Scenarios 01–06 — Fundamentals & Bridges
1 — The successful system nobody uses
Situation: governance workflow platform went live; teams still use old email chains/spreadsheets.
Primary: technology delivery mistaken for organizational change.
Leading: Chapter 17. Supporting: Governance, Metadata.
Roles: Change Agent, governance lead, business stakeholders.
Best response: diagnose persistent old behavior, clarify value, engage stakeholders, manage transition and communicate the change vision.
Weaker: add features—does not explain old behavior.
Changed fact: if behavior changed and only a technical defect blocks users, fix technology.
Source: 541–542.
2 — The legacy workaround everyone mocks
Situation: manual reconciliation exists because official reports historically arrived late.
Primary: leaders ignore why current state exists.
Leading: Chapter 17. Supporting: Data Quality, DW/BI.
Roles: Change Agent, process owners, report owners.
Best response: learn origin, repair underlying issue, involve staff and frame replacement as improvement.
Weaker: ban workaround immediately—may remove compensation before cause is fixed.
Changed fact: if report has been reliable for years and workaround now only creates duplicate/conflicting data, retire it after communication.
Source: 542.
3 — Change by decree
Situation: new stewardship responsibilities imposed with no involvement; leaders say “people just resist change.”
Primary: people resist being changed; arbitrary imposition creates resistance.
Supporting: Governance.
Roles: sponsor, Change Agent, stewards.
Best response: engage affected teams, explain vision/timing, use their knowledge and show outcome improvement.
Weaker: label resisters “laggards”—Rogers does not excuse poor engagement.
Changed fact: if teams co-designed and understand change but cannot perform it, training/implementation support becomes primary.
Source: 542.
4 — Ending without acknowledging loss
Situation: local data-owner titles disappear; leaders tell upset employees to “look forward.”
Primary: Bridges Ending is mismanaged; subjective losses dismissed.
Supporting: Governance, Organization & Roles.
Roles: Change Agent, managers, affected owners.
Best response: identify losses, respect previous work, define what ends/does not, explain necessity and repeat communication.
Weaker: jump to New Beginning celebrations.
Changed fact: after letting go, if people are experimenting but confused, Neutral Zone becomes primary.
Source: 543–545.
5 — The messy middle
Situation: old meetings stopped; new forums inconsistent; teams test escalation approaches.
Primary: normal Neutral Zone ambiguity is misread as failure.
Supporting: Governance.
Roles: Change Agent, governance lead, stewards.
Best response: acknowledge phase, involve people, allow experiments/PDSA learning, give feedback/recognition and keep communicating.
Weaker: permanently restore old system for comfort.
Changed fact: if roles/policies/priorities are clear and new forums feel normal, New Beginning/embedding is primary.
Source: 543–545.
6 — Forced New Beginning
Situation: program declares model fully embedded on launch day while staff remain uncertain.
Primary: New Beginning is forced before transition is ready.
Supporting: Governance, Organization & Roles.
Roles: Change Agent, managers, process owners.
Best response: clarify roles/policies/priorities and continue support until new way is workable/normal.
Weaker: celebrate completion and stop communication.
Changed fact: if staff understand roles, policies are stable and old way is gone, celebration/anchoring becomes appropriate.
Source: 543–545.