Leading Organisational Change Without a Roadmap

Business team discussing empowerment and innovation in a conference room

For executive teams, the real management issue here is not whether to transform, but how to govern transformation when the destination is clear and the route is not. The articleโ€™s main value lies in showing that adaptive change needs a different leadership model than a conventional restructuring: one that separates ownership of outcomes from ownership of solutions. That distinction matters because it changes who decides, who learns, and where accountability sits.

The first implication is portfolio discipline. When leaders keep asking for more evidence, they often delay a decision that is already strategic. CIOs, CTOs and transformation leaders should treat uncertainty as a condition to manage, not a reason to pause. The practical question is whether the organisation has defined the few non-negotiables โ€” purpose, boundaries, measures and escalation points โ€” while leaving teams room to shape the design locally.

The second implication is operating-model design. Decentralising decisions only works if decision rights, coordination mechanisms and feedback loops are explicit. Without those, empowerment becomes drift. The articleโ€™s useful signal for leaders is that governance must move from approval-heavy control to lightweight but disciplined oversight: clear charters, visible progress, and early warning of failure. That is a management trade-off, not a cultural slogan.

The next questions for senior leaders are practical. Who owns the transformation process versus the business outcomes? Which decisions can genuinely move to teams without increasing risk? What forums will resolve cross-functional conflicts fast enough to keep momentum? And how will the leadership team prove it has changed its own behaviour, not just the org chart?

How one company reinvented itself in the absence of a tried-and-true playbook.
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player…
Many leaderships teams staring down the barrel of organisational transformation face a similar dilemma: How do you take a leap into the unknown whenย thereโ€™sย no clear data, no well-trodden path to follow and no assurance of success? What if the change you’re considering is uncharted territory,ย butย waiting for certainty means standing still?ย    Over the years,ย weโ€™veย seen countless organisations struggle with these questions, whether theyโ€™re trying to flatten hierarchies, implement new processes or change how decisions are made. Through ourย five-yearย study of a company weโ€™ll call Pharma Global* (PG), we uncovered key insights into how executive teams can deftly navigate a high-stakes and uncertain transformation and move forward with conviction.   Trap #1:ย Overthinking the leapย    Likeย its competitors,ย PG had long relied onย aย fewย blockbuster drugs. But by the 2010s, as a major acquisition expanded its R&Dย pipeline,ย its commercial team was managing an increasingly complex and expansive portfolio.ย    Unfortunately, PGโ€™s long-standingย top-downย culture and bureaucratic rulesย wereย an obstacle to the agility the company now required. So, its executive teamย hiredย two topย consulting firms to build the case for transformation. Both said the company needed a significant re-organisationย to become more agile.ย Yet, twoย years later, the executive team was still asking for more data, benchmarking and risk assessments.ย    The executive team overlookedย a crucial factor โ€“ theย nature of theย problem theyย wereย trying to solve. Traditional organisational changesย are technical problems with clear, well-defined solutions. But PGโ€™s transformation wasย an adaptive problem.ย    Although the direction was clear, specific solutions had toย comeย from within the organisation. Instead of a single structural fix, multiple interconnected decisions had to be made by different teams. Additionally, there weren’t direct industry benchmarksย orย large-scale models to follow. PG would be the first to implement this approach at its scale.ย    Leadershipย shift:ย Assume change, justifyย inaction   No amount of analysis couldย provide the certainty theย executive team wasย accustomed to. So, Gerrick*, the head of PG, and Giorgio*, who led seven affiliates, reframed the situation by posing this question: Why shouldnโ€™t we change? The resulting shift in thinking was subtle, yet powerful. Rather than seeking comfort in more data, the executive team recognised that the real risk lay inย maintainingย the status quo.ย    They embraced a newย ambition:ย PGย wouldย become the very first large pharmaceutical firmย to flattenย itsย organisational design. The riskย was worth taking asย it wouldย sendย a strong message to employees that leadership was serious about purpose-driven and empowered waysย of working.ย PG could also scale the learning curve and shape theย playbook for aย new kind of organisation โ€“ one that could become a competitive advantage in itself.ย    If your organisation is overthinking the leap,ย ask theseย questions:ย   
  • Are we trying to solve a technical problem or an adaptive challenge?
 
  • Are we reducing risks or avoiding uncertainty? What are the risks of not changing?
     
  • What are the benefits and costs of beingย the first to experimentย with the transformation? What are the consequencesย ofย competitorsย successfully developingย aย proof-of-concept first?
  Trap #2:ย Waiting for a full roadmapย    The next challenge PGย had to overcomeย wasย itsย desireย forย a perfect plan. In traditional organisational change, a detailedย step-by-stepย roadmap is typically seen as essential. However, given the adaptive nature of the problem and inherent ambiguity in the transformation process, only the initial stages could be mapped out. Subsequentย stagesย would have to evolve based on earlyย actions and results.   Leadershipย shift:ย Visualiseย the destinationย    To move forward, PGโ€™s executive team made a second important shift:ย letting go of the need forย a perfect plan, which simply didn’t exist, and acknowledging thatย a period of instability was inevitable.   Rather than fixating on the structure, they visualised their ideal outcome: an organisation where people are empowered to make decisions with minimal approval, guided by a shared understanding of strategic priorities, decision-making criteria andย operational boundaries.   Focusing on the envisioned outcomeย not only madeย the executive team feelย less anxious; itย also energised themย to move forward. They outlined critical success factors,ย includingย clarity when it came to roles and responsibilities, direction and communication. This created a collective confidenceย that the transformation couldย succeed evenย without a pre-defined plan.   Toย build confidenceย amidย uncertainty,ย considerย theย followingย questions:  
  • What should the future organisation look like? How should it function?
 
