Harvard Business Simulator;

Change Management,
Power and Influence

Introduction

Change management is a crucial aspect of organizational success, especially in today’s rapidly

evolving business environment. Whether it's implementing new technologies, restructuring
teams, or shifting strategic direction, companies must manage the human side of change to
ensure adoption and sustainability. The Change Management Simulation: Power and Influence
provided a valuable, hands-on experience leading strategic organizational change. Across four
scenarios, I assumed different leadership roles, serving as Director of Product Innovation in
Scenarios 1 and 3, and as CEO in Scenarios 2 and 4, at Spectrum Sunglass Company. The central
goal was to build support for a sustainability initiative without relying solely on formal authority.
Each scenario presented unique challenges in stakeholder management, timing, and influence
strategy. This reflection analyzes how my approach evolved across the four rounds, what
worked, what didn’t, and how the simulation enhanced my readiness for real-world change
leadership.
Change Management Simulation 2

Scenario 4 (S4) – CEO

In Scenario 4, as CEO, my focus shifted to reinforcing prior progress and preparing the
organization for long-term sustainability adoption. I utilized high-credibility actions like
clarifying organizational values and building a coalition of support. These efforts, although not
triggering a new organizational phase, helped move individuals further along the adoption curve,
from interest to trial and adoption. Actions like “Walk the Talk” and “Provide Internal Skill-
Building” were also employed to signal commitment and build lasting competencies within the
team. While the company did not advance into a new phase during S4, momentum was building.
With full credibility and critical mass already achieved, this phase functioned as a period of
consolidation and cultural alignment. As CEO, I found that setting the tone from the top and
modeling consistent behavior were critical in maintaining buy-in. S4 emphasized the value of
reinforcing progress and ensuring long-term organizational alignment with change goals.

Scenario 3 (S3) – Director of Product Innovation

As Director of Product Innovation in Scenario 3, I achieved meaningful traction by gaining 19

adopters over 50 weeks, resulting in a CER of 0.38. With no formal authority, I relied heavily on
influence and trust. Early wins came from securing public support from the CEO and hiring a
consultant, which helped move the company into the “Movement” phase. Communication tactics
like issuing email updates and sharing success stories moved stakeholders through early adoption
stages, while skill-building sessions and pilot projects boosted confidence in the change
initiative. Later in the scenario, I used credibility-intensive levers like “Walk the Talk” and
“Clarify Organizational Values” to maintain progress. Some actions, like coalition-building, had
diminishing returns when used late, suggesting that timing and audience readiness are critical.
Although I didn’t reach full critical mass, the experience in S3 laid a strong strategic foundation
that I refined and built upon in S4.

Scenario 2 (S2) – CEO

Scenario 2, where I acted as CEO, was the most time-consuming, with 19 adopters gained over
68 weeks (CER of 0.28). Despite ultimately achieving critical mass, progress was slower due to
several missteps. While early actions like issuing email notices and conducting interviews helped
initiate movement, some actions, like progress reports, were poorly timed, as stakeholders were
not yet in the right stage. I also overused certain levers, such as “Clarify Values” and “Build
Coalition”, even when they no longer matched stakeholder readiness. Nonetheless, my position
as CEO provided leverage when taking decisive actions like confronting key resistors and
Change Management Simulation 3

launching pilot projects, which eventually transitioned the company into the “Sustain” phase. S2
highlighted the importance of adapting influence strategies as stakeholders progress through the
change curve and reinforced the idea that authority alone does not guarantee
effectiveness—timing, consistency, and credibility still matter deeply.

Scenario 1 (S1) – Director of Product Innovation

Scenario 1 was both a challenge and a foundational learning experience. In my role as Director
of Product Innovation, I reached 19 adopters in 54 weeks (CER of 0.35), without any formal
authority to mandate change. I focused on building credibility early, securing the CEO’s support,
and issuing an initial communication to raise awareness. “Walk the Talk,” storytelling, and skill-
building initiatives helped establish momentum and build trust among the management team.
Compared to later scenarios, I was more cautious and better aligned in timing my actions. Still, I
learned that even well-intentioned moves can fall flat if they don’t match stakeholder readiness,
something I improved on in subsequent rounds. S1 highlighted the importance of strong informal
influence, strategic communication, and leveraging early allies to build momentum for change.

Reflection and Learning

Participating in the simulation was both a strategic challenge and a personal growth experience. I
had to think beyond technical actions and step into the mindset of a change leader, someone who
navigates uncertainty, influences others, and adapts continuously. The contrast between leading
with informal authority in Scenarios 1 and 3 and formal authority in Scenarios 2 and 4 made it
clear that influence doesn’t rely solely on title. In fact, in some cases, such as Scenario 2, formal
authority led to overconfidence in tactics that were mistimed or overused. This taught me that
successful change leadership hinges on credibility, empathy, and timing, not just position. Across
all scenarios, I found that diagnosing where stakeholders stood on the adoption curve was the
most critical factor. When I took time to assess their readiness, especially in S3 and S4, I was
able to apply levers like pilot projects, skill-building, and storytelling more effectively. These
actions consistently helped move stakeholders forward. In contrast, scenarios where I acted too
quickly or relied on the same tactics too often, like in S2, resulted in slower progress and lower
efficiency. I learned that not every good tactic works at every stage; changing leadership requires
precision, not just effort.

What stood out most from this experience was the realism of the simulation. It mirrored the
messy, non-linear nature of real organizational change, where resistance is subtle, timing is
everything, and influence is earned gradually. I came away with a deeper appreciation for the
Change Management Simulation 4

human side of change management and the importance of tailoring strategies to context. I now
feel more equipped to lead change in real settings, confident in diagnosing situations, building
coalitions, and guiding people through complex transitions with strategic patience and clarity of
vision.

References

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. A. (1998). The Power of Resistance: sustaining valued identities. In

SAGE Publications, Inc. eBooks(pp. 89-120). [Link]

Hill, L. A., & Judge, W. Q. (2010). Change Management Simulation: Power and Influence.

Harvard Business School. [Link]

Munduate, L., & Gravenhorst, K. M. B. (2003). Power Dynamics and Organisational Change:

An Introduction. Applied Psychology, 52(1), 1–13. [Link]

0597.00120