AIBU to think my handover should actually be a handover, not me being snapped at?

I think that’s a fair point, but just to clarify, she was good at her role. The issue wasn’t her ability, it was more that she didn’t get on with the CEO. She’s on the spectrum and just couldn’t gel with him, which created tension. From what I saw when I was consulting, there was never really any scope to get rid of her because her output was so strong, and that in itself caused a lot of frustration in the business.

So she was great at her job (to the point it caused “frustration” in the business) but is potentially leaving because she is ND and wasn’t properly supported by her CEO? That’s one potential reading of this scenario and quite possibly how she sees it.

Did SHE have 15+ hours of handovers when she first started the role or did she just have to dig in and get on with it?

It is not training - it is a handover. So you should not be asking her how to do tasks, just to understand what tasks need to be done.

My experience is in secondary sector middle management. Never in my life have I heard of anyone being given a week for a handover in this sector.

Is it the fly one? I saw that. 😀

Perhaps you're a perfectionist or have some imposter syndrome and that's holding you back from just jumping in and doing the job, and indeed making judgement calls rather than following a semi automated flowchart process. After 15 hours of handover you need to take the armbands off and jump in - you can probably swim now, although it's normal not to do it very gracefully, and to splash and get a bit of water in your eyes at first 🙃 There's only so much you can be led through, now you need to learn by doing it for real, without asking every time you're not sure.

Fake it til you make it time - and other such cliches.

Good luck!

Please be mindful of how she has been treated behind the scenes. I took redundancy and in the lead up to that my manager had not spoken to me for 12 weeks (for no apparent reason) and I left after five years without a thank you or good luck. They only based for three things on my handover which frankly was an insult and they clearly did not understand what my job entailed. Conversely I would defo not have participated in 15 hours of handover. That’s not handover that’s training.

15 hours is two working days! We usually have at least two weeks handover period.

I actually sympathise with her. Last year I had to do a handover in my previous role, and must have done about the same amount of hours as well as sharing detailed reports, files, putting together calendars of reporting cycles and so on, all while still trying to do my (also mad) workload on top of it. It was pretty frustrating to put all that time in to trying to secure a smooth handover only to find my successor asking questions I knew I'd answered the previous week, or didn't know something that quite frankly they really should have known.

By contrast, I went to my new role in a different company, and my handover was non existent, with very little induction. I'm still here to tell the tale, despite finding the initial few months quite challenging.

If you've been doing the consultancy role, surely you should have enough experience to fill any knowledge or technical gaps through learning on the job - which, to be honest, is a much better way of learning and you will find that you could probably do a week's worth of induction and still come across something when in role that completely takes you by surprise.

Raise it with the leadership. You want to give yourself the best possible opportunity to succeed in the future.

I'd be more interested in why she "didn't gel with the team" .. for some reason someone who sounds good at their job has been put in a position she wants to leave and understandably doesn't want to bend over backwards for her replacement.

Edited get for gel

15 hours of handover and still not done?
This woman is a saint for having tolerated this for so long, the job is too mach for one person and you will break within 6 months if you take it on.

If handover takes more than 8 hours, the person who has been recruited has insufficient knowledge and experience to step into the role without a months-long learning-on-the-job setup where structures are in place to account that the new person isn't yet doing the job in full.

The employers should have recruited a deputy months ago to share the workload and learn by doing, they then might not have lost this highly knowledgeable and capable person who they are now expecting you, unrealistically, to replace, or at least would have someone on-hand who had a chance to successfully step up.

Ok look mostly when you start a new role in a senior position the previous person has ALREADY GONE.

It’s the responsibility of the company to onboard you, show you the systems, processes and policies.

15 hours of handover is bloody ridiculous.

Exactly. And it does not take 15 hours to handover information about the routines and processes. Especially when the OP has already had a consultancy role at the company. A handover is about what you do, not how you do it. And I must say I would expect anyone coming in at a more senior role to be ready to update and innovate rather than just stepping into the previous employee’s shoes like an automaton.

A handover is: what needs to be done, specific deadlines and pinch points, the systems and processes available to do the work, where to find information. That’s it. It’s not training-that needs to be done by the company.

I definitely wouldn’t tell management that 15 hours handover isn’t enough. If I heard that I’d be seriously concerned.

A handover is not training.

It's a overview of the tasks, where the files live, what the report cadence is. Intro to the wider team with a run down of each person.

After that, you are on your own, and why you get paid the big bucks.

15 hours of handover is absurd.

But that’s the point: this is a handover not training. They are two very separate things. I personally would not want an aggrieved colleague who is leaving due to a personality clash to be responsible for training an incoming colleague-that is such a risk.

After the handover the OP should then receive training on the job, which is the responsibility of the company, not the person working their notice.

15 hours is a ridiculous amount of time to spend on a handover, and I also find it strange that the OP has been told this woman has autism as if that is any of her business. Red flags everywhere.

And that causes so much bad management at high levels. Loads of responsibility but superficial or non existent knowledge of working practice.

Lack of skill sharing and knowledge dissemination at a high level isn't something to be proud of.

The point is - who is expected to do this training.
That is a company wide issue, not soley the role of the outgoing person.
Piss her off by ‘ forcing’ her to do stuff may backfire. She could just walk at any moment as she has nothing to loose.

I’m surprised you think it’s common. I’m not saying it’s unheard of, but given how many replacements at a senior level involve someone moving to a competitor (and therefore a period of garden leave) or a very long recruitment process, more often than not the previous incumbent is long gone by the time the replacement arrives. It’s quite rare to have the outgoing and the incoming working alongside one another for a significant period.

Every time there is a query or a question why not write it down/type it on your laptop/I pad? Then go through the info presented and find the answer for yourself.

The replies here have been so eye opening
to me. They explain why so many senior managers seem to bumble around the office doing nothing, spouting blue sky thinking managerial word salad, changing things for no good reason, clueless as to the practicality or efficacy of their ideas, and fudging answers to important questions while their staff are run off their feet. Because they had no training and have to give the impression of being in charge while masking their cluelessness about how tthe place actually works.

I think OP is right to want to know the mechanics. The operating systems, specid software, expectations from above and below. And learning these thoroughly takes time. 15 hours is only two working days. Senior staff should get more training not less.

You should spend time with the ceo or whoever she's been reporting into to understand more about what they want from the role. ID any gaps, then say to her to write down the process for abc. Stop meeting with her. Force her to write it down.

Sometimes you have to have an understanding for the person who is leaving a role. You note there was a history of friction so chances are she is leaving because she is unhappy.

i left a job I had been in for a long time, was very skilled and had enjoyed it. Had to leave as the job became horrid and still to this day has impacted my metal health.

i was expected to serve my notice, hand everything over, train up potential replacements and go out with a smile. I should have served my notice off sick but professional pride did not let me.

That notice period was unpleasant. It was NOT in my job role to train any other successor or potential successor , and anticipate neither is it hers. All she has to do is continue her normal job role.

That is the organisation/ companies problem to be frank.

A handover can be a luxury as some staff can leave quickly ( ill health/ dismissal/ walk out/ RIP). She could just go off sick.

Just make the most of it, be pragmatic , don’t be so self centred.

Op
That is one of the most naive comments I've read of your Mumsnet.
The vast majority of people working out their notice ( particularly where they feel aggrieved do not kill themselves during their handover which to be fair at 15 hours has been comprehensive enough.At senior level somethings are simply a judgement call based on experience , not every decision process has a sop .
I think , the best hope is for you to start doing her job now and letting her step back with the proviso that you can pick her brains as you come across stuff you can't handle.