Is Change Management actually a job? Can you actually manage change? Does manage change imply a reactive function rather than leading it?

You, as IT leaders and shakers can make change happen, you can plan the events, you can react to external factors forcing change upon you. But do you actually “manage” it? Can you?

In reality when you break down those “changes” into processes, functions and detail, you’re influencing or seeking approval to introduce new methods or pushing tasks onto other people who have no direct reporting relationship to yourself. Therefore I ask you, are you making a change or are you simply a conductor indicating and directing a change.

In reality you’re a leader, directing the change, creating tasks and objectives for others to follow and initiate. Why pretend to manage change as if it’s a reactive activity admit you’re actually the conductor, controlling and directing Organisational changes.

Now for the kicker… does change ever stop, can you define what “changed” is? Should your change agents simply move on, have they successfully re-engineered the environment so they aren’t needed or have they transformed the role into something different? Do those transformed individuals stop moving goal posts, who is continuing to review outputs and make improvements?

Leave a Reply