The Hidden Dynamics Shaping Enterprise Transformation
Most transformations don't fail because the strategy was wrong. They fail because nobody checked what was already in the system.
Picture a chemist who gets everything right and still watches the reaction fail. The measurements are exact, the method is sound, and yet the reaction goes sideways every time. The problem isn't the formula. Nobody checked what was already in the flask.
This is, more or less, what happens in enterprise transformation. Every year, billions of dollars go in, consultants are engaged, roadmaps are built, and change programs are designed with real care and considerable expertise. Yet most still fail to deliver what they promised, not because the strategy was wrong or the people weren't capable, but because nobody stopped to analyse what was already in the system before they started adding things to it.
Here's what I've come to believe after years of working inside these programs. Most organisations already have the elements they need to be brilliant. The problem isn't a shortage of talent or ambition or resource, it's that those elements are combining in ways that nobody is paying attention to. To unlock real potential, you need the right formula. In our work at Interchange, we've found the formula has three components, clarity, creativity, and courage. What follows is an honest account of why each one matters, and what goes wrong when any of them is missing.
Clarity
Figuring out what's in the flask
Every organisation has a chemistry, not a metaphorical one, or not only, but a real set of invisible compounds that determine how the system behaves under pressure. Anxieties, defences, authority relationships, tacit assumptions built up over years of people figuring out how to survive being at work together. Apply a change program without understanding that composition, and the reaction you get will rarely be the one you intended.
The temptation in most organisations is to treat this as a solved problem. We have the org chart, the strategy, clearly defined roles and OKRs and a leadership framework someone spent six months developing. These things matter, but they describe the periodic table rather than the reaction happening inside it, and the real chemistry is invisible and already running whether anyone is paying attention or not.
Wilfred Bion, the British psychoanalyst who spent years studying group behaviour, observed that every group operates on two levels simultaneously. There's the task level, where people consciously get on with the work, and beneath that, the basic assumption level, where unconscious emotional needs are being met, often quietly and often at the expense of the task above. Most transformation programs are designed entirely for the first level, which is a bit like treating the label on the flask as if it tells you everything you need to know about what's inside.
Edgar Schein spent decades studying organisational culture and arrived at a similar conclusion. The culture that matters isn't the visible layer of values on the wall or the behaviours people perform in town halls, it's the deep stratum of shared assumptions that people have collectively developed to manage uncertainty, assumptions that are largely invisible to the people who hold them and therefore extraordinarily difficult to shift. These are the primary determinant of how a transformation lands, and they are almost never the thing transformation programs are designed to address.
At the centre of almost every transformation resistance, once you look closely enough, is anxiety, and not the manageable kind that appears on a psychosocial risk register. It's the deeper, less acknowledged anxiety that surfaces the moment someone announces that things are going to change, because change threatens the familiar, disrupts the unspoken agreements people have made about how things work and who has authority and what is expected of them. That kind of anxiety doesn't stay neatly inside the individuals who feel it. In chemistry, a reactive agent disperses through the system, binding with whatever it encounters, and anxiety in organisations does exactly the same thing.
BuildAus, an Australian construction company we worked with after it was acquired by a major investment firm, was a striking example of this. On paper the mandate was clear. Transform into a faster, leaner competitor. In practice the organisation's chemistry had already turned before we arrived. Leaders had been promoted well beyond their capability with no real consequence for underperformance, and had spent years developing elaborate ways of managing their anxiety through projection and blame. The previous CEO had set targets so unrealistic they functioned less like a strategy and more like an unconscious invitation to the organisation to reject them, which it did reliably every quarter. When people lose faith in direction from the top they don't simply disengage, they get busy with other things, protecting their patch, building small kingdoms, forming the kinds of quiet alliances that keep the surface of the business looking functional while the actual work of transformation goes nowhere.
This is not pathology. It is a completely rational response to a system that has stopped being trustworthy. But it compounds over time, the defences people develop to manage their anxiety becoming embedded in structures and processes and the informal rules of culture until they harden into something invisible and self-reinforcing, a stable but toxic compound that the organisation unconsciously invests enormous energy in maintaining. It can look like a functioning business right up until the moment the reaction runs out of road.
The first job of any serious transformation is to understand what you are actually dealing with, not what the strategy says or what the engagement survey suggests, but what is really happening in the emotional and relational life of the system. You cannot change a formula you have not taken the time to read.
Creativity
The catalyst that sparks something new
In 2024, Fitzsimons, Petriglieri and Petriglieri published research that I think should be required reading for anyone leading a transformation. They followed a professional services firm through a major reorganisation, one designed on the surface around collaboration and adaptive leadership, and what they found beneath the surface was far more instructive.
