To be annoyed that I got an "olive branch"

[feelingstucktoday]

So there's two of us... I've always been very clear that I wanted to become a manager/TL as I've been one in the past and it was my "happy place"

Anywho, my manager did promise me something like than in the past (can't remember the last time she mentioned it but I'm sure it was around 9 months ago).

I had a "blip" of like 6 weeks where I had an "existencial crisis" and it was made clear that maybe this role wasn't necessarily the path to my fulfillment.

There's been a reshuffle, and it turns out that new "leadership" roles have been created, and my colleague (not me) has been given the TL role.

Instead, my manger has given me a "global role" with overarching visibility but nobody reports to me. So yes, I do have more exposure to other departments, yes I'm in charge of the multi-million deals, but it's still unclear to me how much agency I'll have,.or if I'd have to run things with my new TL. She has no experience of that sort of projects (as I've solely managed them from the start) so I'm still lost within the roles and responsibilities.

My manager tried to wrap it as a "good thing" as I was not limiting myself to just one role, and that it would be easier for me to jump to either a more senior overarching role, or directly under a VP.

I'm grateful that I'm employed and that I have a very good salary, etc... but I wish it has been an open conversation or "race".

I think there's definitely wisdom in what my manager is saying, but I just don't feel ill ever get to a managerial role here.

I had way more world load and more bandwidth.

Corporate speak bollocks.

Your role has more scope and better career wise

Am I misunderstanding? Did you run reports to prove that your colleague wasn't as busy as you?

Obviously tricky to tell just from a few posts but, your communication style and attitude comes across as quite abrasive...

The most important thing in a manager is getting the best out of people more junior to you - that's more important than personally smashing targets. Could it be that your colleague is a bit more a fit for that criteria? I'm not sure I'd be thrilled to be managed by you, just based on this thread.

I'm in charge of the multi-million deals,

Some of my work got sloppy

I'm surprised you aren't being managed tbh.

This a joke thread surely. No one uses this much business guff speech and this many speech quotation marks in a non-ironic way.

Not really... I run quarterly reports on various things, one of them is conversion rate, as in "# of hours to a successful sale".

I normally just have them divided by role, not by person, but this time I did have to a tiny more granular as were looking at industry/vertical so that's how I figured it out.

My reports are used on our departmental QBRs, so nothing new at all.

I'm going to ask for a promotion & a raise because that really sounds like that would be my happy place too.

You are clearly taking the piss.

No sane person would employ you in any capacity.

Did you ever see the Will and Grace episode with Madonna as an OFFICE MANAGER?

That’s what this thread reminds me of a bit.

And what did you do with the information you found from these reports when you found your colleague wasn't as busy as she said she was?

And do you do any of the "glue" work of the team or do you just focus on the main aspect of your role and nothing outside that?

"I just look at my watch...and look at them...and they just GET IT."

I actually can't watch that as to my shame it reminds me of me in my first mgmt role eons ago, when I thought thats what it was about!

OP, Management is really not for you, based on your posts.

But she has looked at the granular! That's a management thing, right there.

Didn’t push the envelope enough though, outcomes were sub-optimal.

OP should circle back in 6 months or so.

Yes, not saluting this flagpole, quite right.

I highlighted that the workload share was even.

I do some "glue" work as you call it but not within my team. I've run fundraisers and have facilitated seminars (company wide).

I have actual friends different departments, including the US. I'm better at global collaboration, which is one of the reasons they're giving me this role.

It all sounds very vague and wishy washy OP. None of this sounds like the language or behaviour of any corporate environment I've worked in.

Surely if a role has been created as part of a restructure, therefore some thought has gone into what the direction and specific accountability of that role is. I would ask my line manager for a copy of the job description and for defined boundaries of the roles responsibilities and accountabilities. Is there a contract for this new role? What does it say?

I would try and let go of what has come before, the decision has been made and the outcome would most likely have been the same even if you were offered the chance to interview, or 'compete' as you put it. Your line manager either agrees with the assessment of the candidates and options and that's why this has gone ahead or has no say at all, in which case any informal chat that came before is irrelevant.

I love plain English.

You have all this corporation speak.

Your OP is riddled with spelling errors.

Not knowing the difference between an olive branch, carrot and stick, and consolation says to me that it's all talk.

It's all sans rigour.

So you ran your reports that you normally do at a role level and then delved down into the detail in order to prove that your colleague was lying and then made a point of passing that information on?

And you don't do any of the glue work in your team?

You sound extremely competitive and single minded, which makes for a great employee in the right role with a strong manager but an absolutely dire team leader.

Yeah, you jumped the shark with this one!

I think you need to take a step down, give yourself some breathing space as you seem overly wrapped up in it. What about the other parts of your life rather than work, are you happy and fulfilled there?
I can’t give you anymore advice as I’m more of a work to live person rather than a live to work.

Not seeing the issue. They want to ensure you have enough time for the bit you're very good at, which is also very important and visible - the revenue generation. As a next step you can then work into the people management side at some later stage if this all goes well. Just make sure you're negotiating a good cut, then it sounds ideal. Rainmakers don't typically get lumbered with the tedium of dealing with dull people issues.