Own the Why, Especially When It Gets Uncomfortable
Most transformations start the same way.
There is a kickoff meeting, a crisp story, and a sense of momentum. People nod along. The business case is clear. The PowerPoint is clean. Everyone believes the plan, or at least believes it is plausible.
Then real life shows up.
A business unit says: “This is slowing us down.”
A leader says: “We cannot ask our teams to do all of this at once.”
Someone says: “Can we reduce scope for now and come back to this later?”
This is the moment where sponsorship becomes real.
Research and experience both point to sponsorship as a strategic role that maintains alignment and direction as the effort unfolds, not a ceremonial sign‑off at kickoff. Effective sponsors stay engaged as conditions change, tradeoffs surface, and pressure mounts.
In the field, the pattern is simple: the “why” decays unless someone keeps it alive.
The decay is rarely dramatic. It is quiet. It happens through small exceptions, gentle compromises, and “temporary” pauses that become permanent. Over time, teams stop believing the change is essential and start treating it as optional. The program becomes busy, but not transformative.
A real example of what “owning the why” looks like
My first interactions with Amy Mills at Emancipet – a nonprofit on a mission to make veterinary care affordable and accessible to everyone – were around a technology modernization effort. On the surface, it looked like many other tech projects: systems, tools, timelines, and tradeoffs.
But even in those early conversations, Amy consistently pulled us back to why the work mattered. Not in a performative way. In a grounding way.
The technology mattered because it helped Emancipet serve animals and their humans more effectively. Because it supported a mission to close the access‑to‑care gap that leaves millions of pets without veterinary care, not due to lack of love, but lack of affordability. The project was never “about IT.” It was about impact.
Over the years, as I became more involved and eventually joined the Board of Emancipet, that pattern only became clearer. Amy always grounded decisions in the why. Strategy discussions, growth debates, operational tradeoffs. They all came back to mission and impact.
This is something nonprofits often do well. When resources are constrained and the mission is explicit, leaders are forced to anchor decisions in purpose. For‑profit organizations can learn a lot from this discipline. The muscle of protecting the why is transferable, and it is powerful.
The Apollo vs. Shuttle problem (a useful mental model)
People who know me know I’m a bit of a space geek. I love using the various space races as metaphors for the messy, human reality of large‑scale transformation work.
Apollo had a clear objective: land a human on the Moon and return them safely to Earth. Everything aligned around that goal. It was hard, expensive, and not without tragedy. NASA lost the Apollo 1 crew in 1967, and the U.S. spent on the order of $25.8B in 1960s–70s dollars before ultimately completing six successful Moon landings by 1972. You can debate the cost and the pain, but not the boldness of the vision or the clarity of the outcome.
The Space Shuttle was different. It was an extraordinary technical achievement, but its mandate was never that clear. It was justified by reusability, flexibility, and “routine access to space,” rather than a specific outcome to achieve in space. As budgets tightened, NASA shifted from a fully reusable concept to a compromise design with a throw‑away external tank and solid rocket boosters. Defense requirements then added constraints like a large payload bay and high cross‑range capability, which increased complexity without clarifying the mission.
Over time, the costs grew far beyond expectations. What was sold as a cheaper, more routine way to get to orbit ultimately cost hundreds of millions to well over a billion dollars per flight, depending on how you account for it. And the program suffered two devastating losses of life with Challenger and Columbia. Later investigations tied many Shuttle risks not only to technical issues, but also to organizational pressures and competing priorities.
That pattern feels very familiar when I look at large enterprise technology transformations.
They often start with good intentions: modernize the core, be more digital, improve agility, reduce cost, enable innovation. Increasingly, they now also start with a strong push to “use AI,” often because of what the technology can do, before there is real clarity on why it matters to the business. The outcomes are rarely crisp. As budgets and timelines come into play, scope gets adjusted and complexity increases.
This is the risk a strong sponsor must help mitigate. Without a clear why, the transformation can drift into Shuttle mode: technically impressive, operationally complex, and strategically fuzzy.
What excellent sponsors do differently
Excellent sponsors do not just repeat the why. They actively steward it.
They keep the why grounded in reality, not slogans. They talk in plain language about the cost of the status quo and the consequence of not changing.
They refresh the why when conditions evolve. Markets change, priorities shift, and multi‑year programs will face new facts. Great sponsors update the narrative without abandoning the core purpose.
They use the why as a decision lens. When scope debates happen, they re‑anchor the conversation: “Which option best supports the outcomes we said matter?”
They remind the team without sounding like a broken record. The best sponsors make the why feel like a useful lens, not a motivational poster.
A practical sponsor move you can steal
Instead of setting aside time to restate the why, great sponsors embed it into the moments where it actually matters: decisions and tradeoffs.
Pick one recurring forum you already attend, such as a steering committee, escalation review, or budget check‑in, and make this a standing move:
1. Open the decision with context
“Before we decide, let’s anchor back to why we’re doing this in the first place.”
2. Force the explicit tradeoff Ask:
“Which option best advances the outcome we said mattered most?”
“What are we implicitly choosing against if we go this direction?”
3. Name the consequence out loud
End with one sentence:
“If we choose this, the consequence we’re accepting is ___.”
4. Repeat until it feels redundant
When the team starts answering these questions before you ask them, it’s landing.
This turns the why from a statement into a habit.
The Takeaway
Transformations rarely fail because the initial strategy was wrong. They fail because no one protected the meaning once things got messy. Strong sponsors – like my friend Amy Mills at Emancipet – keep the “why” intact long after kickoff. The “why” becomes a compass for the journey, not a forgotten kickoff artifact.
Engage with the original LinkedIn newsletter.