There is something amusing about the way businesses try to resolve their own contradictions. They want to change, but without causing disruption; they want to accelerate, but while maintaining control. So one day, someone had a brilliant idea: appoint a chief transformation officer. A role designed to embody the future, reconcile opposites, and do what others never had time to do. And since then, entire generations of executive committees have lived with the comfortable illusion that change can be delegated.
Except that it can’t. Change cannot be delegated. And, above all, there should be no need for someone to steer it from a corridor parallel to the one where the real work is done.
In short:
- The creation of a transformation director position reveals above all the inability of organizations to integrate change into their daily operations.
- Separating transformation from operational management creates two opposing worlds, weakening both current efficiency and future preparedness.
- Change should not be an isolated project but a sustainable way of managing, integrated into everyone’s daily work.
- The conflict between operational and transformation management results from incompatible objectives, languages, and timeframes, leading to unnecessary tensions.
- An effective organization relies on leaders who are able to reconcile performance and transformation, rather than separating these responsibilities.
Transformation as an admission of powerlessness
When an organization creates a position dedicated to transformation, it is not demonstrating foresight but rather admitting that it has failed to evolve its management, decision-making process, or priorities in line with its environment. It implicitly acknowledges that it has a “business as usual” that is running smoothly, and another that should be preparing for tomorrow.
Two worlds that look at each other, judge each other, sometimes ignore each other, and often fight each other. The problem is that by separating the present from the future, we often condemn both.
The former becomes locked into managing the present, obsessed with its dashboards, while the latter exhausts itself with symbolic initiatives that are sometimes brilliant but often unsuccessful because they are not rooted in operational reality.
McKinsey points this out in a recent paper (Beyond transformation: What we now know about driving bottom-line performance): businesses that succeed in sustainably improving their performance no longer separate transformation from day-to-day management. They no longer treat change as a project, but as a way of doing things differently. It’s not a question of organizational structure, it’s a way of managing.
Transformation can no longer be an isolated activity with a beginning and an end, but must be a permanent activity that is part of everyday work (Change and transformation need a new approach). I say this with conviction, having personally faced this type of situation where I had to mobilize an entire team to focus on its own continuous transformation alongside its daily work, and it worked very well (Improving a team’ s work: a story of continuous improvement).
To do this, I used three messages:
1) We agree that performance is not up to par, but you are not the problem. The problem is the system, and you have the solution (The Problem Isn’t the Employee, It’s the System and You do not rise to the level of your goals. You fall to the level of your systems. (James Clear)).
2°) You have the choice between designing your future or letting someone else do it for you without knowing what it will look like and without even being sure you will be part of it.
3°) You have the choice between making small steps forward each week or undergoing a major trauma change every six months.
After that, it may be due to my profile, as I am as comfortable managing operations as I am managing transformation, otherwise this approach would not have been initiated, but the fact is that it worked very well.
The conflict of interest that no one wants to see
The transformation director is often presented as a catalyst, a positive disruptor, but in practice, he quickly becomes a source of friction. This is inevitable, given that they are judged on criteria that are different from those of others, speak a language that the rest of the organization does not understand or does not want to hear, and invent the future for others without them knowing what their place in it will be. While an operations director seeks to meet his objectives, his “transformation” counterpart argues for taking more risks, slowing down to learn, and reviewing priorities. These are two rationales that, on paper, can coexist, but in real life, they cancel each other out.
Imagine that someone has been tasked with completely renovating your home from top to bottom and refurnishing it while you are still living there. You will quickly understand why they end up staring at each other like dogs at a table. In fact, at some point you will wonder if they are planning to move in themselves once the work is finished.
In the example I gave above, knowing that I had been given the responsibility of managing this BU to “get it back on track”, there was no question of me fighting to make it work on a daily basis, knowing that someone else was inventing our future without even being exposed to that daily reality.
Where things get interesting, to say the least, is that in trying to introduce change, we are actually creating an additional layer of resistance. The transformation manager upsets those who deliver, and often ends up being bypassed. As for the operations manager, he is seen as someone who “doesn’t understand the future,” when in fact he is often perfectly capable of doing so, but the task has simply been given to someone else. Each is right in their own way, but together, they are incapable of producing anything other than fruitless tension.
What could be a fruitful collaboration becomes a constant tug-of-war, and in the end, everyone ends up exhausted or, worse, resigned.
Better one head that thinks than two that cancel each other out
What needs to be understood is that transformation and performance are not two different jobs. They are two sides of the same responsibility. And if a business believes it needs two people to embody these two dimensions, it means it hasn’t found the right one.
The real challenge is not to have a change manager, but a leader capable of steering the business while transforming it. It is not a question of resources but of attitude. A leader who thinks about transformation without delivering has no impact, but one who delivers without transforming is headed for obsolescence. What is needed is someone who does both, with clarity and without seeking structural excuses.
And if, really, we can’t find that rare gem, then the solution is not to split the problem in two, but to question how we train, evaluate, and support our leaders. Because, ultimately, transformation is not a job, but proof that we have understood that our job had to change.
Bottom Line
True success is when transformation is no longer a project, a service, or a role, but a natural way of doing one’s job. The day we no longer have a “transformation director” is the day the business will finally understand that change is not an extra burden but a collective responsibility.
At that point, we will no longer talk about transformation but simply about management.
To answer your questions…
Creating this position often reflects an inability to evolve management at the pace of change. By separating transformation and operations, the business admits that it does not know how to adapt its decision-making process. Change becomes a separate project, disconnected from everyday life. However, transformation should be a natural way of working, not an isolated task assigned to a single department.
By separating the two, we pit those who deliver against those who change. The former manage the present, while the latter imagine the future without any real foundation. The result is inefficiency and frustration. High-performing organizations now integrate transformation into their day-to-day management rather than treating it as a separate project.
Change must be made a continuous practice. Each team must improve its operations without waiting for a “major transformation”. Small, regular changes are more effective than occasional revolutions. This requires management that is capable of both steering and transforming at the same time.
This role often creates tension with operational staff. The transformation director speaks a different language and can be perceived as out of touch. By seeking to accelerate change, they actually add a layer of resistance and confusion.
It is better to have leaders who are capable of managing and transforming simultaneously. Change should not be a separate job, but a shared responsibility. Once businesses have integrated this logic, they will no longer need a “transformation director.”
Image credit: Image generated by artificial intelligence via ChatGPT (OpenAI)
Related articles:
[Quote] “Tell me how you measure me, and I will tell you how I will behave”
Transformation is not a temporary state of the business, and your employees know it, so don’t lie
EDGY: a common language to align identity, experience, and operations
Why failure is an integral part of digital operations and how to turn it into a driver for improvement
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. Albert Einstein (or not)
Change and transformation need a new approach
