William Bridges' Transition Model, with its neat three-phase structure of Ending, Neutral Zone, and New Beginning, has long been a staple of change management discussions. It provides a comforting narrative: first, people let go of the old; then they exist in an ambiguous neutral zone of uncertainty and experimentation; finally, they emerge into a new, stable reality. Simple, structured, linear.
But through The Fractured Lens, this model starts to crack.
The Illusion of the ‘Neutral Zone’
Bridges’ neutral zone assumes there’s a distinct middle ground, a liminal space where people can pause, reflect, and reorient themselves before stepping into the new. It suggests that change has a start and an endpoint, with a controlled in-between period of adjustment.
But today’s organisations don’t move through change in tidy arcs. Instead, they exist in a state of continuous transition, where old structures don’t fully disappear, and the new is constantly shifting. The neutral zone is not a single phase, it’s the entire landscape.
People are always in flux, managing overlapping transitions that don’t fit neatly into one cycle. Leaders often assume employees are struggling with a single, identifiable change when, in reality, they are navigating multiple, competing transitions at once, some personal, some organisational, some systemic.
The Fallacy of ‘Letting Go’ Before the New Begins
Bridges suggests that people must first ‘let go’ of the past before they can meaningfully step into the neutral zone and then embrace the new. But in reality, organisations rarely allow people the luxury of a clean break.
People often find themselves operating in two worlds simultaneously, pulled between old processes and new systems, expected to perform at full capacity while also ‘transitioning’ to something undefined.
The old doesn’t necessarily disappear, it lingers in unspoken expectations, cultural remnants, and legacy systems that refuse to die. People may be asked to let go of old ways while still being measured by outdated metrics.
The pressure to ‘embrace the new’ often happens before people have even processed the old. If the organisation itself isn’t clear on what’s changing or why, employees are left in a constant limbo of uncertainty, unable to fully invest in either past or future.
The Myth of a ‘New Beginning’
Bridges frames the final phase as a point where people emerge into a new, stable reality, a ‘new beginning’ where clarity and confidence return. But when does this actually happen?
Most organisations never reach a single, defined ‘new beginning’. Instead, they layer transformation upon transformation, often without fully embedding the last one. The ‘new’ is perpetually arriving but never fully formed.
What leaders call a new beginning is often just another shift in strategy, leadership, or structure, another adjustment in an ongoing series of disruptions.
Employees don’t experience change as a grand narrative of transformation. They experience it as a relentless, often exhausting state of adaptation, where they are expected to stay engaged despite never having stable ground.
Reframing Change: From ‘Phases’ to a Fluid, Fractured Process
Through The Fractured Lens, Bridges’ model isn’t necessarily wrong, it’s just too linear, too clean, and too detached from reality. Instead of assuming a three-phase transition, we need to embrace perpetual sensemaking:
Change is not a journey, it’s an ongoing negotiation. People don’t transition through change once; they are constantly reorienting themselves in a shifting landscape. The task isn’t to ‘manage transitions’ but to create conditions where people can continuously make sense of their reality.
The ‘neutral zone’ is not a phase, it’s the default state. Most organisations exist in a constant state of in-betweenness, where the old and the new coexist in tension. Leaders need to recognise this and provide ongoing navigation, not just a one-time transition plan.
‘New beginnings’ are temporary. What feels like a resolution is usually just a pause before the next shift. People don’t ‘arrive’ at a new state of stability, they develop the capacity to function within instability.
In short, Bridges’ model is a comforting story, but it doesn’t reflect how people experience change in real, complex, power-laden systems. Change is not a bridge to cross, it’s an ocean to navigate. Instead of waiting for a stable ‘new beginning,’ organisations should focus on building adaptability, sensemaking, and resilience within the perpetual mess of transition.
The Four Forces at Play in Perpetual Transition
Through The Fractured Lens, we can see how Unknowing, Meaning, Belonging, and Dynamics of Power & Change shape the reality of organisational change. Rather than treating transition as a linear sequence, these forces highlight the messy, lived experience of people trying to navigate shifting ground.
Unknowing: The Reality of Perpetual Ambiguity
Bridges assumes people move from a known past to an unknown future, but in practice, unknowing is the constant state. In today’s environment, people often don’t know:
What they’re supposed to be letting go of (because remnants of the old system still persist).
What the ‘new’ actually entails (because it’s being iterated in real time).
Whether change is even ‘real’ this time (or if it’s just another flavour of the month).
Organisations tend to resist unknowing, pushing out narratives of certainty even when things are unclear. But embracing unknowing allows for real-time sensemaking rather than pretending change follows a predictable path.
Meaning: The Struggle to Make Sense of Overlapping Transitions
Bridges assumes people will naturally find new meaning as they pass through the neutral zone, but meaning is not an automatic process, it requires deliberate reflection, dialogue, and space. In a world of perpetual transition:
The ‘why’ of change is often unclear or constantly shifting, leaving people disconnected from its purpose.
Competing changes create meaning fragmentation, people may be expected to rally behind multiple, conflicting narratives.
Without a way to make meaning, people disengage. They may comply with change initiatives, but they don’t internalise or truly shift their behaviours.
The challenge is not just moving from one ‘meaning’ to another but continuously rebuilding meaning in flux, helping people locate themselves within the shifting landscape.
Belonging: The Fragility of Identity in Transition
People don’t just transition from old to new processes, they transition from one identity to another. Bridges largely ignores how belonging is destabilised during change:
People are often asked to take on new roles, new ways of working, or new cultural expectations, which disrupts their sense of self.
Teams get reshuffled, hierarchies change, and relationships become uncertain, leading to a loss of stability in workplace connections.
Those who were deeply invested in the old way of doing things often feel exiled or displaced, not just by the mechanics of change but by the social shifts it brings.
Change that ignores belonging will always meet resistance, not because people fear change itself, but because they fear losing their place within it.
Dynamics of Power & Change: Who Decides When the ‘New’ Begins?
Bridges presents change as a shared human process, but in reality, not everyone experiences transition equally. The power to define what constitutes an Ending, Neutral Zone, and New Beginning is not evenly distributed:
Senior leadership may declare a ‘new beginning,’ but those at the frontline may still be dealing with the fallout of the ‘ending.’
Power holders often dictate how change should happen, but those affected have little say in shaping it.
Change fatigue isn’t just about too much change, it’s about too much imposed change without agency.
Real change isn’t about pushing people through stages, it’s about navigating power dynamics, distributing decision-making, and ensuring people have ownership over their own transitions.
Bringing It Together: The Fractured Lens of Change
Bridges’ model presents transition as a structured path. But when viewed through The Fractured Lens, we see that:
Unknowing is not a temporary state, it’s the condition of modern change.
Meaning is not automatically found, it must be continually reconstructed.
Belonging is not just a personal concern, it’s central to whether people engage with or resist change.
Power is not neutral, who controls the transition process shapes who thrives and who gets left behind.
Rather than trying to manage people through a predictable transition, organisations need to design for ambiguity, develop shared meaning, stabilise belonging, and distribute power. The question isn’t, “How do we get people through the neutral zone?” it’s “How do we help people navigate the complexity of never fully arriving?”