Senior management promotion track - confused - no idea what this feedback means "on the ground"

[BiancaJOP]

Hi.

I report into a junior director-level manager (within a medium sized manufacturing / int property license holder who reports into the COO's right hand man, a senior director). I recently made it clear to my manager that i'd like to be considered for a promotion / development track. they are constantly talking in recruitment campaigns about the lack of female leadership talent in our sector, and now I've been here very comfortably for over a year, we've just had a bit of a performance review and goal planning session - all good.

Except I was given some fairly blunt feedback that I have no idea how to translate into reality, and i'm hoping that more senior business people on here might be able to interpret it in such a way that it's more relatable.

I'm experienced in my job, and it's akin to designing elements of engine parts (it's not cars, but you get the idea). in the last year, I've also been leading 2 of our junior designers, directly accountable for their work. for this, you need a very detail-oriented skillset - i'm typically described as "incredibly diligent", "doesn't miss anything", "a completionist", in good terms.

My manager's feedback was awkward, and he said that I need to "learn to operate more strategically". when I asked what that meant, he said "make more risk-based decision making". i said i wasn't sure what that meant, and he said something about taking too long on design work which doesn't need every low level of detail finished, it "depends on the part".

I asked him for some examples and he said "don't get too bogged down by process", "sometimes it's about relying on conversations and networking rather than signing off with written authority on parts".

I went out of the meeting more confused than ever, and asking him 3 times in a row hasn't given me any real clarity on how on earth to make changes to improve! I didn't want to ask a 4th time.

SO how would you interpret his comments?
(bearing in mind that i'm in a role where we have sample auditors, and if there are e.g. accidents, there will be a investigation too as to who signed off on the designs, if we don't get manufacturing run approvals due to a design flaw, it's my ass on the line, and there's no such thing as "skipping" parts of a design to produce things more quickly, because it'll just get rejected at approval gates where the missing information will be obvious - so it comes back as re-work after wasting approvers' lab time).

I feel like i'm being told to work less diligently in an area that I have ZERO control to be less diligent in, and yet he was also singing my praises as being someone whose colleagues always ask to work with because i'm so diligent and hard working.

I really don't know what to do next - i'm sitting here on a Monday afternoon meant to be writing up notes from the one-to-one so that we can review them next month and i'm more confused about how i'm meant to change to "start acting like the next level up" than ever!

It sounds like he think you are hands on, and unwilling to delegate without micromanaging.

i'm typically described as "incredibly diligent", "doesn't miss anything", "a completionist", in good terms.

I've never heard those used in "good terms" of someone who is aspiring to senior management. They are what you say of very good technical staff who will do you a great piece of detail design, and see it through to manufacturing, but you wouldn't put in charge of a large, innovative, high-risk new project. because those projects sometimes require you to move ahead with things that are complete, hoping they catch up later.

Sorry.

*incomplete

I see this as delegate and trust whilst you get on with higher level things

So its not asking you to be less diligent but asking you to trust your staff to be, so put things in place that allow that to happen.

Try to pull out of detail level and think more broadly in terms of which parts have more risk associated with them than others - so catastrophic engine failure vs headrest coming off (prob a bit flippant). But also think about the higher management level in terms of risk to project not completeing - creating stops in the process (how could that be avoided for e.g.) for other departments etc

I would also recommend reading around strategy and higher level Ops mgt to familiarise yourself with the language used and how to present in a strategic way - sometimes it is just about the language we use rather than actually what we are doing , how we say something being orientated towards highlighting risks to higher level project or programme mgt rather than being bogged down in the detail. He is not saying do less of the detail just think about how that detail is done (so some trust in the process and others even though you are signing) and issues fed back (terminology used etc)

Agree with the above. I work in a high risk work setting (high safety risk), and so you can’t get away with not following process at any stage. But even here the leadership transition required is a) take a risk based approach to prioritising time, attention and checking and b) build in ways of maintaining oversight without you having to get into the detail. So eg. rather than checking all the work that a junior designer has done, you replicate the questions and challenges that would happen at the gateway meeting to check that they have thought of everything. If you are so diligent that they can always trust you to find the mistakes or problems, it may be that they are less diligent themselves, not taking ownership of the quality, feelingvthat it’s their risk. Because you’re the safety net.

Agree. I’ve worked with audit teams and wvery box needs to be ticked. But the good partners in updates etc want to pull out the key risks and focus on those. I haven’t completed 20% of the low risk checks doesn’t interest them so much, they expect me to be able to say it looks good, no risks observed, they need to consider market developments xyz. There are 20% of tests outstanding but the result of them won’t be material. They need boxes ticked but only really concern themselves with what might be material and trust me to pick up on any of those very early on. Are you able to say to your manager no results yet but I think this one will be fine and our bigger concern is x? I’d opinions based on experience without having seen every result?

