Last week I read an interesting article exploring the topic of where a Change Management Office (CMO) should “live” in an organization. Should it live in Human Resources? The Project Management Office? Report directly to a Strategy & Transformation VP? Many great points were made about the benefits and challenges of each. As I considered it, and my own experience leading change in corporate environments, I think I landed in an unexpected place…
Hot Take: Why a Centralized Change Management Office (CMO)…may be the WRONG answer
Do We Really Need a Change Management Office?
Everywhere I look lately, companies are building out Change Management Offices (CMOs) like they’re the magic bullet for transformation success. Got a digital program failing? Create a CMO. Culture issues? CMO. Employees resisting change? Must be time for a CMO.
Here’s my hot take: a centralized CMO might actually be making things worse.
I know, I know. This is heresy in some circles. But let’s follow the evidence for a minute.
The Problem with Centralizing Change
1. Bureaucracy Loves a Central Office
What starts as a well-intentioned effort to bring consistency quickly turns into layers of forms, checkpoints, and PowerPoints. Suddenly, instead of accelerating change, the CMO is slowing it down. McKinsey and others have shown that centralization often leads to bottlenecks, not breakthroughs.
2. The “Us vs. Them” Effect
Put change in a central office, and suddenly employees experience it as something being “done to them.” It feels like compliance, not collaboration. I’ve literally heard, “Oh, that’s the Change Office thing — not our thing.” That’s not exactly the ownership mindset we’re going for.
3. The Results Don’t Justify the Structure
Decades of research show that about 70% of change initiatives still fail — and this is after CMOs have become mainstream. If the existence of a central office doesn’t materially shift success rates, maybe we’re solving the wrong problem.
Why We Keep Doing It Anyway
Let’s be honest: executives love visibility and control. A shiny new CMO gives the impression of discipline and oversight. Consultants pitch it as a “best practice.” And let’s face it, centralizing feels neat and tidy compared to the messy work of embedding capability across the business.
But neat and tidy doesn’t always mean effective. Sometimes it just means we’ve created a bigger binder.
What to Do Instead
Here’s the alternative: stop trying to control change and start enabling it.
Equip leaders. Prosci research is clear: the number one success factor in change is active, visible sponsorship. Leaders — not a central office — are the ones employees trust.
Build networks. Change champions embedded across the business can tailor messages, model behaviors, and support their teams better than any “ivory tower” function can.
Keep the “center” small. I’m not saying ditch structure altogether. A lightweight hub that curates tools, provides training, and connects practitioners across the organization can add real value. Just don’t let it balloon into the Department of Bureaucracy.
In other words: distribute the work, don’t centralize it.
My Takeaway
If your organization is struggling with change, resist the reflex to build another office. Instead, ask:
- Are our leaders equipped to lead change?
- Do we have networks of change leadership in place?
- Is our “center” empowering, or controlling?
Because here’s the punchline: the more centralized you make change, the less likely it is to actually stick.
Sometimes the boldest move isn’t to centralize — it’s to trust your people, give them the tools, and get out of their way.
–> That’s my hot take. What do you think — is it time we rethink the CMO model? Or are you firmly in Team Centralize?