The leadership team, facing declining performance and the quiet terror of being exposed as inadequate, had initiated the reorganisation not primarily as a business response but as an unconscious way of managing their own anxiety. It gave them something to point to, generated energy and narrative, and restored temporarily the feeling of being competent and in control, but it did not touch the underlying problem. They called this phenomenon 'defensive organising', and when I first read the paper I had to put it down for a moment, because I had seen the pattern so many times without having the language for it.
Once you know what to look for, it's remarkably consistent. First comes idealisation. A new initiative, a new leader, a new way of working arrives and the energy lifts, but the underlying composition hasn't changed. When the ideal fails to deliver, anxiety resurfaces and needs somewhere to go, so it gets projected outward, usually downward, and leaders begin attributing to their teams the very incompetence they are most afraid of in themselves. Intergroup conflict follows, which usefully absorbs everyone's attention until it becomes the problem the organisation is ostensibly trying to solve. When that defence eventually collapses, a scapegoat emerges, usually someone senior enough to carry the weight, expelled with enough theatre to signal that the problem has been located and removed, and then the cycle runs again.
The implications for transformation leaders are sobering. If you launch a change program into a system running this pattern, the program itself gets absorbed into the defence. The transformation becomes the new ideal, the PMO becomes the battleground where anxiety gets organised, the external consultants become the eventual scapegoat, and the system neutralises the effort entirely without moving an inch.
This is why creativity, and specifically the kind that comes from outside the compound, is not a nice-to-have. Internal change agents, however skilled, are shaped by the same emotional dynamics as everyone else in the system and cannot read the chemistry clearly when they are part of it. This isn't a criticism of internal capability, it's just how systems work. The outside perspective is often the only thing capable of seeing what the system cannot see about itself, naming the patterns, and introducing something new into the reaction.
Jarrett and Vince's longitudinal study of a global company in transformation adds another layer to this, puncturing one of the most persistent myths in enterprise change, the idea that transformation is driven by the right leader with the right vision. Authority in organisations is not held, it is negotiated constantly and often invisibly across a shifting web of relationships. A new leader arrives and for a while the organisation rallies, early wins create real relief, and the compliance phase feels like progress. But it's fragile, resting on the organisation projecting onto one person a degree of competence and magical capability that no individual can sustain.
As performance falters, that idealisation curdles into ambivalence, mixed feelings go unspoken, and the us-versus-them dynamic that was always latent hardens into something more structural. BuildAus went through three CEOs in as many years, each arriving with fresh authority and each eventually departing under a cloud, while the deeper chemistry driving the dysfunction sat entirely undisturbed beneath each transition. Changing the person at the top does not change the composition of the organisation beneath them.
Fragmentation comes next, and it is uncomfortable. Factions, withdrawal, the accumulated weight of a group that has stopped believing in collective endeavour. But fragmentation also signals possibility, because it is the point at which the old compound has broken down enough that something new might actually be able to form. The researchers call the final configuration engagement, characterised by distributed authority, a willingness to move from blame toward repair, and a shared narrative of change that people have built together rather than had handed to them. This is where transformation becomes real, but you can only get there by moving through what precedes it rather than finding a way around it.
Courage
The heat that decides how far the change goes
If these dynamics are this consequential, why do so few transformation programs take them seriously? Part of the answer is cultural. In most large organisations, emotions are treated as private weather, conditions to be managed rather than information to be used, and the suggestion that a CEO's unacknowledged anxiety might be the primary driver of a restructuring that cost fifty million dollars and delivered nothing runs hard against the rational-actor model that dominates how most boards and leadership teams think about their organisations.
Part of the answer is structural. Transformation programs are almost universally designed and evaluated through a technical lens, delivered in a PMO model with milestones and deliverables and change readiness surveys that measure the surface of the system rather than its depth. An organisation can score well on every metric while its social defences run at full capacity, and the instruments give the appearance of a controlled reaction while the chemistry tells a very different story.
The third part is that the people leading transformation are inside the system, subject to the same dynamics they are trying to shift, navigating without the kind of perspective that can only come from someone who isn't part of the compound.
In chemistry, heat is the energy that enables a reaction to occur, but the amount matters enormously, because too little and nothing shifts, and too much and the compound destabilises in ways that can be dangerous. The art of transformation leadership lies in understanding the organisational chemistry well enough to apply exactly the right kind of heat, in the right places, at the right time. That heat is courage. The courage to read the composition rather than assume you already know what's in the flask, to name the anxiety in the room rather than perform a confidence you don't quite feel, and to stay with the discomfort of fragmentation rather than short-circuit it with another restructure or another change program that becomes the new ideal before the old one has been properly examined.