He really didn’t communicate it well though. Maybe you can learn more from someone else!

Hi BiancaJOP,

Firstly, it's a tough situation to be in to receive feedback and then not be given the opportunity to explore it further and determine what action (if any) you want to take as a result. if it's from your line manager, and you are looking for a promotion, then you are doing the right thing in wanting to do something useful with this feedback, so I salute you for this.

Here are the thoughts that spring to mind for me:

The sense that I get from your post, and as others have alluded to, is that your line manager could have been referring to the difference between being an excellent technical operator (which is sounds like you are), and moving into a management role, where you then achieve your work objectives indirectly, through other people. So you will no longer be able to check and process everything yourself but you will be accountable for your team doing this. This means that your focus moves to inspiring, encouraging, developing and supporting others to be as diligent and successful as you are in your current role!

In addition to managing and leading people, thinking strategically involves taking a bigger picture view. For example, having responsibility for business planning, process improvement, service/product development, team development, managing finances and achieving overall performance for a work area. To be successful in this, you need to really understand yourself as a leader and understand the people around you, so that you can get the best out of them. This is something that successful leaders continually work on throughout their careers.

If you are interested in progressing your career into a leadership position, and you want to understand more about what the role would entail (and what this would mean for your development) then what can be really useful is seeking out people in a leadership role in the company and asking if you can meet them for 30 minutes for a chat about what they do. People love to talk about themselves, it shows that you're keen and it sounds like the business is looking develop female leaders so this will be a test for them as to whether this is true! This is something that I have done lots of myself throughout my career as a leader and most of the time people say yes!

I'm interested also: what other thoughts on your situation do you have as a result of the responses that you have received in this thread?

Let us know how you get on!

I get the feeling that by saying you are focused on detail, they mean that you concentrate on hitting/achieving each phase gate of the procedure, but possibly lose sight of the end result (and have you, in the past, held things up until they have passed to your satisfaction/met the procedural requirements?)

Managers are focused on the whole system and the end result, not just the next phase - it's seeing it as a whole and how it contributes to the wider company goals.

That you’re too involved with the detail - although that’s tricky if that’s actually required by your job.

Basically do you think more broadly about the overall product and will you do things with any uncertainty? Or are you a stickler for the rules?

I have an audit background. An analogy would be that I’m not bothered by every single transaction being tested to the nth degree. Instead I think about the whole set of transactions (presented in the accounts) and what is the risk of something going wrong. If I think that risk is low then I’ll amend my approach.

I think it's what @ReflectentMonatomism says above.

Basically, if temperamentally you are Montgomery Scott, no amount of command training will make you James T Kirk. It's annoying that pay structures don't tend to give the biggest rewards to the vital people who do these important tasks but that is how businesses are structured.

Chances are you wouldn't be happy with a promotion anyway. You would have to stop caring about the intricacies of whether a project is working right and just trust those under you to make them right.

A better plan would be to look around for positions elsewhere. If you can secure a job offer, challenge your current employers to show they genuinely value you. Not by kicking you upstairs to experience the dullness of senior management meetings, but by rewarding you better and utilising your core skills more. Keep being brilliant at the things you do well and get paid more for it, rather than trying to change to be something else.

A lot of the translations/interpretations being offered here make more sense to me than the repeated clarifications I asked for from my line manager. I recognise a lot of the points being made here, even if he didn't call them out as weaknesses (for example, trusting others to have the same level of diligence is something I struggle with daily). My junior designers haven't developed the same level of independence as some of my other senior/leads' designers (mostly because they "sink or swim them", leaving them to (IMHO) struggle unnecessarily without much support)... but this means i'm always too overinvolved in their work, whilst being responsible for bigger design areas myself.

I rarely thing about the end / overall product. I tend to think more in terms of the stages for design and manufacturing approvals - that's it exactly.

I think this has been really helpful. one, to consider whether I want to step away from the detail as part of that transition path (I enjoy it; i'm good at it) and two, if i'm serious about this, how to start letting go a bit (so I can focus on delivering the same quality through others). the latter is going to be a huge challenge I think...

thank you so much to everyone who helped here, i'm really glad I posted - I wasn't sure if anyone would be able to help (having not been in the meeting with my manager/not wanting to post too many identifying details about my role so making it a bit harder to advise!).

