The document discusses the need for change leaders rather than change managers in organizations. It notes that while senior executives continue to invest in large-scale change initiatives, these efforts often fail to meet objectives and result only in short-lived, incremental changes. True innovation requires fostering fresh thinking and risk-taking. The document also critiques traditional hierarchical organizations and promotion systems, arguing that radical changes to recruitment, development and promotion have more impact in creating an innovative culture. It stresses that visible commitment from leaders is key to successful change efforts, and that many organizations are over-managed and under-led.

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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