Cross-Functional Communication

As the economy reverts back from the 2021 hiring boom, companies are increasingly removing middle managers in favor of one leader for very large teams. For example, as opposed to marketing being led by one middle manager, outside sales by another manager, customer support by another manager, and customer success by another manager, many companies are opting to remove the layer of middle management and have one leader in charge of all of those functions without any leaders in between.

This has led to a major need for companies to increase their focus on helping their employees effectively communicate and collaborate across functions to achieve desired business outcomes. While somewhat redundant, there was still a lot of information handled by those middle managers that is now the responsibility of the employee.

Why have companies opted to remove middle managers in the first place?

The simple answer is lack of perceived value.

The logic behind creating a layer of middle management is that the guidance of a manager of a smaller team that owns and is fully accountable for their outcomes will be greater than if there was one manager for multiple functions within the organization.

This logic is sound if:

This logic doesn’t make sense when:

For example, let’s say we are a recruiting company in 2021 and the market is hot. All the outside sales team needs is a pulse to close deals. There was a process that the middle manager leading outside sales followed to maintain a base level of competence but because sales are coming in from everywhere, bad habits are overlooked.

Fast forward to 2023. The market has completely dried up, and the outside sales team is really struggling to meet their goals. The CEO is begging and pleading for his team to close more deals. The outside sales team blames the economy and all these other factors for why their numbers are down. But in reality, the middle manager in charge of the outside sales team hasn’t been holding her team accountable to the standard business development process they have found to be tried and true. And now she’s out of practice at holding her team accountable, and the team is out of practice taking hard advice from their manager. This is a recipe for failure. 

The CEO then asks the middle managers in other departments to help pickup the slack in sales. He implores his customer success team to focus on upselling current customers. The customer success middle manager says that she is up for the task. She and her team have devised a plan for trying to turn open support tickets and queries into opportunities for upselling. 

The plan looks great, but they run into a brick wall with customer support. The customer support middle manager is incentivized to close support tickets as quickly as possible, and this clashes with the overarching business goals of upselling to current clients. To resolve this, the customer success manager has a 1:1 with the customer support manager. The customer support manager knows that him closing support tickets hurts the customer success managers goal of upselling the existing customers and closing more deals, but mentions that “his hands are tied” because in order for him to achieve his end of year bonus, he needs his time to closed ticket ratio to be under a certain level. They are at an impasse.

The outside sales manager isn’t effectively holding her team accountable, the customer support manager is only focused on his end of year bonus for the metrics he is accountable for, and the customer success manager is stressed out because her team is putting in overtime to try to pick up the slack for the outside sales team but keeps running into hurdles from the support team.

Executive teams look at this situation and have determined…screw it! Let’s remove middle managers and have one overarching manager over a wide group of people so they can adjust incentives effectively and ensure everyone is rowing in the same direction. The executive team can’t guarantee that this new model will be any more effective, but they can guarantee that it will cost a whole lot less to not have all of these middle managers than to have them. 

Their logic is that if it isn’t working with middle managers right now, why keep paying for them?

In order to achieve effective cross-functional communication and collaboration, there needs to be:

If companies cannot effectively achieve all four of these points, they will continue to struggle to achieve effective cross-functional communication and collaboration.

When organizations invest in tools like personality assessments to improve team dynamics, they expect measurable improvements in collaboration and communication. However, it’s common for teams to excel in leveraging these tools externally, such as tailoring customer interactions, while falling short internally. The disconnect lies not in the absence of tools but in the difficulty of applying them consistently under tight deadlines and high stress.

The challenges teams face when applying communication tools internally often stem from several factors:

For example, a consulting company specializing in marketing, faces this exact issue. Despite regular use of personality and communication style assessments, such as DISC and Myers-Briggs, the team struggles with miscommunication during internal projects. Deadlines only increase the problem, causing team members to default to their natural tendencies and creating unnecessary conflict.

Take Emma, a results-driven leader, and Liam, an analytical thinker. When collaborating on a critical 48-hour project, Emma’s direct and urgent communication style overwhelmed Liam, who preferred deliberate planning. As a result, Liam became defensive, and their collaboration suffered, despite both having the tools to bridge their differences.

To address these challenges, teams need a foundation of shared understanding and intentionality. This foundation should include actionable strategies that are regularly practiced and refined.

