Recently, many organizations have appointed chief transformation officers (CTrO) and/or established Centers of Excellence (CoE) for change. While these structural solutions add valuable resources and coordination, the real advantage lies in developing a “change muscle”—the organizational capability to adapt continuously as a core competency across all levels of the enterprise.

The surge in CTrO appointments reflects a fundamental acceptance: Change is continuous, not episodic. Companies are dedicating significant resources to transformation roles, with 90% of the transformation leaders who responded to a recent Deloitte survey indicating they are managing multiple concurrent programs. This investment signals that executives understand the need for systematic change capabilities rather than an accumulation of ad hoc responses to market pressures.

Research by PMI and Accenture found that 90% of respondents believe permanent transformation offices improve strategy-execution alignment, suggesting that organizations are seeing real value from these investments.

So, the question isn’t whether to invest in change capabilities, but rather how to leverage these investments for maximum enterprise-wide benefit and impact to stay ahead of market disruption and technological advancements.

Change competency done right

Many CEOs are drawn to appointing transformation officers because they want to “get a handle” on organizational change. While this impulse is understandable, control-oriented approaches can limit the organizational agility they are intended to create. One mistake leaders make is an over-reliance on structure: the belief that hiring a CTrO or building a CoE for change will address all their needs.

Although investing in change capabilities can be a good thing, a common pitfall is the tendency to adopt a command-and-control approach in situations where it is not required. The most effective change strategies embrace philosophies encouraging “more leadership for more people” rather than centralizing change authority.

When change competency is not developed as an enterprise skill, dangerous (“the CoE can handle it”) mentalities emerge, siloing responsibility for change. The result is agility stalling precisely when the market demands lightning-fast moves. Leaders must move beyond command-and-control approaches toward empowering distributed leadership while maintaining coordination across the enterprise.

Part of this means positioning change within organizational culture. Innovative companies need cultures where continuous evolution is viewed as a strength rather than instability. However, care must be taken, as culture can be double-edged; while it can certainly foster innovation, it is often rooted in tradition and, thereby, a natural barrier to change. The key is balancing what needs to change with what needs to remain the same.

Achieving change competency means every leader at every level possesses the skills, mindset and authority to drive necessary adaptations within their sphere of influence. Rather than waiting for authority or direction from centralized change functions, teams can respond quickly to emerging threats and opportunities. This distributed capability and responsibility create organizational resilience that no single department or function can provide throughout the enterprise.

CTrOs and CoEs done right

When positioned effectively, CTrOs and CoEs can accelerate change muscle development across the enterprise. The key is viewing these roles as adaptive, participatory leaders (think: jazz band leader) compared to a more command-and-control manager (think: orchestra conductor). The former sets direction, provides cues and relies on the collective adaptability within the group, whereas the latter provides centralized control, precision and predictability.

The most effective CTrOs focus on sponsoring and embedding change capabilities within business units. They develop change agents who work directly within operational teams while maintaining dotted-line connections to centers of excellence for knowledge sharing. This model empowers leaders at all levels while ensuring coordination across the organization.

CoEs achieve maximum impact when they remain small (relative to the organizations they serve), expert teams focused on enablement rather than oversight. Warning signs of dysfunction might include too many dashboards tracking hundreds of change initiatives, each requiring review and approval through centralized offices or CoEs positioned as gatekeepers for all transformation activities.

The latter approach can create bureaucratic bottlenecks that stifle agility. Instead, the goal should be leading rather than managing change throughout the organization—building change competency broadly, not trying to control it.

Where change leadership sits within the organizational structure significantly impacts effectiveness. Large-scale change generally requires C-suite-level authority to accomplish enterprise-wide commitment and adoption. Placement considerations matter: Positioning change under the COO may limit its focus to operational improvements, while under the CIO may suggest a primarily digital focus and under the CFO could signal a priority for cost control over innovation and growth. While not a prescription for every organization, the default reporting relationship is likely to the CEO.

Beyond structural placement, modern change leaders have unprecedented access to operational data that can inform transformation decisions. Rather than relying on intuition or qualitative inputs alone, organizations should leverage rich data sources for evidence-based change choices. Artificial intelligence can further magnify these capabilities by enhancing cognitive activities such as data analysis, traditional change management and routine coordination while humans exercise character skills to focus on leadership, vision-setting and relationship building.

See also: Why is change management keeping HR up at night?

How to put this model in motion

Organizations should start with an assessment of their current state, reviewing existing CoE charters and evaluating the degree to which change competency is distributed across business units or concentrated in specific functions.

Key safeguards include:

• embedding change agents within business units rather than centralized teams
• maintaining connections between embedded agents and CTrO or CoE
• focusing on capability building rather than control and oversight
• avoiding over-reliance on dashboard-driven management of change initiatives

Success metrics should emphasize organizational change readiness rather than just project completion rates. Some of the best predictors of change readiness include leadership alignment, urgency for the case for change, and organizational trust and openness.

For leaders evaluating transformation investments, the key question is whether efforts are building organizational change muscle or simply creating new structures. The goal should be an organization where change competency and strategic agility are embedded throughout. Every leader at every level should possess the skills, authority and mindset to drive necessary adaptations within their sphere of influence.

This distributed capability creates organizational resilience that no centralized function can match. Organizations that embed it throughout their structure, culture and leadership development position themselves for sustained success in an era of continuous disruption.