Practically, that looks like this:
-
Before designing anything, invest in understanding what you're actually working with. What people are anxious about, what they are defending against, and where authority actually sits as opposed to where the org chart says it does. This inquiry is the most important diagnostic a transformation can do, and it is almost always skipped.
-
Leaders who can acknowledge openly that the path ahead is uncertain and that they don't have all the answers create the conditions for honest engagement. Those who project unwavering confidence signal that anxiety must be hidden, and hidden anxiety always finds somewhere else to go.
-
The relational quality within the senior leadership function is one of the strongest leading indicators of transformation success, and fragmentation, scapegoating, and dependency on a single authority figure are signals about the stability of the compound that need to be read and worked with rather than managed around.
-
Resistance is the system telling you something about what hasn't been adequately understood or addressed, and the most valuable question when it surfaces is not how do we overcome this, but what is this telling us about the composition we are working with.
-
The ability to hold the anxiety of a system in transition without suppressing it or acting it out prematurely is perhaps the most underrated capability in transformation leadership, and it is the condition under which new bonds form. This is how the chemistry of an organisation actually changes, not through force, but through the steady, skilled application of the right conditions.
The most intractable problems in transformation are almost never technical. They are human, rooted in anxiety, defended by social systems that evolved to protect people from discomfort, and sustained by a chemistry that most organisations do not have the language, or the appetite, to examine directly.
The organisations that succeed are the ones that bring all three components together. The clarity to see what the system is actually doing rather than what it is supposed to be doing, the creativity to introduce something new into the reaction from outside the compound, and the courage to apply the heat that decides how far the transformation really goes.
The hidden dynamics are not the enemy of transformation. Ignored, they are. Understood, they become the very formula through which meaningful, lasting change becomes possible.
So before you add anything else to the flask, it's worth asking, do you actually know what's already in there?
References
Bion, W.R. (1961). Experiences in Groups. London: Tavistock.
Diamond, M. & Allcorn, S. (2003). The cornerstone of psychoanalytic organisational analysis: Psychological reality, transference and counter-transference in the workplace. Human Relations 56(4): 491–514.
Fitzsimons, D., Petriglieri, J.L., Petriglieri, G. (2024). The fury beneath the morphing: A theory of defensive organizing. Academy of Management Journal.
Fotaki, M. (2021). The psychoanalytic contribution. In D. Lawlor & M. Sher, An Introduction to Systems Psychodynamics: Consultancy, Research and Training. Routledge.
Hirschhorn, L. (1999). The primary risk. Human Relations, 52(1), 5–23.
Jarrett, M., Vince, R. (2023). Mitigating anxiety: The role of strategic leadership groups during radical organisational change. Human Relations.
Lawlor, D., Sher, M. (2022). An Introduction to Systems Psychodynamics: Consultancy, Research and Training. Routledge.
Levinson, H. (2002). Organisational Assessment: A Step-by-Step Guide to Effective Consulting. Washington DC: American Psychological Society.
McKinsey & Company. (2025). The State of AI: How Organizations Are Rewiring to Capture Value. McKinsey Global Survey on AI.
McKinsey & Company. (2022). Common Pitfalls in Transformations: A Conversation with Jon Garcia. McKinsey Transformation Practice.
Petriglieri, G., Petriglieri, J.L. (2020). The return of the oppressed: A systems psychodynamic approach to organization studies. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1): 411–449.
Rosen, M., Oxenbury, H. (1989). We're Going on a Bear Hunt. London: Walker Books.
Schein, E.H. (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership, 3rd Edition. Jossey-Bass.
Schweitzer, M., Ordóñez, L., Douma, B. (2004). Goal setting as a motivator of unethical behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 422–432.
Stouten, J., Rousseau, D., De Cremer, D. (2018). Successful organisational change: Integrating the management practice and scholarly literatures. Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 12, No. 2, 752–788.
Vince, R., Mazen, A. (2014). Violent innocence: A contradiction at the heart of leadership. Organisational Studies, 35(2): 189–207.
Wells, L., Jr. (1985). The group-as-a-whole perspective and its theoretical roots. In A.D. Coleman & M.H. Geller (Eds.), Group Relations Reader 2. A.K. Rice Institute.
Zhou, J., George, J.M. (2003). Awakening employee creativity: The role of leader emotional intelligence. The Leadership Quarterly.