To make communication tools actionable, teams must normalize their use in daily interactions:

2. Establishing Processes for Alignment

Intentionality is particularly critical when stress levels are high and time is short. Teams should adopt structured processes to align expectations and mitigate potential conflicts:

In the case of the consulting company, a quick alignment session could have helped Emma and Liam understand each other’s priorities before the project began. Emma might express her urgency while Liam outlines the steps he needs to complete his analysis efficiently.

3. Maintaining Momentum Through Reflection and Growth

Consistency in applying communication tools requires regular reflection and opportunities for growth:

At the consulting company, a post-project review helped Emma and Liam identify areas for improvement. Emma learned to soften her urgent tone by providing more context, while Liam practiced responding more flexibly under pressure. Over time, these adjustments strengthened their collaboration.

When teams commit to consistently applying communication tools, they transform a common pain point into a competitive advantage. This requires:

By prioritizing internal communication with the same care they give to client interactions, teams can navigate conflicting perspectives, meet tight deadlines, and foster stronger relationships. Emma and Liam’s journey illustrates how intentionality, alignment, and reflection can turn communication tools into actionable strategies, even in the most demanding environments.

When leaders create a culture of intentional communication, teams thrive under pressure, achieving better outcomes and building deeper cohesion. This not only enhances productivity but also sets the foundation for long-term success.

Are company reorganizations (reorgs) bad?

It depends on who you ask and how the reorg was handled. 

Most people associate reorgs with negative experiences because they often signify significant changes to the business. For better or worse, people tend to resist change, making reorgs an uphill battle when it comes to winning hearts and minds.

Whether a company has determined a business unit is no longer profitable, their success metrics need to change, or that they are simply moving in a different direction, a reorg means that change is coming.

The challenge most companies run into when attempting to successfully enact a reorg is effectively communicating the strategy, getting buy-in, and achieving adoption of the new status quo. 

A typical reorg looks like this: 
The CEO, often under pressure from the board, decides to implement a change in how the business operates. Perhaps the company isn’t profitable enough, early indicators suggest the need for proactive adjustments, or a new strategy seems necessary. The CEO shares this plan with the executive team, expecting them to communicate and champion the change with the same enthusiasm.

In an ideal world, employees would immediately understand, embrace, and adapt to the changes.

In reality, direct reports—wanting to appear as team players—often say, “I’m on board and looking forward to this change!” whether they genuinely feel that way or not. This lack of transparency creates a false sense of confidence for the CEO, who believes their team is fully aligned.

But then... the wheels fall off.

And then…egg on his face (metaphorically). The proposed changes fail to gain traction. Confused and frustrated, the CEO demands answers: “Why isn’t everyone as excited about this change as I am?!”

The truth might eventually surface, often at great cost. A brave executive who explains the lack of adoption risks being labeled insubordinate—and perhaps even losing their job. Others in leadership take note and quickly learn that honesty about these matters is unwelcome.

So what actually happened when the CEO proposed these changes? 

First, his executive team who report to him, conceptually understand why the change is being proposed, but they aren’t fully sold on the solution. It wasn’t their idea and they haven’t had enough time to think through the ramifications and determine the best outcome. The change feels very sudden.

They then go to their next level of leadership and say “A change is being made. We are now transitioning from operating like xyz and are now going to be operating like abc.” The team asks “Why?” And those leaders say because the CEO has determined that we need to make this change.

That next level of leader now has to communicate down to their direct reports admonishing “I didn’t make this change! My hands are tied. I can’t control it but the executives at this company are now making us operate like this. Don’t kill the messenger!” You might have seen this exact scenario play out at your company on remote work policies as we get further from the pandemic. 

The individual contributors doing the work at this company do one of two things:

The result…complete and utter failure at worst, and a major distraction at best

But reorg’s don’t have to be this way. Shoot, if reorg’s were always failures, companies would stop pursuing them.

It is just critical that companies pursue reorgs in the right way.

Here are a few tips on how to successfully enact a reorg:

Ultimately, reorgs are hard but necessary things for companies to innovate and continue to grow. If a reorg can be enacted successfully, that company will be in an incredible position to thrive moving forward.

If you are interested in engaging further into this conversation, follow the Ambition In Motion YouTube channel and look for virtual Pre-Symposium Panels covering this topic (Pre-Symposium Panels are virtual panels covering relevant business topics). And if you happen to be in Austin, TX on 2/13/25, come to the Executive Symposium which will debate and discuss this exact topic - RSVP’s here: ambition-in-motion.com/events. 

A manager is responsible for ensuring deadlines are met and tasks are completed. Naturally, managers want the best for their team and are willing to assume more roles in order to help their team achieve success. Once managers begin completing entry-level tasks, strive for absolute perfection, and become overly attentive to their direct reports, they enter the territory of micromanaging. 

