Who should lead an organizational transformation?

19 June, 2019

The primary leadership role in any organizational strategic project should belong to the organization’s maximum authority, be that the CEO, President, or General Manager.

Even if the company’s CEO assigns a sponsor and a project leader with his team, the responsibility of the primary leadership role should never be delegated.

We assume a fundamental fact: It was the CEO who decided on launching the organization on the path to transformation and, ultimately, he will be the person responsible for the results before anybody at a higher level of governance. Generally, this would be the board of directors. Furthermore, the CEO is the company’s visible head in the eyes of all the people and areas impacted by the transformation. As part of the 10 Elements we include committed leadership because a strategic transformation process requires that the head of the organization dedicate all the time needed for the project to be a success. For the CEO leading, monitoring and following-up on the transformation process should become a fundamental and constant endeavor Another primordial facet of a committed leadership that corresponds to the head of the organization is the responsibility for the final result of the strategic transformation process. That is why the CEO should be who motivates the participation of all those directly responsible for achieving the transformation. This should be considered part of his performance evaluation.

When all the characteristics of a committed leadership are present we have seen that transformation processes are successful. An example of this was when the CEO of a financial entity established strict guidelines to monitor the progress of a transformation process. The CEO then committed the organization’s entire leadership team to applying these guidelines to an important technological transformation project. This included creating and rigorously complying with a weekly one-hour management committee The committee applied a simple, agile, but precise reporting scheme. The committee would only meet when the CEO was present. It is important to note that only on three occasions – due to totally unpostponable work-related issues – did the committee not meet in the twelve months that the project lasted. The overall result was a change that became a reality within the defined scope and budget, and on the established date. Most importantly, they also achieved the benefits proposed in the business case.