Lessons From 2025 Data: Common Themes Across Organizations

In 2025, transform.forward partnered with mission-driven organizations to facilitate strategic planning, organizational effectiveness studies, visioning workshops, and stakeholder engagement initiatives. These engagements spanned institutional types, geographic regions, organizational sizes, and leadership structures. Some organizations were navigating leadership transitions. Others were launching new strategic plans. Still others were reexamining their identity amid shifting external pressures.

Despite their differences, a remarkable pattern emerged. 

Across dozens of interviews, workshops, surveys, focus groups, and advisory sessions – across literally thousands of qualitative data points – common themes surfaced again and again. Organizations differed in context, history, and resources, but the human, structural, and strategic challenges they faced were strikingly consistent. 

This blog reflects on those cross-cutting themes. It is not a summary of any one organization; rather, it’s a synthesis of patterns across a year in review. Today, we’re embarking on a data-driven reflection of over 2,000 pages of data from our 2025 projects, identifying patterns, and sharing what those patterns reveal about the present and future states of mission-driven work. 

2025 Patterns Revealed

People Believe in the Mission, but Often Lack Shared Clarity

One of the most encouraging findings across nearly every engagement was the depth of commitment stakeholders expressed toward their organization’s mission. Faculty, staff, administrators, board members, students, and participants consistently described a strong sense of purpose. Many articulated deep personal alignment with the organization’s values and a genuine belief in its impact (or potential). 

However, belief in the mission did not always translate into shared clarity about direction. In fact, it rarely did.
Across multiple organizations, stakeholders expressed uncertainty about priorities, decision-making frameworks, or long-term vision. Even when mission and values statements existed, they were not always operationalized in ways that clearly guided day-to-day work. Individuals often made decisions based on local priorities, personal judgment, or historical (often undocumented) precedent rather than a clearly articulated strategic framework. Often, these decisions were reactive, “putting out fires,” rather than being proactive and strategic. 

This pattern does not reflect a lack of commitment. Rather, it reflects a lack of shared organizational translation from aspiration to action. 

Here’s what we saw: Organizations with the strongest internal alignment were not those with the most eloquent mission statements or the trendiest values… They were those where stakeholders, especially staff, could clearly answer three questions:

• What are we prioritizing as an organization right now?

• How do we make decisions when tradeoffs arise, and how do we communicate those decisions?

• What does success look like in concrete terms for this team? 

When organizations created shared clarity around these decisions, especially when that clarity involved assessments and metric evaluations, decision-making accelerated. Uncertainty decreased. People were on the same page. And, most importantly, energy shifted from interpretation to execution. 

Communication Gaps Are Rarely About Volume. They’re About Structure and Meaning.

A second nearly universal theme across 2025 engagements was communication. Stakeholders across several organizations consistently expressed a desire for stronger internal communication. At first glance, this might suggest a simple solution: communicate more.

But the data revealed something more nuanced. 

In most cases, communication volume was not the primary issue. Many organizations were already communicating with staff and other stakeholders through frequent emails, meetings, and formal updates, such as newsletters. The challenges that arose were most often related to structure, transparency, and meaning – not volume. 

Common patterns included:

• Information was being shared inconsistently across groups (primarily the what, when, and why about decision-making)

• Decisions were communicated after they were finalized rather than during formative stages, omitting an opportunity for stakeholders to provide input

• Lack of visibility into how decisions were made, especially “at the top”

• Difficulty understanding how one’s individual work connected to broader organizational priorities

In other words, the challenge was not usually access to or the amount of information. It was context.

Here’s what we discovered: When stakeholders understood why decisions were made, how they connected to strategy, and how their work contributed to shared goals, trust and engagement increased. When context was absent, even frequent communication could feel opaque or incomplete. 

Organizations that improved communication most effectively did not just increase messaging. Instead, they created clearer structures for shared understanding across their organization by clarifying priorities, decision rights, and strategic intent. 

