A lost battle-Part 2

It seems to be a common practice that people in an organisation who lead the changes are always those that are high in the hierarchy. If a change is to be implemented in a department normally the department head will become the leader, when a change is to occur in a whole organisation, the CEO could be the leader. However, what is not realised is that these people may be highly effective in their own area of expertise but they may not be the right candidate to plan, lead or implement a change.

Typically those who are in such position are normally people who have been in the organisation for quite some time or have been working for a long while. They may lack the enthusiasm, passion or even the charisma to implement a change. Who is to lead a change has a far reaching consequences, it could decide whether the change could be implemented successfully. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the CEO or head of department should not lead a change, they must of course one way or another be involved in a change but what i am trying to say is just that if a change is to happen in a department, it does not necessary always follow that the head of department lead the change. There could be other people who are in a better position to do so. Think about it and look around you, how many times did you see a good idea be destroyed by the person who is implementing it.

Who to lead a change seems to be the first logical question in change management. However, this question is either not answered or analysed sufficiently in actual corporate world.