keeping one foot in, one foot out. Anticipating this risk, Gerrick and the executive team recognized that for the transformation to succeed, they needed to redefine their role. They identified two key responsibilities: 1) safeguarding decision-making processes and ensuring teams had the resources to execute effectively; and 2) facilitating coordination across circles and representing PG within the broader organization. Escaping the Trap: Codify the Shift To cement this, they made a public commitment, starting with a name change. They would no longer be the executive team; instead, they became the network empowering team (NET)*. The new name sent a clear message that leadership was no longer about command and control but about enabling the system to function. Additionally, the NET created a team charter that outlined their new responsibilities to the organization and to each other. One of the most critical commitments was to “jump in to help one another when needed, but hold each other back from interfering with self-organizing circles.” This principle became essential when the NET faced its first real test: The finance circle decided to replace the traditional months-long budgeting cycle with AI-driven forecasting. Although the approach was innovative, Giorgio, who had to sign off on the numbers for the board, hesitated. “I knew the predictions were sound,” he recalled, “but I was the one who had to sign my name and commit to the number to the board.” Rather than override the circle, Giorgio turned to the NET and the team charter. The NET collectively reviewed the proposals, asked clarifying questions, and ensured rigor without undermining the team’s ownership. By following their formalized charter, the NET reinforced the transformation’s principles and set a precedent. It changed their role from negotiating financial targets to providing resources to support regional execution. This inspired similar behavior in the finance circle, which stopped requiring business units to justify investment requests and instead worked collaboratively to build business cases. The decision to rename the team, define its role, and create a charter was more than a symbolic act—it was an anchor that solidified the shift. The clearer the NET became about its function, the easier it was for the rest of the organization to trust and follow suit. To ensure your leadership team fully embodies a new vision, consider these questions: Have we clearly defined, formalized, and communicated our new role in a way that differentiates it from the past? Are we consistently role-modeling and communicating the behaviors that reinforce our new organizational design? How do we demonstrate our commitment to enabling rather than directing? How are we holding ourselves accountable to our new leadership approach? Do we have mechanisms in place to ensure we do not revert to old habits? . . . PG’s transformation wasn’t driven by a detailed roadmap, a perfect plan, or a guarantee of success. Instead, it was propelled by a series of deliberate leadership shifts. By recognizing the limits of analysis, embracing uncertainty, trusting their people, and formalizing a new leadership model, the executive team moved from hesitation to action. Their experience offers a powerful lesson for any executive team facing a similar challenge: Waiting for certainty is a trap, and moving forward requires leaders who recognize and overcome the common pitfalls that stall change. When leaders take the leap and commit fully, they enable a system where employees aren’t just adapting to change—they are driving it. *Author’s Note: The names of the company, its teams, and its employees have been anonymized.

How One Company Achieved a Bold Transformation—Despite Major Unknowns

Summary.

Partner Center