Although micromanagement often develops with good intentions for wanting the team to succeed, this management style can cause a lot of unintended consequences. When direct reports experience micromanaging, creativity is stifled, morale is decreased, and trust is lost. Micromanagement doesn’t just negatively impact employees, the additional effort used by managers who micromanage leads to severe exhaustion. Despite these negative implications on teams, micromanagers often continue these behaviors because they fail to recognize that they are micromanaging. 

An indication of micromanagement is resistance to delegating tasks. As a manager with more experience than other team members, it may feel challenging to assign tasks to direct reports who may have more underdeveloped skill sets. Something important to consider is the opportunity cost of completing these more entry-level tasks. Senior managers are more suited for higher-level tasks, so it wouldn’t be valuable for high-level managers to be completing entry-level tasks. Managers' time is more valuable on something that can only be completed with their knowledge and specific skill set. 

Imagine if Tom Brady spent his life mowing lawns instead of playing quarterback. His great attention to detail and strong work ethic would allow him to be very good at mowing lawns, but this wouldn’t be the best use of his unique skill set as a professional athlete. The same idea translates to managers struggling to delegate tasks. When managers spend time completing tasks that their team can handle, they become like Tom Brady mowing lawns instead of winning with their team. Effective delegation isn’t solely about assigning tasks to employees It’s about recognizing the team's strengths and trusting them to complete tasks, allowing managers to focus on tasks only they can do as a leader. 

As a manager, it is critical to understand what team members are doing and how it contributes to the overall objectives of the team. Managers who take this a step further, through very frequent updates and constantly involving themselves in employees' work, become micromanagers. Although it can be tempting to step in and help an employee who is struggling, managers shouldn’t be constantly working with employees on their tasks or taking over for them.  

Make sure to reflect on how frequently communication is conducted with employees. Managers who are constantly asking for updates and asking questions about minor details may be micromanaging their team. This is also applicable to managers who have employees constantly reaching out for confirmation. Whether or not it is explicitly stated, if employees frequently need to have their managers approve of interim task phases, there is likely a micromanaging relationship present. 

Another sign that a manager is a micromanager is how they monitor their employees. Constant oversight from managers can make employees feel scrutinized. Whether a manager is monitoring their team by being physically present or digital tools to keep tabs on everyone, a compulsion to constantly supervise employees is an indication of micromanaging. 

Micromanagers often confuse visibility with control. While managers need to be informed about their team’s progress, there’s a difference between keeping track of outcomes and obsessively monitoring every detail within the process. A healthy management strategy is to build trust and open communication with team members so they feel empowered within their roles. Employees are more likely to feel motivated and deliver creative solutions when managers provide them with more autonomy. 

Reflecting on the three previous behaviors is an important step to counteract micromanaging. Since it can be difficult to self-assess, asking for feedback from employees can be a powerful tool to recognize micromanagement. Creating an anonymous feedback mechanism where employees can share honest criticism can be a helpful way to diagnose micromanagement. 

 

Oftentimes, micromanaging can stem from managers stepping in when their employees are confused about a project. To prevent employees from becoming confused about a task, make sure to effectively communicate expectations. Not only should managers properly discuss what is expected from employees, but they must also encourage employees to ask questions to promote a better understanding. 

 

Micromanagers struggle to delegate tasks and often assume way more responsibility than they should. To feel more comfortable delegating tasks, managers can practice delegating less complex responsibilities. Gradually shifting responsibilities to employees works to establish trust and build confidence for employees. Not only will employees become more confident, but managers will also become more confident in the competencies of their employees. 

Micromaning often stems from managers feeling that their employees aren’t capable of completing their assigned tasks. Similar to practicing gradual delegation, managers should also collaborate with employees to further develop their skill sets. If an employee struggles with a particular software or another critical component of their role, managers can provide resources or specific training to help enhance their skills. By working to expand employees’ abilities, managers will be more confident in allowing their employees to assume more responsibility. 

Fear of failure motivates managers to develop micromanagement behaviors. One way to counteract this fear of failure is to work on developing a growth mindset. Managers who are able to shift their thinking to consider setbacks as a learning opportunity are more able to let go of their micromanaging behaviors because they are less hyper-focused on ensuring a standard of perfection. 

