Failed change efforts are costing companies their staff – as half of all firms are now facing ‘transformation fatigue’. A survey by Emergn suggests that bosses can avoid this better by improving the training offered to staff during changes, and better communicating their plans.
A case that has been stated and re-stated tirelessly over the last decade, is that the digital era means organisations face endless “critical challenges” in a rapidly evolving landscape. Amid this, traditional transformation approaches of simply upgrading and then continuing as normal supposedly no longer work – and leaders have been told that they must instead adopt continuous change as part of their organisation.
But as the speed of change has supposedly accelerated, the perception of value each new tweak delivers has diminished. With new flavours of the month from blockchain, to NFTs, to the metaverse, to AI having each required expensive and complicated change to adapt into every business under the sun, while the results have – at best – been underwhelming, there is an increasing feeling of fatigue when new ‘transformations’ are announced.
Further examination of ‘The Global Intelligent Delusion’ – a report from Emergn – has revealed just how bad this is getting. Conducted by Censuswide, with a sample from 751 global organisations with 1,000 or more employees and $500 million or more in revenue, respondents included CEOs, CTOs, COOs, and others involved in operational change who have been employed for at least five years at companies. Of those, 82% said they felt transformation was “necessary to stay competitive” – rising from 70% last year. But as the perceived value of these changes declines, 50% also said they were experiencing transformation fatigue, while 44% say the frequency of change is too high.
Looking ahead, companies are setting themselves up for a talent crisis, too. While many firms already report they face difficulties filling vacancies and sourcing new talent, 45% of respondents said they had suffered burnout from ongoing changes, and 36% would consider quitting due to constant upheaval. Perhaps unsurprisingly, 55% said their fatigue was being accelerated by AI-driven initiatives, too. In other words, companies are forcing away key talent in a way that – even if AI delivers on its promises – is not sustainable.
“Too many companies are mistaking activity for progress. Transformation isn’t supposed to break people – it’s supposed to build capability. But right now, we’re seeing the opposite,” says Alex Adamopoulos, CEO of Emergn. “This is no longer just a leadership issue – it’s a business model problem.”
Digital exhaustion
Adamopoulos added that as organisations were pushing hard to adopt new technologies without building the human readiness to sustain them, they were pushing themselves not toward digital transformation, but “digital exhaustion.” But as firms still feel the need to change to keep up with the Jones’, is there any way they might offset this?
The report also painted a clear picture of what it is that is driving staff from companies pushing through relentless transformations. Above all else, 42% said they did not receive enough training during the change campaign. At the same time, 31% felt bosses did not inform them properly about transformation goals – rising from 25% in 2024.
Importantly, many also felt that while they might receive the blame, leadership was often at fault for transformations misfiring. A 41% chunk said leadership missteps contributed directly to failure, while 37% said that the external consultants managers sourced to deliver change campaigns actually added complexity, and without any clarity.
These numbers reveal “a trust gap”, according to Emergn – and a growing sense that transformation is something done to people, not with them. Changing that will take improved communication, training opportunities, and most importantly, leadership.
“There’s no glory in a successful initiative that leaves your team drained, disillusioned, or looking for the exit,” concluded Adamopoulos. “If change is constant, then capability-building, communication, and clarity must be constant too. Otherwise, all you’re doing is rebranding burnout.”
