r/Leadership

I work at a global MNC in the Middle East and honestly need some perspective because I feel blindsided.

Last year, my department head resigned suddenly. The handover I got was extremely poor—just high-level topics with no real depth. But when I actually started handling things, it turned out to be full end-to-end ownership: budgeting, approvals, vendor management, project understanding, everything.

For almost a year, I essentially ran the department along with my own role.

A few months later, someone joined as a temporary manager for a specific project. At that time, I treated her like a peer since she wasn’t really involved in most of the core work I was handling. Eventually, she got promoted to become the head of the department.

During the entire year:

- I did most of the heavy lifting

- I kept her updated regularly

- She presented updates to senior management

- She never really took a proper handover or got deeply involved in the work

Fast forward to now — appraisal time.

I was expecting at least a solid rating given the workload I handled (basically two roles). Instead, I’ve been rated “partially meeting expectations” and told I’ll be put on a PIP.

What shocked me more:

- Some of the feedback is from a time when she wasn’t even my manager

- Some issues were mutually aligned decisions, but now I’m being blamed entirely

- In discussion, she seemed to agree with my points, but the system still shows a low rating

Now I’m being pushed to accept the rating in the system.

I’m honestly confused:

- Do I escalate to HR/MD (risking politics)?

- Do I reject the rating formally?

- Or accept it and start looking elsewhere?

For context, I’ve consistently had been “meeting expectations/above expectations” ratings in the past.

Has anyone dealt with something similar where you did the work but someone else controlled the narrative? How did you handle the situation?

P.S: The partner of this person is also a MD in some other country within the organization. Politically, quite a strong position for this person.

I’ve been noticing that how people were responded to when they made mistakes growing up seems to show up later in how they lead under pressure.

Some move quickly to fix things, some stay quiet, while others over-explain.

Curious what patterns you’ve noticed in yourself or others when something goes wrong?

I’m not going to lie - I sometimes step on the toes of my direct reports.

Usually it looks like this: I get to something before they do, jump in too quickly, or overhelp in a way that probably feels more undermining than supportive. I know that can be frustrating, and I’ve been trying hard to be more aware of it, communicate better, and not default to taking over.

But it happened again.

What’s messing with me is that this time, we had actually aligned that I was going to handle the thing. And it still landed with my direct report like I was stepping on their toes.

That part hit me hard.

I feel defeated. Like no matter what I do, I get it wrong - either I move too fast and overstep, or I back off and risk things slipping through the cracks.

I know this is probably part control, part anxiety, part accountability instinct. But when you genuinely care about outcomes and also genuinely do not want to disempower your team, it can feel like an impossible line to walk.

For those of you who have struggled with overfunctioning as a manager - how did you learn the difference between being helpful, being clear on ownership, and accidentally undermining people anyway?

I want to get better at this without swinging so far the other direction that things start falling apart.

I’m curious if anyone else has experienced this kind of leadership disconnect, because I’m finding it harder to navigate than I expected.

I’m a senior leader in a large organization and the leadership culture above me is very hierarchical, top-down, and heavily focused on perception and strategic relationship-building/politics. There’s a strong emphasis on control and perception.

My leadership style is different. I operate from a distributed leadership approach. I involve my team in decisions, gather input before moving forward, and prioritize transparency, mutual respect, and work-life balance. I don’t rely on hierarchy or authority to be effective.

Senior leaders around me come across as ego-based: decisions handed down, limited openness to feedback from below, and an expectation of long hours and constant availability. There’s an underlying tone that if you’re not operating that way, you’re somehow less committed.

What’s challenging is that my team performs well. We meet goals, work is completed on time, and engagement is strong. But in higher-level conversations, I feel misunderstood.

I don’t want to become overly political or lose the leadership style that I believe is effective and sustainable. But I also don’t want to be naive about how these environments work.

So I’m trying to figure out:

– Has anyone else led in a system where the dominant leadership style didn’t align with your own?

– How do you maintain a distributed, people-centered approach without being dismissed or misunderstood in more hierarchical environments?

– Is this something you adapt to, or have you seen real cultural shifts happen in organizations like this?

I’d really appreciate hearing from others who have navigated something similar.