Case kit 6: the team that still asks the old lead

Leans: both tracks · Laws in tension: Influence, Connection, Buy-In · Camps: take the structural fix vs win the person first

Read the full case text from `case-bank.md`, case 6, out loud at the case slot (about 5 minutes).

To run this case: replace the four case slides in `slides/week-5-case-clinic.md` (the brief, the laws in tension, the both-tracks bridge, and the prepare-your-camp activity) with the slide block below, re-render the deck, and rename the case frame on the activity board with the labels below. The decision sheet in `worksheets.md` works unchanged for every case.

Slide block (Marp)

The slides for this case, on brand and ready to present. Click the deck, then use the arrow keys. Open full screen.

## Case: the team that still asks the old lead
    Three months into her first lead role, the team still brings decisions to the senior who led it informally for two years.
    
    He voted to hire her. He also reorders her priorities in code review. Her manager has offered to make her authority official in writing, by Friday.
    
    You will now hear the full case, one page, 5 minutes. Listen for what has already been tried.
    
    ---
    
    ## Case: the laws in tension
    - Influence: the org chart names one lead; followership names another
    - Connection: one coffee did not buy what two years built
    - Buy-In: a written rule creates compliance, not acceptance
    
    Three laws, and they do not point to the same answer.
    
    ---
    
    ## Two captains, both tracks
    Whether you lead a team of reports or lead technical direction without reports, you will inherit someone's followers.
    
    A new EM inherits an old informal leader. A new senior inherits a team with an old go-to.
    
    Structure can force compliance. Only connection creates followership.
    
    ---
    
    <!-- _class: activity -->
    ## Activity: prepare your camp
    Assigned camps, 10 minutes. One camp argues: take the structural fix, end the ambiguity this week. The other argues: decline it, win Seif first, structure only if connection fails.
    
    Build your opening and your best evidence from the case text.
    
    Challenge: what is the other camp's strongest attack on you?

Board frame labels

• Frame title: Case: the team that still asks the old lead
• Camp A zone: Structure camp. Sub: take the written decision rights, end the ambiguity this week. Post your opening and your best evidence, one sticky each.
• Camp B zone: Connection camp. Sub: decline the fix, win the person first. Post your opening and your best evidence, one sticky each.
• Decision zone question: Will the team follow the structure, or the person? Does your move know which?

Facilitator notes

What has already been tried: one gentle coffee conversation (polite agreement, no change), one skipped 1:1 with a convenient excuse, and a manager offering written decision rights by Friday.

Cross-examination questions:

• Structure camp: the rule ships Friday. Monday, an engineer quietly asks Seif anyway. What did the rule actually change?
• Structure camp: Seif transfers out in a month with two years of system knowledge. Is that a cost or a cure? Defend it.
• Connection camp: what does "winning Seif" look like as concrete moves this week? Name two, from the case text.
• Connection camp: how many more weeks of two captains does the team pay while you invest in one person, and how do you know when to stop?

Debrief: expect managers-track people to take the structure and IC-track people to refuse it; each side is protecting the power they know. Name that, then ask the room what Laila's real deadline is: the junior's confused question is the case's actual clock.

← Case bank Facilitator guide