Changing subconscious behaviors is an incredibly difficult task. As a manager hoping to stop micromanaging tendencies, make sure to self-reflect often and evaluate the effectiveness of changes in management styles. Throughout this journey to stop being a micromanager, it is beneficial to receive guidance from peer mentors who have similar experiences. No one wants to be micromanaged and it isn't a productive strategy for managers either. Make sure to focus on the big picture and the benefits that will be experienced once micromanaging is out of the picture. 

Managers play an important role in their teams, serving as a leader and guide. While managers' involvement in projects can promote growth for their team members, constantly overseeing team members and micromanaging them can lead to direct reports feeling untrusted and unsupported. Leaders with micromanaging behaviors often have good intentions, but stifle productivity through ineffective leadership styles. 

When dealing with a micromanager, it’s challenging to determine how to navigate the situation. While it may seem uncomfortable, addressing concerns to the micromanaging manager in a professional manner is the best way to promote positive change. Working under a micromanager is exhausting and causes the entire team’s morale to suffer. Communicating the negative implications of micromanaging and working to develop a solution will overall create a better team dynamic. 

Micromanagers typically don’t recognize that they are exhibiting these traits within their teams which is why it must be addressed through a conversation. While it may be intimidating to address a manager about their negative behaviors, their actions are majorly impacting the team. Micromanaging is making the work environment miserable for the whole team, and if unaddressed, will force the team to continue to suffer. Since micromanaging is already causing so much harm to the team environment, having a conversation has the potential to majorly improve the managers’ behaviors. 

Micromanaging is a pattern of behaviors that often stems from fear of failure and lack of trust of other members of the team. Managers have a lot of responsibilities, and the excessive pressure can cause them to be particular and overbearing on their direct reports. While micromanaging isn’t a positive solution, it is important to recognize that these behaviors originate from wanting the team to succeed. Lacking trust is another main cause of micromanagement. If a manager doesn’t have established trust with their direct reports, they may be compelled to become overly involved in their assignments. Since the team’s work is the responsibility of the manager, they may want more frequent and detailed communication because they want to ensure a successful end result. 

While there are various reasons a manager micromanages their team, recognizing the cause of these actions is a critical step in addressing the issue. Going into a conversation with the mindset that a manager is terrible because they are micromanaging isn’t a productive way of thinking. Since managers often exhibit micromanaging behaviors due to their desire for the team to succeed, it’s important to enter the conversation with the intent to adjust their behaviors for the mutual goal of supporting the team. 

Everyone on the team wants the team to succeed. With this common goal in mind of supporting the team, describe how this managing style is an obstacle to the team’s progress. Discussing different implications of their behaviors, such as how the team must sacrifice limited work time to constantly communicate updates with their manager rather than making progress on their assignments, can help a manager better understand the real impacts the micromanaging is having. 

When addressing the behaviors, make sure to utilize ‘I’ statements rather than ‘you’ statements. By discussing the personal impacts of their actions, a manager is less likely to feel attacked and be on the defensive. Using such statements opens the conversation up to be more collaborative. Owning the personal effects of their behavior rather than blaming the manager, communicates concerns in a way that promotes positive problem-solving. 

2. Establish Trust 

Since a lack of trust can cause micromanaging, working to develop a stronger working relationship with the micromanaging manager can establish more trust. During the conversation, collaborate on a solution that can encourage more autonomous work, while still allowing the manager to feel updated. For example, scheduling weekly meetings to share progress can alleviate hovering while working on assignments. Working together to devise a strategy that balances each other's needs, can begin to establish a foundation of trust. 

Managers may also lack trust because they aren’t confident in the abilities of their team members. Utilize this conversation as a moment to solicit feedback about areas of improvement. Working to develop skills can allow a manager to be more confident when assigning tasks and be less compelled to constantly check in. Establishing credibility through a stronger skill set will ultimately continue to create a more trusting relationship and minimize micromanaging behaviors. 

3. Provide Specific Expectations

As discussed, this conversation should include specific examples of instances when micromanaging behaviors are negatively impacting the team. Not only should the conversation address specific concerns, but a focus should also be placed on providing solutions. Collaborating to derive specific methods that the manager can adjust their behavior to better support the team will create a solid action plan. Without tangible steps for them to implement, it can be difficult to have an actual change going forward. 

4. Suggest Accountability Tools 

Another topic to discuss during this conversation is accountability tools. Scheduling meetings to revisit this conversation and collaboratively evaluate progress over time can also ensure accountability. Additionally, considering performance management tools for the manager to implement can work to reduce micromanaging behaviors. Tools such as AIM Insights can allow managers to better gauge their direct reports' performance without hovering over their work. Considering alternative creative approaches is a productive way to conduct this conversation with a micromanaging manager. 

