Change Enablement Under Ambiguity

A rapid, leader-facing rollout that aligned executives, introduced core change management concepts, and launched a new Jira-based change submission process—under a two-week deadline.

At-a-Glance

Business moment: Leadership needed a shared change language and a repeatable process for submitting and managing organizational changes.
Audience: Executives → Managers / SLT leaders
Timeline: ~2 weeks (training request → in-person delivery)
Delivery: 1 ILT for executives + 1 ILT for leaders + supporting videos/resources (Jira desk walkthrough hosted in Guru)

Real-World Constraints:

  • No existing change submission process (work was unorganized / inconsistent)

  • Model selection still in motion (brought in before ADKAR was finalized)

  • Conflicting stakeholder preferences (eLearning vs multiple ILTs)

  • High urgency (PM attended training in August; in-person ILT scheduled in September ~3 weeks later)

  • New behavior required (leaders needed to shift from ad-hoc changes to a governed intake workflow)

Analysis: What I Diagnosed

What was actually at stake

  • Leaders lacked a shared definition of change management, which increased inconsistency and “change fatigue”

  • Without a single intake workflow, changes were at risk of being:

    • communicated inconsistently

    • implemented without visibility

    • repeated or duplicated

    • poorly adopted due to unclear “why” and unclear expectations

Root causes (not symptoms)

  • No governance language for change → low alignment and low trust

  • No standardized intake → changes felt random and reactive

  • Time pressure → leaders needed clarity fast, not a deep certification

What leaders needed to do after training

  • Recognize why change management exists (reduce disruption and improve adoption)

  • Use a shared mental model (ADKAR overview) to discuss adoption barriers

  • Follow a consistent process to submit/track changes through Jira

Non-goals (intentional)

  • This was not an “ADKAR certification.”

  • The goal was shared language + leader readiness + process adoption, fast.

Stakeholder Alignment & Communication

Stakeholders (Change Management Committee)

  • PM Manager

  • COO

  • VP of Marketing

Conflicting priorities I navigated

  • COO: wanted scalable eLearning

  • PM Manager: wanted multiple ILTs for deeper discussion

  • Committee goal: leaders must understand “why change,” the basics of change management, and how the new intake process works

Alignment moves I led

  • Proposed a sequenced rollout that matched urgency + audience needs:

    1. Exec ILT: alignment, decision-making, leadership sponsorship

    2. Leader ILT (Managers/SLT): shared language + readiness + practice exercises

    3. Process video: “how-to” for Jira desk hosted in Guru for ongoing reference

  • Created clarity on what must be live vs what can be on-demand

  • Ensured messaging consistency across stakeholders to prevent contradictory guidance

Learning Strategy (What I Chose and Why)

Instructional approach

  • ILT for sensemaking + buy-in (leaders needed dialogue, not passive consumption)

  • Exercises tied to real change scenarios (to move from concept → application)

  • On-demand process video (repeatable reference for Jira intake steps)

Learning theories present (and why they fit the business reality)

  • Adult Learning: relevance and immediate application (“why this matters now,” leader role in adoption)

  • Cognitive Load: focused on essential concepts only; avoided over-teaching the model

  • Social learning / sensemaking: ILT enabled shared interpretation + alignment

  • Transfer: activities mapped to real change situations leaders were actively facing

How I Used AI (Speed + Scale, Without Risk)

Used AI to:

  • Draft leader discussion prompts and reflection questions (multiple versions by audience level)

  • Generate scenario variations for exercises (same concept, different departments)

Quality controls:

  • All model language and process steps were verified with stakeholders

  • AI outputs were treated as drafts; final content reflected approved terminology and workflow

Evidence of Impact

Formal analytics were limited, so impact was measured through operational signals and stakeholder feedback:

  • Leaders gained shared language to discuss adoption barriers and readiness

  • The organization moved from unstructured change handling to a repeatable intake workflow

  • Process support living in Guru reduced dependency on “who knows how to do this”

  • Stakeholders had clearer alignment on how changes should be introduced and communicated