Culture is a Powerful Asset, but Often Exists Informally Rather Than Structurally

Across engagements, stakeholders frequently described their localized organizational culture in positive terms. Words like “collaborative,” “mission-driven,” “supportive,” and “relational” appeared often. At the same time, stakeholders often described culture as something that existed informally, dependent on individual people rather than embedded in larger systems. 

This distinction matters. Informal cultures can be strong, but fragile. They depend on continuity of people, leadership stability, and shared norms that may not be explicitly defined. As organizations grow and experience turnover, informal cultures can become difficult to sustain. Often, they leave with the people who leave. 

Here’s what we saw: Organizations with the most resilient, sustainable cultures had translated relational strengths into structural supports. They had clear onboarding processes that reinforced norms. They had shared language around values. They had leadership practices aligned with stated cultural priorities. 

Culture, in these organizations, was not just experienced. It was intentionally reinforced. This doesn’t mean that culture can or should be engineered; however, it does mean that culture can be intentionally supported. The most effective organizations treated culture not as an abstract concept, but as something shaped by daily practices, systems, and decisions. 

One way we help organizations intentionally strengthen and sustain their culture is through the development of TENs: Traditions, Expectations, and Norms. TENs translate culture from an implicit experience into an explicit, shared framework, clarifying how people work together, make decisions, onboard new team members, and reinforce values over time. By naming and operationalizing these elements, organizations create continuity that does not depend on any one individual, ensuring that culture remains resilient, aligned, and sustainable even as teams grow and evolve.

Organizations are Navigating Increasing Complexity with Structures Designed for Simpler Contexts

Many organizations described operating in environments characterized by rapid change, resource constraints, and evolving expectations. External pressures (think post-COVID regulations, financial constraints, workforce shifts, generational changes, technological changes… you name it) have increased organizational complexity for most of our clients. However, internal structures have not always evolved at the same pace. 

Stakeholders frequently described structural challenges such as:

• Ambiguity around roles and responsibilities

• Decision-making processes that were unclear or slow

• Structures (specifically org charts, budgets, and bylaws) that reflected historical needs rather than current realities 

• Difficulty coordinating work across units or teams

These challenges are not failures. They are natural consequences of organizational growth and environmental change.

We observed that organizations that navigated complexity most effectively were those that periodically revisited these structures – not as static frameworks written in stone, but rather as evolving tools. They weren’t afraid of new structures, mechanisms, and boundaries that needed to be established in a changing workplace. 

Structure, in these contexts, served not as a constraint but as a support. 

What These Patterns Reveal

Taken together, these themes reflect a broader moment of transition for many mission-driven organizations. 

Stakeholders remain deeply committed to their work. Organizational missions remain strong. But expectations for clarity, participation, transparency, and alignment have increased. 

Organizations are being asked to navigate greater complexity while maintaining strong culture, clear direction, and stakeholder engagement. Often, they’re being asked to do so with no increase in resources or formal support structures. This moment presents both challenges and opportunities.

Organizations that invest in shared clarity, intentional culture, participatory processes, and aligned structures position themselves not only to navigate change, but to lead through it. 

Looking Ahead

These lessons from 2025 are not about any single organization. They reflect broader patterns across sectors, contexts, and locations. They highlight the enduring importance of mission, the centrality of people, and the critical role of clarity in enabling organizations to move forward together. 

And perhaps our most important lesson from 2025 is this: Alignment does not happen automatically. It is built through intentional processes, shared understanding, and ongoing reflection. 

Organizations that create space for these processes do more than develop plans. They develop a shared direction. They value collective ownership. They make capacity to navigate an uncertain future together. 

As you look ahead, this moment offers an opportunity to pause and reflect on how your organization is showing up. Are your people aligned around a shared direction? Do your structures and processes support the future you are trying to build? Organizational effectiveness studies create space to answer these questions with clarity, bringing forward the perspectives, patterns, and opportunities that help teams move forward together. 

If these lessons resonate, transform.forward would welcome the opportunity to partner with you in understanding where you are today and intentionally shaping what comes next.