Oftentimes managers are unaware of their micromanaging behaviors. As a direct report, it can be intimidating to address these behaviors, but it's important to remember that the issues will persist if undressed. When conducting this conversion, focus on giving specific ways these actions are harming the team, establish a trusting relationship, devise ways these behaviors can be adjusted, and collaborate on accountability tools to ensure tangible changes are made. 

Effective communication is the most paramount element to success for every team. It is crucial for expectations and responsibilities to be clearly communicated and understood for goals to be met. However, managers frequently fail to communicate effectively. Without clear communication, teams often feel confused and frustrated and have demonstrated decreased productivity throughout groups. Poor communication can appear in a variety of mediums, including unclear instructions or responsibility expectations leading to repeated work or missed deadlines. When communication issues go unaddressed, they can contribute to an unhealthy work environment, hindering productivity and achievement and fostering a negative culture. 

The consequences of poor communication can be very impactful to a team. Group members experiencing communication issues commonly feel aggravated, unengaged, or confused, which all lead to an overall decrease in efficiency, team-wide. Another significant problem with poor communication is the elimination of critical feedback that is necessary for growth and improvement. Without proper feedback, employees may struggle to improve their performance or coordinate effectively with their team members.

For direct reports, initiating a conversation about communication challenges can be a daunting task. But, poor communicators will not realize their ineffectiveness unless someone brings it to their attention. Many employees fear that bringing up an issue such as this with a director may be viewed as criticism rather than constructive feedback. To avoid this issue, direct reports should phrase the meeting as a strategy session to talk about effective communication methods for the team. Rather than presenting flaws and personal attacks, direct reports should present solutions for the issues the team experiences, without pointing fingers. Fostering an open and honest conversation about communication gaps is essential for improving team culture and is a cornerstone to improving productivity. 

Prior to addressing communication concerns with superiors, direct reports need to recognize and document the specific issues affecting the team. Poor communication can happen through any medium but identifying the root of the issues will help in creating a strategy to improve. Some common indicators of ineffective communication are vague or confusing instructions, last-minute changes, and inconsistent messaging, creating a lack of transparency across a team. Perhaps most notably, managers will realize there has been a communication failure when a deadline or important deliverable is missed or inadequate. 

When discussing potential improvements with a leader, direct reports should be sure to come up with specific examples and targeted solutions. Rather than making ambiguous or vague statements, team members should really bring light to the problems the team has experienced with concrete examples of the patterns observed. Pointing out these issues with appropriate solutions aids in the manager's understanding of how an action may be affecting their team. 

By clearly explaining the problems and offering some solutions, a collaborative approach to problem-solving can be achieved to improve communication habits. When discussing potential solutions, direct reports should consider any tool that could benefit the group or team. When struggling with communication, team members may offer a variety of solutions including scheduling consistent check-in meetings, sending meeting recap emails, utilizing goal-tracking software, or holding open brainstorming sessions. By narrowing the focus to specific issues with proactive solution possibilities, team members can assist team leaders in building a beneficial communication environment. 

By pinpointing communication gaps, offering constructive feedback, and open communication methods, employees are enabled to improve the overall working environment of their team. Through proactive communication, direct reports can help lead the team to become a highly productive and collaborative group. 

Although many communication issues can stem from a team leader or manager, it is also the group members' responsibility to uphold a beneficial communication culture within their team. To find sustainable changes for a team, members should work to build a communication norm of open and honest communication. Creating a norm of open communication dialogue will enable managers to share feedback and areas of improvement better, improving the skills of team members. 

The most crucial step to fostering open communication is establishing repeating opportunities for providing feedback. Leaders should be open to hearing what their direct reports have to say, whether, in questions or suggestions for new ideas, both parties grow from giving and receiving feedback. Managers who prioritize psychological safety within their teams will see the most success in creating an open dialogue within their teams. Creating a safe space where team members feel empowered to learn from each other and embrace mistakes will enable further conversation and collective growth. Although the onus may be on the manager to set the tone, it is the team's responsibility to consistently contribute and engage in communication to foster a positive culture. 

Overcoming previous communication issues to rebuild a positive communication norm within a team can be challenging. Oftentimes a poor tone at the top can influence the entire team to shift to ineffective communication. Team members and direct reports struggling with the manager's communication should recall that it is likely, not intentional. A difficult factor of communicating is that leaders who are poor communicators usually will only find out at the failure or collapse of a project or effort. Managers are commonly unaware of how their communication style and habits will impact the team. By finding specific examples of miscommunications, matching the resulting impact, and suggesting targeted solutions, members of a team can contribute to improving a communication issue. 

