Making transformation stick: Using interim leaders to turn ambition into execution

Transformations are no longer discrete, time bound initiatives. Instead, they have become the operating environment for the leaders we speak with today. Geopolitical shocks, market volatility, shifting stakeholder expectations, and technology disruption—particularly AI—have created a landscape in which change arrives in overlapping waves rather than neat phases. Large, "capital T” Transformation programs run alongside countless local pilots and “small t” transformation efforts bubbling up across the business.

Faced with this transformation tsunami, most executive teams do not suffer from a lack of ambition. Strategies are thoughtfully crafted; targets are set; leadership teams can articulate a compelling vision. Yet execution routinely falls short of expectations.

Our recent polling of senior leaders underscores the point. A large majority expect to pursue significant transformations in the near term, but confidence in their ability to fully execute lags meaningfully behind their strategic intent. In one 2026 LinkedIn poll conducted by Heidrick & Struggles, 80% of respondents said they were planning a transformation in 2026, yet 42% reported they were not confident in their leadership and available resources to execute it. When asked where they struggle more—strategy or execution—only a small minority (10%) selected strategy alone. The majority (87%) pointed to execution, or to both strategy and execution together. 

These findings echo our ongoing conversations with executives and transformation leaders about complex, multi-year transformations. The message is clear: in a world where transformation is the operating environment, the differentiator is no longer who has the boldest ambition, but who can build an execution engine that turns vision into results—without breaking business as usual.

Transformation as the operating environment

Often, transformation programs are still conceived as if they were finite, self-contained projects with a start date, a roadmap, an implementation period, and a handoff back to “normal.” That model is increasingly at odds with reality.

The transformation context leaders now face is:

• Continuous: New waves of change arrive before prior initiatives have fully landed.
• Episodic: External shocks—regulatory shifts, supply chain disruptions, competitive moves—require rapid, discrete responses.
• Uneven: Different parts of the organization move at different speeds; AI pilots, for example, may advance quickly in one function while others struggle to adapt.

In this context, treating transformation as an off-the-side-of-the-desk effort is no longer viable. We see leaders trying to run today’s business and tomorrow’s business on the same engine, with the same people and structures, and without a distinct operating model for change. Instead transformation needs to be designed into the way the organization operates. That means explicit choices about governance, talent, and resourcing—not just a list of initiatives.

Why execution lags behind ambition

If ambition is not the primary constraint, what is? Several recurring execution challenges show up across industries.

The strategy–execution disconnect

Most organizations can point to a well-articulated vision, quantitative targets, and what appears to be alignment at the top. Where things break down is in translating that ambition into a practical plan:

• Workstreams are loosely defined or overly aligned to the org chart rather than outcomes.
• Decision rights are unclear, which slows progress and creates shadow governance.
• Ownership for “who does what by when” is ambiguous, so no one feels fully accountable.
• Budgets and capacity aren’t aligned with the scope of change, and the expected ROI isn’t clearly defined.

The BAU vs. transformation squeeze

Frequently, I speak to senior leaders who’ve been asked to drive major change alongside full P&L or functional responsibilities. Transformation work is done “off the side of their desk,” but without clear cadence and forums, decisions slip, workstreams drift, and attention returns to the urgent demands of business as usual.

Capacity and expertise constraints

Program management offices (PMOs) are often staffed with capable generalists, but transformations hinge on deep expertise in specific domains—pricing, supply chain, data, digital, operating model redesign—that cannot always be sourced internally at the speed required.

Inflexible resourcing and burnout

Transformations do not demand the same level of effort from all teams at all times. Peaks of intensity—for example, during integration cutovers, ERP deployments, or major cost-takeout waves—are often staffed using static headcount, resulting in sustained overload, stalled initiatives, and growing skepticism about “yet another transformation.”

Over reliance on fully outsourced models

At the other extreme, some organizations hand execution almost entirely to large external firms. While this can create short-term momentum, it can also be long, expensive, and less likely to embed new muscles that endure once the firm departs.

The result is a lot of motion, but too little meaningful change in how the business performs. Steering committees meet, decks multiply, and yet financial and operational outcomes look largely the same quarter after quarter.

What execution readiness really looks like

Closing the ambition–execution gap requires a different standard for “readiness.” Execution-ready organizations exhibit several common characteristics.

Running today’s and tomorrow’s business simultaneously

Execution readiness is the ability to deliver current results while building the capabilities and business models required for the future—at the same time, not sequentially. This demands explicit trade offs, not informal heroics.

Bottom-up plans anchored in value

Top-down targets set ambition; bottoms-up planning makes it executable. Effective plans operate simultaneously as business, project, and financial plans, spelling out actions, sequencing, required assets, and expected returns for each workstream. That rigor forces clarity and creates transparency on what is truly required to deliver.

Cross-functional, outcome-based workstreams

Instead of aligning work to existing silos, leading companies structure workstreams around clear outcomes: for example, “improve order-to-cash performance” or “accelerate digital sales conversion,” with cross-functional teams accountable for the result.

Clear ownership and governance

For each workstream, it is unambiguous what will be delivered, by whom, and by when. A transformation office—distinct from a traditional PMO—sets decision rights, sponsorship, and escalation paths so workstreams have clear direction and support.

Rhythm and analytics as the engine of discipline

Execution accelerates when there is a predictable cadence of meetings and decisions—weekly or even daily where needed—supported by robust analytics. The focus shifts from “What did we do?” to “What value did we create?” and “What needs to change next?”

A resourcing plan with dollars and people

Finally, execution-ready organizations match their ambition to a concrete plan for both budget and capacity. They specify who will do the work, for how long, and with what funding behind each workstream—rather than assuming already stretched teams can absorb more on top of existing responsibilities.

How interim leaders and experts unlock execution at pace

Even with strong structures, most transformations demand skills and capacity that internal teams alone cannot provide. This is where interim leaders and on-demand experts can play a decisive role.

Flexible resources = capacity + skills + expertise

Interim leaders and experts function as “organizational cloud capacity.” They can be deployed in weeks rather than months, scaled up or down as needs shift, and targeted to the workstreams that matter most. Experienced interim leaders bring deep pattern recognition, an external perspective unconstrained by internal politics, and the emotional intelligence to navigate complex stakeholder landscapes.

Critically, the goal is not to substitute external talent for internal leadership, but to create blended teams. When interim leaders and experts are intentionally paired with high-potential internal talent, every deliverable becomes an opportunity for coaching, knowledge transfer, and capability building. Done well, the organization emerges from the transformation not only with results delivered, but with a stronger bench of leaders equipped to sustain and extend the change.

From episodic change to enduring capability

In a world of continuous transformation, the organizations that pull ahead are those that treat execution as a core capability—investing in disciplined workstreams, clear ownership, and a thoughtfully blended mix of internal leaders and interim experts.

For executive teams seeking more guidance on when and how to deploy interim leaders and experts, The Transformation Playbook provides a practical roadmap. It highlights where internal capacity typically reaches its limits, how to pair interim talent with high-potential internal leaders, and how to use “organizational cloud capacity” to flex resources around moments of peak demand while laying the foundation for scalable standards and governance.

About the author

Laura Klein (lklein@heidrick.com) is a partner in the Financial Services Practice focused on interim solutions. She is based in the Boston office.