A RECENT McKinsey report outlines three forces reshaping organisations globally — technology and artificial intelligence (AI), economic and geopolitical disruption, and a changing workforce. These forces may appear less immediate to Pakistani business leaders, who already contend with volatile costs, uncertain demand, disrupted supply chains and regulatory uncertainty, amongst other existential issues.

With these new challenges, naturally, the question arises: how prepared are our organisations for change? It is a crucial question, but I believe a more fundamental one lies beneath; are Pakistani organisations ready to learn?

This shift in focus stems from my belief that organisations should prioritise building capability over simply adopting the latest technology or management ideas. Capability encompasses an organisation’s accumulated ability to achieve its purpose; making sound decisions, developing people, learning from experience and adapting to changing circumstances. Results are undoubtedly important — profit, growth, market share, impact and productivity — but they alone do not define good management.

The more important question is whether an organisation is becoming more capable of fulfilling its purpose. Are they making better decisions? Are their people developing? Does experience influence behaviour? Can they respond to environmental changes? And would they continue to perform even if their most senior leader were no longer present?

With new challenges, a fundamental question arises: are Pakistani organisations prepared to learn?

These questions hold particular relevance for Pakistan. We boast many highly capable founders, family-business leaders and senior executives whose market knowledge, relationships and judge­­­ment have often propelled successful enterprises throu­­gh challenging times. However, personal capability alone does not equate to institutional capability.

I have witnessed organisations where every significant decision ultimately falls to the owner(s) or the most experienced person. This applies to difficult customers, major investments, hiring decisions and operational problems — everyone waits for the person who is assumed to know the answer. While this can work well in the short term, with a capable individual at the centre, it leads to a growing dependence on that single person. Managers become adept at escalating problems rather than solving them, and experience becomes concentrated in a few heads rather than embedded in systems, processes and shared judgement.

The organisation might grow larger or become more profitable, but it has not necessarily become stronger. True leadership is not measured by whether everything functions when the leader is present; it is whether the organisation has become more capable in their absence.

This is one reason Pakistani organisations often struggle with succession. We tend to think of succession as simply finding the next CEO or family member, but it is a much broader question. Has the organisation developed people capable of making decisions? Has it created systems that do not rely on personal intervention? Has it made knowledge accessible beyond those who acquired it? Has it given capable younger managers real exposure to challenging work before they are expected to lead? If not, the organisation may have found a successor, but it has not built succession.

The same issue arises with AI. Many leaders are asking which tasks AI can automate, which is a reasonable starting point. However, the more important question is what new capabilities the organisation will need when routine work changes.

Technology matters. AI will change how work is done, which skills matter and what customers expect. But technology does not transform an organisation. People using technology differently might. A company can buy the latest systems, appoint a chief digital officer and run pilots in AI. It can still make the same slow decisions, hide the same bad news, reward the same behaviour and depend on the same few senior people. In that case, technology may simply make the organisation more efficient at doing what is becoming less relevant.

These are management issues, not technology ones. They also explain why so many transformation programmes disappoint. An organisation announces a new strategy, redraws reporting lines, creates a digital team, brings in consultants and launches a new performance management system. Each of these might be sensible but none automatically changes how the organisation behaves.

If people were afraid to speak honestly before the transformation they will remain afraid afterwards. If bad news is softened before reaching senior leadership a new dashboard will simply pre­­sent a cleaner version of the same reality. If managers are rewarded only for their personal results they will have little incentive to develop others.

An organisation learns only when experience changes its behaviour. This requires leaders to protect the flow of difficult information. No institution can learn from a reality it is afraid to see. Leaders must distinguish respect for experience from obedience to hierarchy. Older leaders bring perspective while younger people often understand emerging technologies, customers and expectations more instinctively. Healthy organisations create a conversation between the two.

The old answer to every new question is the clearest sign of institutional ageing. Pakistan’s organisations do not need to imitate every global management trend or become technology companies. They need to become learning institutions — organisations that can use technology without being defined by it, develop people without abandoning accountability, preserve purpose without protecting every old habit and change before failure makes change unavoidable.

The question is not whether Pakistani organisations are ready for change and disruption. It is whether they are ready to learn.

The writer advises boards and CEOs on strategy, leadership and organisational transformation.

Published in Dawn, September 19th, 2026