The Importance of Enabling Change

01 The Case

Elias had been with ADB for several years and was known as a steady, dependable colleague. He had built strong working relationships and was coordinating a complex project that required strong operational knowledge, careful follow-through, and regular engagement across teams and with external stakeholders. The work was shared, but he had carried much of the operational responsibility. He understood the sensitivities between teams, kept track of the unresolved questions, and maintained the relationships that kept the assignment moving.

As ADB continued adjusting to new ways of working, Elias understood that roles, teams, and priorities would shift. He did not expect every decision to be easy or fully aligned with his preferences. What unsettled him was how quickly the change occurred.

During a period of shifting priorities, the team decided to redistribute day-to-day coordination responsibilities for the project. Ethan, who was capable but new to the project, would now serve as the main point of contact. Elias would remain involved, but in a more limited role. The explanation was short and practical. Priorities had changed. The team needed to distribute responsibilities differently. The transition needed to happen quickly. There was insufficient time for adequate handover.

Elias remained professional, but the shift felt abrupt. He did not object to responsibilities shifting, but the limited handover process made the transition difficult. There was not enough discussion about the relationships, background, and unresolved issues, or counterpart expectations connected to the project. Ethan, meanwhile, felt uncomfortable stepping into a role without the full context. He sensed Elias’s disappointment but did not know how to address it. He also knew that asking too many questions might make him appear unprepared, while asking too few could also leave him exposed.

The wider team began to wonder whether Elias had done something wrong. Others assumed the change reflected a preference for Ethan. Colleagues from other teams continued to contact Elias for clarification, while Ethan was expected to take ownership of decisions he had not been part of making. Some project stakeholders were also unsure who to approach. Some had built a working relationship with Elias and were now being redirected to Ethan without enough explanation or context.

The supervisor seemed aware of the tension but treated the matter as a routine adjustment that required no further discussion.

The work continued, but the team environment changed. Elias became more careful about offering input beyond what was requested. Ethan struggled to embrace his new role. For project stakeholders, the change created a different kind of uncertainty. Relationships had to be rebuilt, slowing down the work and making the team appear less coordinated than it was.

What had started as a routine work adjustment slowly became a team climate issue. Rumor filled the gaps left by limited explanation, and work continuity suffered. Elias kept being pulled back for background on work he no longer coordinated, while Ethan was expected to take over without enough preparation, context, or team buy-in. The redistribution of work may have been reasonable, but the limited transition process created unnecessary uncertainty and avoidable stress for everyone involved.

02 Ombuds Perspective

This case shows how a work change that may appear routine can still create confusion, speculation, and avoidable friction when the transition is not sufficiently explained or supported well enough.

Everything seems fine on the surface—Elias was not resisting the change; Ethan was able to take on his new role. The difficulty, however, came from the way the transition was handled. Responsibilities shifted quickly, with limited explanation and without enough consideration of the ongoing and unfinished work, relationships, background, and stakeholder expectations attached to the project.

When responsibilities shift without enough context, people try to make sense of the change on their own. In the absence of enough information, speculation can quickly become the team’s version of events. Where project counterparts are involved, the consequences can extend beyond the team.

This does not mean every work decision needs a lengthy explanation. Supervisors have the authority to reassign responsibilities when needed. At the same time, transitions are easier to manage when people understand the rationale, know what is expected of them, and have enough support to maintain continuity. This can be even more important during periods of organizational change, when staff are already adjusting to shifting roles, expectations, and ways of working.

03 What supervisors can do

• Explain the rationale for changes in roles or responsibilities, especially when a change may otherwise be perceived as sudden, unclear, or preferential.
• Support an effective handover process, especially where work-in-progress, relationships, or context need to move with the role.
• Clarify roles, responsibilities, and points of contact during transitions so colleagues and relevant stakeholders understand who is responsible for what.
• Recognize that unclearly explained transitions can create confusion, rework, speculation, and strain on working relationships.
• Check in separately with affected colleagues to understand what support may be needed during the transition.
• Address speculation early by sharing enough context about the process, where appropriate.
• Recognize that even reasonable changes can affect trust, morale, and stakeholder confidence if they are not communicated or managed effectively.

04 What staff affected by a
transition can do

• Ask to understand revised roles, responsibilities, and expectations.
• Ask what information, context, or background may need to be shared to support continuity.
• Share relevant information constructively so the work can move forward without unnecessary disruption.
• Avoid making assumptions about intent, especially when a transition feels sudden or insufficiently explained.
• Raise practical concerns with the supervisor, including where external relationships, stakeholder sensitivities, or unfinished work may need careful handling.
• Reflect on what support they need to remain engaged and effective in their role after the transition.

05 What the organization can do

• Provide guidance for transition in responsibilities to ensure handovers are effectively implemented.
• Understand the potential for poorly explained transitions in roles or responsibilities to affect more than the individuals directly involved, including team trust and work continuity.
• Reinforce that effective communication matters during periods of organizational change.
• Encourage teams to document essential institutional records, such as key decisions, stakeholder relationships, and counterpart expectations, so transitions do not depend only on informal knowledge.