When I worked at enterprise-size companies, the word “transformation” was front and center—in the middle of everything. In my world, there were two kinds: design-led transformation and digital transformation. I’m sure there were others tied to new ways of working, and today—though I haven’t yet seen it—some form of AI transformation is surely being pitched via PowerPoint in boardrooms around the globe.
As an executive at USAA, I sat through days-long seminars led by highly paid consultants presenting the benefits of transformation and how, at scale, our operations would change to drive success. It looked good, sounded even better, but there was always a hint of skepticism in the air—especially from the veterans in the room who had been to this rodeo before. Their cynicism came from experience, built on years of watching top-down and bottom-up transformation efforts struggle to change hearts and minds.
That’s why a recent report from McKinsey didn’t surprise me. It simply confirmed what we already know at Same Team Partners: if you want to change the company, it has to start at the team level and build from there. From McKinsey:
Our recent experience with organizations across industries and geographies reveals that a team-centric approach to transformation ushers in lasting, significant gains. In fact, team-focused transformations can lead to 30 percent efficiency gains in organizations that implement these strategies effectively.
This shouldn’t come as a surprise. Research has long shown that people form their strongest bonds in small groups, which is why transformation efforts that start at the team level are far more likely to succeed.
Why Teams Feel the Strongest Connection
Most employees know what it’s like to be part of a vibrant team that works toward a common goal. They feel a strong sense of belonging, viewing their team as a place where they can try new ways of working, learn and grow together, and give and receive constructive feedback.
This makes sense because humans are wired to work in small, close-knit groups. Dunbar’s Number suggests that we naturally form our strongest connections with groups of around 5-15 people—an average size for most teams. Beyond this core circle, relationships become more abstract, making it harder to feel a direct sense of impact.
Social Identity Theory further reinforces this idea, showing that people derive meaning and belonging from their immediate group, while connections to broader organizational structures feel less tangible. No matter how many all-hands meetings or company-wide emails reinforce a shared mission, employees are most engaged when they can clearly see and feel how their work contributes to the success of the people they interact with daily.
However, not all teams are created equal. Those that have the potential to notch better performance require several operational elements to be in place, as well as the backing of the broader organization.
This is exactly why so many company-wide transformation efforts fail.
Where Transformation Falls Apart
Top-down and bottom-up approaches commonly treat teams as if they are all the same. Even when teams look identical on an org chart, we know that every team has its own distinct culture that directly impacts how it works and delivers results. One-size-fits-all solutions rarely work.
Without proper training, guidance, and—more importantly—support, team leaders are left to their own devices to interpret how to lead their teams through company-wide initiatives. In my experience, this is the biggest point of failure, and yet, the blame always falls on their shoulders rather than on company leadership.
Years ago, I joined an executive leadership team for a design organization of hundreds of people. On my first day, I sat in a room with 50 other leaders as we were presented with the framework that would guide all of our work. This single model detailed every step, task, and outcome required to deliver on the company’s transformation goals.
It was presented as the way forward. No discussion, no alternatives, no room for adaptation.
We were then expected to take this framework to our teams and implement it as the standard model for delivering work to partners and stakeholders. Without any further training or guidance, many directors applied the framework verbatim across all of their projects—regardless of whether it made sense for the type of work their teams were doing.
You can probably guess what happened next.
The rigid approach created inefficiencies, slowed down delivery, and forced teams to adopt unnecessary processes that didn’t align with their actual work. It was a classic mismatch between top-level intentions and the reality that every team operates differently.
It’s easy to imagine how this happens in a company with tens or hundreds of thousands of employees, but I’ve seen it happen in a company of thirty.
The Overlooked Weakness in Transformation Efforts
The biggest point of failure in any transformation effort is at the team leadership level—not because team leaders are bad at their jobs, but because they rarely get the training, tools, and support they need to succeed. And yet, company success relies on their success as leaders.
If transformation truly starts with teams, then organizations must stop overlooking the people responsible for leading them. Instead of assuming leaders will figure it out, companies must invest in practical, team-based solutions that support them in adapting change to their unique team dynamics.
This is exactly why at Same Team Partners, we’ve to build a platform around this reality. Whether through Teamangle Diagnostics, Conversation Cards, Power Plays, or Field Strategy, we help teams define, navigate, and sustain change in ways that actually work for them—not just in theory, but in real practice.
Because if transformation isn’t working at the team level, it isn’t working at all.
