Change Manager - why do you want to change the name?
Ron Leeman
9️⃣5️⃣.3️⃣% positive and only 0️⃣.5️⃣% negative ... do you know what these %'s mean? No! then ask me.
Not a long article because essentially it's a follow-up up but I think it's an important message
Back in 2014, I wrote an article asking, “Is the term Change Management still relevant? (link in the post).” Even then, debate had begun over whether we should retire the label Change Manager in favour of something more modern, more strategic, or simply less tainted.
Fast forward 10 years, and here we are again. A growing number of voices on LinkedIn are calling for the profession to rename itself. Titles like Change Facilitator, Change Advocate, Change Leader and Change Implementer are being floated around. And yet, I will remain a strong advocate for keeping the title Change Manager. Here’s why:
Recognition isn’t easily won
The term Change Manager has been around for goodness know how long (I first adopted the name in the mid-1990s), and since it has become embedded in:
Try searching “Change Manager” on Google and you'll get 2.6 billion hits (my original article stated 2 million). You won't get that kind of brand recognition from “Change Navigator” or “Transition Coach.”
We’ve earned visibility and identity. Why throw that away?
Yes, I know that the role has got some baggage
Let’s be honest, shall we? The name Change Manager doesn’t always spark excitement. In some organisations because it's probably been reduced to a tactical, communication-heavy support function. Worse still, some associate it with red tape, posters, resistance logs and simple check-lists. But the name isn’t the real problem. The problem is perception.
We can’t fix that by changing the label. We address the issue by adjusting the role's positioning, its deliverables, and its integration with strategy, culture, and outcomes.
The rebranding trend
There's a certain trendiness in rebranding roles:
Sometimes it reflects real change, but mostly it’s just a cosmetic exercise. By wanting to change the name, we risk starting to play musical chairs with our identity, just when we most need to unify and elevate our contribution.
What really needs to change
Instead of abandoning the title, we should:
"Horses for Courses" ... and yes, I know I'm repeating myself
Back in 2014, I ended my article with the phrase: “Horses for courses.” That still sums up my view today, so if you or your organisation feel Change Manager works for you, then great, carry on using it. If you feel Change Lead or Transformation Partner or whatever other fancy name gets better traction, then that’s also fine.
But FFS, let’s stop pretending that renaming the role will magically elevate the profession. If we really want to do that, let’s spend less time trying to change our name and more time changing outcomes.
Another thought-provoking article from Ron Leeman your Change Management "Truth Sayer"
Global Change Management Expert | Digital & Business Transformation I Engagement I Training | Communications I Digital Coach I Adoption I New Ways of Working I Mindset & Behaviour Change I Agile
3wChange Manager encompasses all..let's just accept that there are many other names out there- Adoption Manager, Transformation Manager, Change Ambassador, Change Champion, Change Coach...
Driving People-Centered Change | Digital Transformation | L&D | Digital Communications & AI
1moRon Leeman Interesting! I don’t think the real issue is the title, it’s how clearly the role is structured and integrated into transformation. Too often, Change Managers are brought in late or without clear authority, so of course the role looks “tactical” or “soft.” But that’s a structural issue, not a naming one. I loved this line: “Let’s stop pretending that renaming the role will magically elevate the profession.” Yes! Elevation happens when the role is embedded upstream, with strategic ownership and realdecision-makingn power.
Lean Six Sigma Master Black Belt, Change Management & Transformation Professional
2moThanks for sharing, Ron
9️⃣5️⃣.3️⃣% positive and only 0️⃣.5️⃣% negative ... do you know what these %'s mean? No! then ask me.
2moThank you for all those who voted for this ... Baintlafatsi Thomas; Daniel Collings; Himanshu Tiwari; Charlotte Souch; Nissi Ozigbu; John Bishop (via LI messaging) and Mark James. Since then I have had a few more votes for No 3 so that will be next Monday's post.
Divergent Thinking, Communications in KM, Change R&D, Art
2moPeople are struggling with their particular company's inability to come to grips with the discipline, and that is often because there is no rigorous vetting in HR to determine the person's qualification as a manager of change. Not only should the name not be changed; people who are not properly trained for the position should not be given the position.