Every organization is unique; its culture, people, challenges, and market dynamics create a distinctive ecosystem. Yet, when it comes to leading change, there exists a dangerous myth: that somewhere out there is a perfect, universal “best practice” waiting to be discovered and implemented. This belief has spawned countless models, frameworks, and methodologies that promise transformation—if only you follow the prescribed steps.

The problem? Best practices in change management are often the enemy of real transformation.

The Illusion of Universal Solutions

When an organization faces the need for transformation, the first instinct of many leaders is to reach for the familiar playbook: Kotter’s 8 Steps, ADKAR, or whatever framework their preferred consultancy is selling this quarter. There’s comfort in following established paths, especially when they come with case studies of success from Fortune 500 companies.

While these models offer useful insights, they also encourage a dangerous mindset: that change can be mechanized, templated, and universally applied. Even worse, reliance on these models shifts the focus from leadership and ownership to compliance, turning change into a checklist exercise instead of an actively managed experience across all levels of the organization.

The reality is that every organization has its own unique culture, people, history, and challenges, and no two change journeys are alike. Attempting to transplant another company’s change journey into your environment is like trying to grow tropical plants in arctic conditions. Context matters.

The Leadership Accountability Crisis

One of the biggest, yet often overlooked, reasons why change initiatives fail is a lack of leadership accountability. Organizations invest heavily in training and implementing traditional change management methodologies but fail to ensure their leadership team is truly aligned, committed, and accountable for success.

Despite intricate governance structures presented in slide decks, project teams typically lack the authority and empowerment to resolve the impact of poor change leadership. They become the executors of potentially doomed initiatives, while those with actual power to ensure success are disengaged, following a different agenda or quietly waiting for the initiative to fizzle out.

The symptoms are painfully familiar:

• The Misaligned Executive Team: Leaders nod in agreement during steering committee meetings but pursue conflicting priorities behind closed doors. You’ll notice executives contradict each other in separate forums, creating confusion about what truly matters.
• The Ghost Sponsor: The executive sponsor appears at the kick-off, then becomes mysteriously unavailable for key decisions. Their calendar is perpetually full when difficult conversations are needed, but they’re quick to question why progress is slow.
• The Priority Paradox: Everything is labelled “top priority,” creating an impossible environment where teams are pulled in multiple directions simultaneously. When asked to rank initiatives, leaders refuse to make the tough calls about what can wait.
• The Blame Game: Responsibility constantly shifts among leaders. “That’s Marketing’s issue” or “We’re waiting on Operations” becomes the refrain, with no one willing to break the deadlock.
• The Resource Mirage: Leaders approve ambitious transformation roadmaps without allocating adequate resources. Teams are expected to deliver change “on top of” their day jobs, with no reprioritization of existing responsibilities.
• The Silent Resistance: Senior leaders who disagree with the change remain silent in forums but undermine it through their actions, withholding resources or failing to reinforce messages with their teams.
• The Metrics Disconnect: Leadership incentives and KPIs remain unchanged despite the transformation initiative, signalling to everyone that the status quo is actually what’s valued.

This toxic combination creates an environment where change fatigue isn’t just a temporary condition, it’s a chronic organizational state. The result is mounting resistance, disengagement and indifference that no communication plan or training programme can overcome.

From Change Management to Change Leadership

The shift we need isn’t merely semantic, it’s fundamental. Change management implies a mechanical process that can be implemented in clear, sequential steps; while change leadership acknowledges the messy, human-centred reality of transformation and places responsibility squarely where it belongs: with those who have the power to make or break initiatives.

Truly accountable leaders:

• Take personal ownership for transformation outcomes, not just approving plans
• Align with their peers on clear priorities and actively prevent project proliferation
• Provide visible, consistent sponsorship beyond kick-off meetings
• Create space for teams by ruthlessly prioritizing initiatives
• Recognize when organizational capacity is reaching its limits
• Empower teams to speak truth about challenges without fear
• Understand that their behaviour, not their words, signals what truly matters

The Courage to Lead, Not Just Manage

The most successful transformations I’ve witnessed came from leaders brave enough to take genuine accountability, make tough prioritization decisions, and create the conditions for success.

These leaders understood that their primary responsibility wasn’t approving plans or receiving status updates, it was removing obstacles, aligning their peers, and preventing the initiative overload that invariably leads to failure. They recognized that no methodology can compensate for leadership misalignment or vague guidance.

This doesn’t mean ignoring the lessons of those who came before, it means understanding that even the best methodology fails without leadership accountability as its foundation.

Breaking the Cycle of Failure

The next time you face a significant change initiative, resist the urge to reach for the familiar playbook or launch yet another project into an already saturated organization. Instead, the leadership team should constructively discuss:

• What are we willing to stop doing to make room for this initiative?
• How will we, as leaders, remain visibly accountable throughout the journey?
• How will we prevent misalignment among ourselves from derailing the effort?
• What signals will tell us we’re approaching organizational change capacity?
• How will we empower teams to speak truth about challenges without fear?

The honest answers to these questions will guide you toward an approach that addresses the real determinants of success—leadership accountability and organizational capacity—not just methodological concerns.

The Ready to Embrace True Leadership Accountability?

If you’re tired of watching well-intentioned change initiatives crumble? Do you want to build genuine leadership accountability and create the conditions for success?

📅 Book a free consultation today to explore how we can help your leadership team take true ownership of transformation, make the hard prioritization decisions, and prevent the change fatigue that breeds resistance. Because when it comes to transformation, no methodology can compensate for true change leadership.