Identity: Season One

Jordan knows they’ve been circling this moment. Not avoiding it exactly. Just letting other work take precedence. Another meeting here. Another follow-up there. Because once the right people are in the same room, identity stops being something you analyze and starts becoming something you negotiate.The email draft sits open longer than it should.

Subject: Identity Working Group

Attendees: Security, IT, HR, Sales, Finance, Operations

Jordan reads the list again.Too broad, they think. Then immediately: too narrow.They hit send before they can second-guess it again.

The conference room feels different from the others Jordan’s been using. Bigger. Brighter. Glass walls on two sides, the kind that make every pause visible to anyone walking by. Mark arrives first, as expected. He chooses a seat along the side of the table, close enough to engage but far enough from the head to avoid owning the room outright. Priya slips in next, quiet, efficient, already skimming her notes. Evan follows, laptop open before he sits, eyes moving around the room like he’s cataloging variables. Lena from Sales arrives last, phone still in hand, energy sharp. Karen from Finance nods once to the group and takes a seat opposite Jordan.

Jordan watches them settle.

They don’t look like a team. They look like people who don’t usually sit at the same table unless something important is happening.

Jordan opens without slides. “I want to be clear about why I pulled this group together,” they say. “This isn’t a check-in. And it’s not a design session.” A few glances shift. “This group exists to make decisions about identity,” Jordan continues. “Not recommendations. Decisions.” The word lands heavier than Jordan expected.

Karen tilts her head slightly. “What kind of decisions?”

“Priority. Ownership. Tradeoffs,” Jordan replies.

No one rushes to fill the silence that follows. Lena breaks it first. “So we’re talking about a steering committee.”

Jordan nods. “If that framing helps.”

Mark smiles faintly. He looks almost relieved.

The discussion starts cautiously. Approval paths. Exception handling. Who gets autonomy, and where it stops. At first, the conversation feels constructive. Polite. Measured.

Then Evan leans forward. “If this turns into another layer teams have to work around,” he says, “delivery will slow down. People will bypass it.”

Lena nods immediately. “Sales can’t wait on centralized decisions every time a deal moves.”

Mark responds without raising his voice. “Security can’t keep explaining audit findings tied to exceptions no one owns.”

The room shifts. Not sharply. Just enough that Jordan feels it.People aren’t arguing yet but they are testing boundaries.

Priya speaks next, cutting through the back-and-forth.

“We keep framing this as speed versus control,” she says. “But we’re not talking about accountability.”

Everyone turns toward her. “When something goes wrong,” she continues, “who stands in front of it? Who explains it? Who owns the outcome?”

The room goes quiet again. Jordan watches the moment land. Everyone wants influence over decisions. Fewer people want to carry the weight of them. As the conversation continues, the negotiation becomes more visible.

“That should stay with IT.”

“That’s a business call.”

“That’s a risk decision.”

Each statement draws a boundary. Each boundary redraws power. Jordan lets it play out longer than feels comfortable. This is the work they needed to see. Not the answers — the dynamics.

Near the end of the meeting, Karen folds her hands and asks the question Jordan has been waiting for. “What authority does this group actually have?”

The room stills. Jordan doesn’t rush the response.

“This group exists because identity decisions are already being made,” they say. “They’re just being made separately.” Jordan looks around the table. “All we’re doing here is bringing those decisions into the open and deciding who owns them together.” Mark nods slowly. Evan looks unconvinced, but thoughtful. Lena’s expression is harder to read.

Karen considers this. “And when there’s disagreement?”

“Then we escalate,” Jordan says. “But we’ll be clear about what we’re escalating, and why.”

No one argues. The meeting ends without resolution, without applause, without closure. But no one dismisses it either.

Later that evening, Jordan passes the conference room again. The chairs are still slightly misaligned. The whiteboard untouched. They pause for a moment, replaying the conversation. No rules were finalized. No governance model approved. But the table now exists. And once it exists, people start positioning themselves around it — sometimes consciously, sometimes not. Jordan understands something now. This is where identity programs stall if leadership flinches. And where they grow if leadership holds steady.

Episode 4 marks the transition from effort to structure.Not because a committee was formed, but because decisions now have a place to live.Here’s how to approach this stage without losing momentum or credibility.

Documents don’t reveal power dynamics. Conversations do. Watch who speaks, who defers, and who reframes discussions in terms of risk, cost, or speed. Those patterns tell you where authority already exists — whether it’s acknowledged or not.

Ambiguity feels polite, but it creates frustration. If the group is expected to decide, say that clearly. If it can only recommend, say that too. People need to know whether they’re being asked for input or ownership.

If everyone agrees too quickly, you’re not dealing with the real issues yet.Pay attention to where conversations tighten or stall. That’s where identity decisions start affecting incentives — and where governance actually matters.

Some decisions will exceed the authority of any working group. What matters is that escalation is intentional and understood, not emotional or reactive. A clear escalation path protects the program as much as any control.

Identity governance doesn’t start with rules.It starts when decision-making becomes visible and shared.Once that happens, the program gains weight — and with it, scrutiny. That scrutiny is a sign you’re doing the work correctly.