Change Leaders or Change Managers?

Awilda Maria Borres

Regardless of the evidence and research studies regarding the failure of

major change efforts to meet financial or strategic objectives, senior executives

continue to invest in large-scale initiatives as a means to transform obsolete

business models. In a CEO study conducted by the Conference Board in 2007,

executives cited "acquiring/developing the right talent, visible commitment from

leaders and establishing/promoting innovative culture" in the top five challenges to

innovative performance (CEO Challenge 2007, Research Report 1406).

The truth of the matter is that CEOs continue to invest in changes that are short-

lived and incremental. At the end of the day, the organization and management still

did not foster fresh thinking or risk-taking, in other words--innovation. As change

architects and coaches, we can benefit by learning more on how organization

forms, i.e., structures, systems, processes perpetuate old business models. And

more importantly, what changes will result in incremental improvements or if a

radical approach is in order. The field of organization management can provide

change professionals a different lens to view organizations and change efforts.

Acquiring and developing talent—Hierarchical organizations rely on

traditional, 'tried and true' managers to recruit and select new hires. A prescribed

set of competencies, based on what has proven successful in the past, is the

standard.

1

Change Leaders or Change Managers?

If the organization is a gold-standard company, the new 'conscripts' will be

fortunate and be placed in rotational program to expose them to functions and

projects so they are assimilated and 'learn how things are done.'

Finally, they are placed into a functional role, working diligently to prove to the

same managers that he/she is worthy of joining the ranks of management, to be

exposed to more and interesting work, or to advance ahead of their peers.

In contrast, empirical studies exist which indicate that radical changes

or elimination of recruitment, development, and promotion systems alone,

have more impact in creating an innovative performance culture than other

types of change efforts. For example, Semco (Semler, Managing without

Managers) eliminated manuals and policies and employees are responsible to hire,

promote employees—including management. All employees are rotated every

two-five years to prevent boredom (pg 76). New management trainees do not go

through a rote system but are Lost in Space program in which they self-design their

experience (pg 76). J.Livingston in Pygmalion in Management, cites a number of

studies and evidence regarding the correlation between successful performance

(current or future) and talent development, especially in the first year of

employment (pg 188). This evidence alone should cause any change practitioner

to raise flags when change efforts are overlaid on top of traditional people

management systems.

2

Change Leaders or Change Managers?

Visible commitment from leaders—Woven throughout all of the case

studies and research are leaders who were fearless and relentless in the pursuit of

innovative performance. Leaders such as Semler (Semco), Sweeney (Tulane

University) Gerstner (American Express), and Nicolosi (Proctor & Gamble) staked

all of their reputation and careers on a vision which was not shared even by those

who hired them to shake up the company and management.

They are courageous and not only "committed to the organization [but] they were

committed to a purposed, principle, or person outside of themselves" (In Praise of

Followers, pg 145).

The importance of leadership to sponsoring and implementing change is a

basic tenet of all change management methodologies. Everyone knows that

systems and organizations are unable to change by themselves. Yet if what Kotter

proposes in his seminal book, What Leaders really Do, is true, then the

cornerstone of all change plans is enlisting, educating, and coaching

managers to be change leaders is fundamentally flawed. Citing case studies,

Kotter concludes that 1) most US corporations are over-managed and under-led

and, 2) people cannot [both] manage and lead. The implications are significant in

terms of how leaders for change efforts are identified, power and rewards are

distributed from management from managers to followers—in essence, the entire

pyramid of hierarchy should be turned upside down. The first question is whether

CEOs and change practitioners have the courage to take risks with new business

models but on how and who leads change initiatives in corporations.

3

Change Leaders or Change Managers?

Innovative culture and models—Both organization management and

change management emphasize organization design. Whereas change

management focus on processes and tools, change practitioners would benefit by

more grounding on organizational models, how markets operate and influence

organization forms (New Economics of Organization, pg 6).

Too often what passes for 'transformation and innovation' in

organizations is only incremental in nature. The architects of the change are

not trained in organization management or economics and thus "continue to

traumatize their employees as they to guess their way through yet another

restructuring programme" (Why Organization Design is Critical to Global

Development, pg 2). There are more implications for researchers and

practitioners--as change leaders we can not afford a 'not created here' or 'that won't

work' stance in our field. We need to be courageous, and know the difference

between innovative and incremental. We need to be known as change leaders

rather than change managers.

4