What Are the Transformation Imperatives for 2026?
Last week, we gathered our Leaders in Transformation UK Community for an evening tackling the transformation imperatives for 2026. With transformation directors from Dreams, Schneider Electric, RNIB, Lloyd’s Register, International Personal Finance, Customs Support Group and more around the circle, we started with five questions on the whiteboard:
Where does global-local tension help, and where does it slow everything down?
- What investments are genuinely delivering value?
- What capability gaps keep emerging?
- Who are the key people in your transformation network?
- Is 2026 the last year of episodic change?
Here's where the conversation went.
The Global-Local Paradox
One pattern emerged immediately: the tension between global consistency and local autonomy isn't going away. If anything, it's intensifying.
Several people described similar challenges: central teams firing initiatives at local markets without coordination, local teams rebelling against imposed tools that don't fit their reality and everyone caught in the middle trying to make it work.
But we also heard about what works. A Group Head of Transformation described building champions in each country, upskilling them in the technologies being rolled out, then stepping back and letting them translate the change in their own language. Not top-down mandates, but bottom-up momentum.
Another Community member talked about the framework approach: be crystal clear on the mission and the guardrails, then give teams freedom to execute however they need to. Global strategy, local execution. Simple to say, harder to do, but worth getting right.
The Capability Question
When we asked about capability gaps, the conversation quickly went to AI. Everyone's board wants it. Most can't articulate what they want it to do.
The gap isn't always about skills. Sometimes it's about context. A director of transformation observed that the same people with the same skills can demonstrate extraordinary innovation in one setting and zero innovation in another. The capability is there. The conditions aren't.
This played out in the AI discussion too. One CIO talked about executives wanting AI everywhere without specifying use cases or problems to solve. The request becomes "just go do AI stuff and make things better" rather than "help us solve this specific problem."
Fresh eyes matter. Several people talked about the power of younger team members who haven't learned what's "impossible" yet, who ask "why?" without the baggage of knowing all the ways things have failed before.
But experience matters too. The challenge is creating space for both the curious newcomers and those who've been through multiple transformation cycles to work together without either group shutting the other down.
Who's Actually Making Transformation Happen?
We then spent time on a crucial question: who are the key people in your transformation network?
The traditional answer — CEO, CFO, CIO — is evolving. Several people noted that COOs and CFOs are increasingly the ones who "get it," especially when transformation connects to process re-engineering and tangible value creation.
But equally important are the unofficial change agents. The operations person who's also interested in technology. The team member who's halfway there already, who can speak both the business and the tech languages.
These people aren't typically on transformation org charts. But they're the ones who make change stick.
Value, Not Projects
The last question on the whiteboard: is 2026 the last year of episodic change?
Project funding models aren't disappearing. Boards want to know what goes in and what comes out. But several people described a shift towards more iterative, incremental approaches. Try something, learn fast, move forward. Fund in 90-day increments. Prove value, get more investment.
A Community member put it simply: episodic change is fine, as long as you're learning and moving forward. The problem isn't the episodes. It's when nothing changes between them.
What This Feels Like
Throughout the evening, a pattern emerged around what transformation leadership requires right now.
Creating conditions, not controlling outcomes. Building movements, not managing projects. Trusting people with frameworks, not strangling them with process. Being comfortable with messiness while still delivering results.
Several people came back to the same idea: the answers aren't in a playbook. They're in conversations between people who are doing this work, comparing notes on what's happening.
That's what the Leaders in Transformation Community is for: bringing together senior transformation leaders from across industries to share what's working, what isn't and what they're wrestling with right now.
If you're leading transformation and want to be part of it, get in touch. You can also explore our other Communities.