Leadership · The leadership decisions behind transformation
When Strong Leadership Becomes a Barrier to Transformation
By Isabella Brusati · 5 November 2026
A leader’s ability to rescue delivery can become a reason the organisation keeps needing rescue.
Imagine an ERP sponsor who settles every difficult local exception. A site raises a concern, the sponsor intervenes and the immediate problem disappears. Colleagues value the speed. Over time, however, sites bypass the process owner and take their requests directly to the executive. Decisions already agreed are reopened. The sponsor’s diary fills with choices the programme was supposed to own.
This hypothetical pattern begins with a useful strength: taking responsibility when delivery is at risk. Repetition changes its effect. The team learns that authority sits with the person who provides the final answer, regardless of the formal governance.
My argument is that leaders should examine the operational effect of their strongest habits when transformation changes the work. The question is whether a response still helps others act or has made them dependent on intervention. The answer should come from recent decisions, rather than a broad judgement about personality.
Look for the assumption beneath the intervention
A sponsor may believe that dependable leadership means resolving uncertainty personally. They offer the answer before the owner explains a recommendation. Owners learn to wait or escalate. The executive sees the resulting dependence as evidence that closer oversight is necessary.
Research offers a reason to examine that cycle. In a four-year study of one professional-services firm, INSEAD researchers described organisational changes driven partly by leaders’ anxiety that left underlying problems unresolved. BCG’s 2026 survey of 563 senior leaders also explores the relationship between leadership beliefs and reported performance. Neither establishes that a particular executive’s intervention is harmful. They support testing assumptions against what happens in practice.
1. Trace the decisions that keep returning
Before the next steering review, select five recent decisions that stalled, escalated or changed late. With the programme lead, establish who had the information, who held authority and why the decision moved upward.
Ask an affected manager what they now believe requires the sponsor’s permission. Compare that answer with the formal arrangement. If people expect an agreed decision to be overturned, waiting may be a rational response.
Check alternative explanations too. The owner may lack experience, the boundary may be unclear or the consequence of error may justify senior involvement. Delegating a decision without addressing those conditions merely transfers exposure.
2. Change your response to one recurring choice
Select a decision with manageable consequences and an owner capable of making it. Agree the information required, the authority they hold and the conditions for escalation. State which risks remain with the sponsor.
When the next case arrives, ask for the owner’s recommendation and reasoning before offering your view. If it falls within the agreed boundary, support an acceptable choice even when you would prefer another. If you intervene, explain the new evidence or boundary that requires it.
This changes what the team can predict. Ownership becomes usable when people know that an informed decision will stand. A vague promise to empower them cannot provide that assurance.
3. Review the effect when pressure returns
Agree a review after four to six weeks, provided enough comparable decisions have occurred. Examine the cases together: which remained with their owner, which escalated and which were reopened? Record the reason for each exception.
Look at quality alongside speed. Shorter waits are useful only if rework, service problems and control failures remain acceptable. Ask whether owners had the information and support they needed. Do not infer success from a quiet diary if unresolved concerns have simply stopped reaching you.
If the experiment fails, identify why. The boundary may need adjustment, the owner may need development or a genuine dependency may still require executive action. Adapt the arrangement with that evidence.
Retain the responsibilities that are yours
Transformation will still require decisive intervention. A critical incident or an irreversible commitment may need closer oversight than a routine local choice. Make that difference explicit so that temporary control does not silently become the default.
Coaching can help you examine the assumption behind rescuing or controlling. It cannot provide missing organisational capacity or repair defective governance. Those conditions need their own action.
Try this before your next review
Complete: “When delivery becomes uncertain, I tend to ___, and the team may respond by ___.” Test it against one recent decision with people close to the work. Agree one different response, a boundary to protect and a review date.
A useful measure of your leadership is whether the organisation can make sound decisions when you are not in the room.
Research context: BCG, “Mind the Belief Gap”, 31 July 2026; INSEAD Knowledge, “The Perils of Defensive Organising”, 5 October 2026. Links accompany the discussion. The example is hypothetical; the decision experiment is my practice recommendation, not a validated assessment.
Related reading: The real role of the executive sponsor.