Effective communication is essential for every team but can be a common struggle for leaders. Miscommunication can create frustration, confusion and can deteriorate the productivity within a team as well. Direct reports play a vital role in bringing communication issues to light with their superiors and finding targeted solutions to approach communication flaws. Beyond individual conversations, direct reports have a key responsibility to uphold and practice positive communication habits and foster a productive team environment. Through proactive planning and innovative thinking, communication issues can be overcome to build a strong, collaborative, and efficient team culture. 

Emily was a top performer. As an operations specialist at a fast-growing tech firm, she had spent three years mastering her role, streamlining processes, and consistently exceeding performance metrics. But despite her clear qualifications and aspirations for growth, her manager, Dan, continued to stall her promotion. It wasn’t that Dan didn’t recognize her talent; he depended on it. The thought of replacing Emily, training someone new, and potentially losing productivity made him hesitant to let her advance.

This situation is more common than employees might think. A manager may not consciously sabotage an employee’s growth, but their reluctance to let go of a high-performing team member can create an invisible career ceiling. The challenge for employees like Emily is navigating this bottleneck strategically, ensuring they don’t remain stuck in a role that’s too convenient for management to change. 

From Dan’s point of view, Emily was a linchpin in the team’s success. She handled high-priority tasks with precision, trained new hires, and solved problems before they escalated. Promoting her meant finding someone equally competent, training them, and accepting a potential period of reduced efficiency—all of which felt like unnecessary risks.

However, this mindset can be detrimental to both the employee and the organization. Companies that fail to promote from within risk losing top talent, damaging morale, and sending a message that growth opportunities are limited. For Dan, he needs to be sure about how to evaluate whether someone is ready for a promotion as well. Emily knew she had to approach the situation with both patience and a strategic plan.

Emily understood that directly confronting Dan about his reluctance would not be effective. Instead, she needed to frame the conversation in a way that addressed his concerns while advocating for her own growth. Here’s how employees in a similar situation can navigate this discussion:

Rather than jumping straight into why she deserved a promotion, Emily started by recognizing Dan’s perspective. She acknowledged that she understood how valuable she was to the team and expressed appreciation for the opportunities she had been given.

Instead of making it about personal growth alone, Emily highlighted how her promotion would ultimately benefit the company. She emphasized that stepping into a leadership role would allow her to:

To alleviate Dan’s fears about losing her expertise, Emily presented a plan outlining how she could gradually transition her responsibilities to a successor. This included training a replacement, documenting key workflows, and ensuring continuity in her absence.

Emily then asked Dan directly: “What steps do you see as necessary for me to move into a leadership role?” By shifting the conversation toward actionable SMART goals, she encouraged Dan to define what he needed to see from her before approving a promotion.

To prevent the conversation from becoming an indefinite discussion, Emily worked with Dan to set a timeline for reevaluating her promotion. They established measurable benchmarks and agreed to revisit the conversation within three months to track progress. 

Instead of assuming her manager’s intent, Emily scheduled a one-on-one strategy session with Dan. This wasn’t just a casual career check-in—it was a structured conversation with a clear agenda:

One of Dan’s biggest concerns was replacing Emily. To ease this, she proactively began training a junior colleague, documenting workflows, and suggesting a transition plan. By demonstrating that her team wouldn’t suffer in her absence, she removed one of Dan’s key barriers to promoting her.

Emily also recognized that promotions often require advocacy from more than just a direct manager. She began increasing her visibility within the company by:

This approach ensured that multiple decision-makers recognized her readiness for advancement.

Rather than positioning the conversation as a personal request, Emily framed her promotion as a strategic move for the company. She highlighted how moving into a leadership role would allow her to drive greater impact, mentor others, and enhance team efficiency.

This reframing helped Dan see the long-term benefits rather than focusing on the short-term inconvenience.

To avoid endless delays, Emily and Dan agreed on a clear timeline for revisiting the promotion decision. They set a three-month period to track progress against defined objectives. This ensured accountability and kept the conversation from becoming an indefinite cycle of “maybe later.”

Employees like Emily must recognize their manager’s concerns while advocating for their own growth. By aligning on expectations, developing a transition plan, and framing the promotion as a win-win, they can shift the conversation from reluctance to action. Ultimately, career advancement isn’t just about proving capability; it’s about making it easy for decision-makers to say yes.