My DH has similar-sounding procedures in work, it is a battle to balance the customer requirements and the procedural processes! I do sympathise (and I'm a natural rule-sticker myself tbh) but you do need to bear the customer/end result in mind.

It is a big change to think about the end result as a whole, rather than the next stage - that is the managerial aspect I think they are looking for and it's good that you recognise that this has not been a focus for you so far (probably because it hasn't needed to be tbh) but you know what you are aiming for now.

It does sound as if you've got a good grasp of the situation, sorry your boss wasn't more helpful in his feedback rather than just spouting phrases at you (I'm a former HR worker and I've seen it happen more than I'd like to admit!).

Hi there, i came across your post by accident but it had resonance - as i have been told previously "you need to be more strategic". I agree with comments that many of the contributors have made.

As you progress up the career ladder, slightly different skills are required - as strategic managers tend to focus on the big picture and are forward looking and usually frame conversations differently to operational managers.

When I was looking to move up to the next level, one of the things that I did was to look for a mentor - someone at a senior level that I could relate to, who I trusted and who had the skills, time and knowledge to impart. They were so helpful - even to basic things, as they gave feedback on a job application and I saw how I needed to frame the conversation from one about operational delivery to how I contributed to the delivery of the organisation's strategic objectives, etc.

Also I learned that your line manager doesn't have to be the one to help (although if you want to stay in the same organisation, it would be great if you got their support). There are people that we can learn from even outside our organisation.

Hope this helps and good luck!

It's annoying that pay structures don't tend to give the biggest rewards to the vital people who do these important tasks but that is how businesses are structured

Because they’re not the ones in charge. Those in charge think they deserve more.

Please bear in mind that the skills that put you in line for a promotion to a senior position are not the same as the skills you need once you are there.

Could the feedback mean that it's time to delegate the detail and focus on the strategy?

Because they’re not the ones in charge. Those in charge think they deserve more.

They do, but often this is a mistake. Businesses obviously need someone with the skills to coordinate across departments and do high level strategic thinking and that takes a different skill set from the fine-detail perfectionism of a specialist. There's often no logical reason for this - if the skills needed aren't more rare, the work isn't more difficult and the training to qualify for the work isn't more onerous, why is a higher pay level justified?

There's often no logical reason for this - if the skills needed aren't more rare,

Having worked in the technology space all my career until I went into academia: strategic skills are rarer. Or at least, recruiting and retaining strategic managers is a lot harder.

"to consider whether I want to step away from the detail" and it's fine if you don't, not everyone wants to take a management path. Dh and I both prefer being hands on in our roles.

There's often no logical reason for this - if the skills needed aren't more rare, the work isn't more difficult and the training to qualify for the work isn't more onerous, why is a higher pay level justified?

I agree!

There's often no logical reason for this - if the skills needed aren't more rare, the work isn't more difficult and the training to qualify for the work isn't more onerous, why is a higher pay level justified?

Whilst this is not always true, in general the level of pay is linked to the level of knowhow required to do the job. There are three dimensions to this. Technical knowhow (is this a job that anyone can pick up with 5 minutes training or are there only a handful of people in the world with the necessary technical knowledge), people (ordinary politeness or the ability to persuade people to do things they don't necessarily want to do) and planning (does the job holder just deal with what is in front of them or are they looking several years ahead). People at the top or an organisation score high on both people and planning. They are required to think strategically (look several years ahead) and they have to take the team with them.

Sometimes a role that has a particularly high score on technical knowhow can outrank a senior management role but in most cases the senior manager's people and planning skills are more than enough to compensate for the fact that others may have greater technical skills. And I agree with ReflectMonatomism that strategic skills are rarer than technical skills.

And I agree with ReflectMonatomism that strategic skills are rarer than technical skills

I disagree with this but would be happy to be shot down by evidence.

There’s less need for strategic skills because there are fewer strategic level posts. Only so many people can be operating strategically in an organisation - it isn’t necessary.

That doesn’t make it rarer.

There’s less need for strategic skills because there are fewer strategic level posts

And those posts are harder to fill, even though they are fewer in number.

And those posts are harder to fill, even though they are fewer in number

Again I beg to differ.

Strategic level posts require a certain level of confidence, experience and also cultural fit. The latter is very important.

You can be very good at strategic thinking, just don’t have the experience of doing it. Some people might have tons of experience but just cannot think strategically. I see that quite a lot with new graduates.

I’ve also seen loads of people who’ve been promoted after being in a job for ages but they just revert to micro managing as they cannot step back. As they are not strategic.

But I do not think strategic skill is a rare thing.