  • If chaos is inevitable, how can we make it productive by reducing disruptions, staying agile and supporting each other when unexpected challenges arise?ย 
 
  • Whatย keyย values, behaviours and commitments will help us navigate uncertainty, maintain momentum and ensure the organisation adapts effectively throughout the change?ย 
  Trap #3:ย The control reflexย    The next challenge: What did it mean to โ€œleadโ€ a transformation aimed at decentralising decision-making?ย Given the vast scope of the transformation, the executive team couldnโ€™t possibly deal with every challenge at once. Such a top-down approach would also contradict the very purposeย of the change, which wasย to empower PGโ€™s employees to design an organisationย that truly worked forย them.ย    The answerย was clear andย unnervingย at the same time ยญโ€“ ownership of the transformationย had toย belong toย employees.   Leadershipย shift:ย Build the trust muscleย    The executive team wasn’t giving up allย control.ย Itย was responsible for the objectives, directions and process of the transformation, and remained accountable for itsย success or failure. However, self-organising teams โ€“ called โ€œcirclesโ€ โ€“ would own the analysis, recommendations, decisions and implementation.   The executive team understood that their roleย wasnโ€™tย to dictate solutions but toย supportย the process. They createdย an internal communication platform for employees to form circles, suggest projects and share progress updates. The system also supported the early detection of signs of failure, allowing forย timelyย course correctionsย and careful interventions when necessary.   Within weeks, energy surged throughoutย the company, and employees began toย view the transformation as their own. Asย the executive team empowered the circles, trust deepened on both sides. With this came a greater willingness from the executive team toย shoulder accountability while letting go of control.   Toย prevent the control reflex and build the trust muscle,ย think throughย these questions:  
  • Canย ownership of the tasks be separatedย from ownership ofย the process? Who should own eachย aspect?ย 
 
  • Whatย would make you comfortable relinquishingย control?ย How can you remain accountable for outcomes without directly executing the transformation?ย 
 
  • What systems will help you ensure strong information-sharing, monitor progress, detect weak signals of failure and makeย timelyย interventions โ€“ without taking back control?ย 
  Trap #4:ย One foot in, one foot out   The executive team still found themselves in an uncertain position. They were responsible for the transformationโ€™s success, yet lacked the traditional levers of authority. This discomfort could lead to the instinct to hedge โ€“ to keep one foot in, one foot out.ย    Anticipating this risk, the executive team saw thatย for the transformation to succeed, they had to redefine their role. They identified two key responsibilities: safeguarding decision-making processes and ensuring teams had the resources to execute effectively; and facilitating coordination across circles and representingย PG within the wider organisation.ย    Leadershipย shift:ย Codify the shiftย    The executive team made a public commitment, beginning with aย name change: they would now be known as the network empowering team (NET). They established a team charter that outlined their new responsibilities to the organisation and to each other. This sent a message that leadership was no longer about command and control but about enabling the system to function.ย    Soon, the NET faced its first real test. The finance circle decided to replace the traditional months-long budgeting cycle with AI-driven forecasting. Although this approach was innovative, Giorgio, whoย had to sign off on the numbers for the board, hesitated.   Rather than override the circle, the NET collectively reviewed the process, asked clarifying questions and ensured rigourย without undermining the teamโ€™s ownership. By following their formalised charter, the NET reinforced the transformationโ€™s principles and set a precedent, changing their role from negotiating financial targets to providing resources to support execution.ย    To ensure your leadership team fully embodies a new vision, ponder these questions:ย   
  • Have we clearly defined,ย formalisedย and communicatedย our new role in a way that differentiates it from the past?ย 
 
  • Are we consistently role-modelling and communicating behaviours that reinforce our new organisational design?ย How do weย showย our commitment to enabling vs. directing?ย 
 
  • How are we holding ourselves accountableย toย our new leadership approach?
  Successful change amid uncertainty   PGโ€™s transformationย wasnโ€™tย driven by a detailed roadmap, perfect plan or guarantee of success. Rather, it was spurred by a series of deliberate leadership shifts that empowered the executive team to move from hesitation to action.   Their experience provides a striking lesson for any executive team confronted with a similar challenge: Waiting for certainty is a trap,ย and moving forward requiresย leaders who can recognise and overcome the commonย stumbling blocks that stall transformation.ย  When leaders take the leap, they enable a system where employeesย arenโ€™tย just adapting to change โ€“ they are driving it.   This is an adaptation of anย articleย published inย Harvard Business Review. *Pseudonym.    

Edited by:

Rachel Eva Lim

About the author(s)

Chengyi Lin
is an Affiliate Professor of Strategy at INSEAD. His research primarily focuses on digital transformation and innovation for global and multi-national organisations.
Michael Y. Lee
is an Assistant Professor of Organisational Behaviour at INSEAD. His research explores the dynamics and consequences of radically decentralised systems and how organisations can facilitate greater self-management without sacrificing coordination.
https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/leading-organisational-change-without-roadmap

Enjoyed this article? Sign up for our newsletter to receive regular insights and stay connected.