1. Major transformations and the price of consistency
Recently, I wrote about large-scale transformation processes in companies and how closely they resemble New Year’s resolutions: launched with great ambition, heavily charged with communication, and yet often falling far short of their goals.
This ties in with a conversation I had recently - one that has stayed with me. My counterpart had spent many years as a manager in an international corporation. He was considered reliable, decisive, and highly competent in complex financial matters. Precisely for these reasons, the board selected him to take overall responsibility for a massive transformation project. It wasn’t just about new structures; it involved cost savings in the billions and the separation from a five-figure number of employees.
The message to him was explicit and unambiguous: declining was not an option. Success, on the other hand, would open every door in the company to him. Things turned out differently.
2. One project, many centers of power
Anyone familiar with large corporations knows this: there is no single board and no single legal entity. There are country organizations, functional units, business divisions, countless legally connected entities, matrix structures - many people with power, influence, and their own interests. Added to this is the time dimension: someone with little influence today may tomorrow shape the big picture from a completely different position.
This is where major programs fail. Not because of poor analysis. Not because of flawed strategy. But because of resistance, political interests, and regional power bases.
My conversation partner consciously chose consistency. Little politics. Few compromises. Clear messages. Pushing through. As a result, he moved the project much further than many had expected. He implemented what had been decided - even when it was painful for others.
3. The delayed cost of clarity
Years later, he found himself sitting across from two board members - people to whom he had demanded a great deal during the transformation, back when they held different roles. People he had not spared. People who perceived him as uncompromising and unaccommodating.
This time, the message was different: the company would part ways with him.
Formally correct? Probably.
Humanly fair? Hardly.
Surprising? Unfortunately not.
Apparently, personal resentments had lingered. And apparently, they carried more weight than the project’s success - which others had long since claimed as their own.
4. An uncomfortable question
After our conversation, I thought about this for a long time. What is actually “right” in such roles and situations? Should one act uncompromisingly in the interest of the task - even at the risk of being crushed later on? Or is it wiser to act more politically, more conciliatory, more cautiously, in order not to endanger one’s own career - even if that dilutes the project?
The first instinctive answer seems obvious: of course one should act in the interest of the task, as my conversation partner did. Anything else feels opportunistic and self-serving.
But then again: who truly thanks you in the long run? And another reality remains: large corporations survive even mediocre transformations. They launch the next program, the next project, the next initiative. The system endures. Individuals often do not.
5. The question
That’s why I’d like to end not with a takeaway, but with an open question:
In such roles and situations, should one act uncompromisingly in the interest of project success - even at the risk of jeopardizing one’s own position? Or is it legitimate to factor in corporate politics and one’s own career in order to remain successful in the long term?
