Managing Someone Who Was Once Above You in the Org Chart: Why Your Feedback Gets Complicated Before You Notice
Quick Bridge: When someone who was once your organizational superior ends up reporting to you, most managers focus on the relationship. The feedback gets overlooked. This post explains why the seniority history creates two opposing distortions that look exactly like real management, and what to do before your next hard feedback conversation to give feedback that is actually about the work.
Something happens to feedback when the hierarchy inverts.
You cannot always name it. The feedback arrives on time. The words are professional. But something about it does not quite fit the work. It lands softer than the situation called for, or harder than the output warranted. And the person receiving it cannot explain why their manager is not quite giving them what they need.
Most of the time, the manager cannot explain it either.
I have been on both sides of this. I know what it feels like to receive feedback from someone whose sense of who I am was formed when they were above me in the org chart. And I know what it is like to be the manager giving feedback I believed was honest, that was actually being quietly shaped by a history I had not yet named.
The second situation is the one worth examining.
Why Manager Feedback Gets Complicated After a Seniority Reversal
When someone who was once your organizational superior ends up reporting to you, the history does not disappear at the moment of the org chart change. It goes quiet. Then it shows up where you are least likely to notice it: in the feedback.
Not in the relationship. Not in the day-to-day working dynamic. Specifically in the feedback.
The relationship may feel entirely solid. Any initial tension may be long past. You may have a professional rapport with this person that functions well on most days. None of that protects your feedback from the distortion that is still operating underneath.
The reason is documented in how performance management actually works. According to the Society for Human Resource Management, managers unconsciously seek out information that confirms their pre-existing impressions of an employee and discount information that contradicts those impressions. (SHRM: Breaking the Cycle of Confirmation Bias in the Workplace)
A seniority history is exactly the kind of pre-existing impression that drives this bias. This person was once above you in the hierarchy. They had experience, authority, or organizational standing that you did not have at the time. That impression does not vanish at promotion time. It goes underground. And it shapes how you read their work.
Two Feedback Failure Modes That Look Like Leadership Communication
Once the seniority history is operating below the surface, it produces one of two feedback patterns. Sometimes both at different points in time.
The deference failure mode. Your feedback softens below what the work actually deserves. You frame observations more generously than you would for anyone else. You let things slide that you would address with the rest of your team.
What is driving it: somewhere underneath, it still feels uncomfortable to hold this person fully accountable. They were once above you in the org chart. Giving them hard feedback feels strange in a way you cannot quite name. So you soften.
The compensation failure mode. Your standard for "good enough" shifts upward specifically for this person. You look harder for what needs fixing in their work. You hold their output to scrutiny that does not apply to anyone else on your team.
What is driving it: somewhere underneath, you need the org chart change to make sense. If this person is not clearly performing at a level that justifies the inversion, the inversion seems wrong. So you compensate.
Both look exactly like real management from the outside. Soft feedback looks like patience and trust. Hard feedback looks like high standards and rigor. The resistance is in your own perception of the situation. The behavior is indistinguishable from competent management at its best.
The only way to catch it is to look at the pattern across all your conversations with this person. Not any individual moment.
Is your feedback with them consistently less specific than what you give everyone else? Are your notes thinner after their 1-on-1s? Do you delay difficult conversations with this person in ways you would not with the rest of the team?
Or in the other direction: do you hold their work to a standard that does not apply to anyone else? Do you look for what is wrong before you look for what is working?
Those are the signals.
The Leadership Communication Gap the Other Person Feels
The person on the receiving end of this feedback often senses something is off, even without being able to name what it is.
They usually know the history between you. They just do not see it as a particularly big deal. What they do not recognize is the impact that history is having on how you read their work. Feedback that is consistently softer than the work deserves stops feeling meaningful. Feedback that is consistently harder starts to feel like it is about something other than the work.
Over time, the person on the receiving end begins to discount what you say. Not because they have decided you are wrong. Because something in the feedback does not add up.
This is how the feedback relationship erodes. Not in one bad conversation. In many conversations where something was slightly off and neither person could say exactly what.
For a broader look at how pre-formed impressions distort ongoing performance evaluation, AIHR's guide to interviewer bias is worth reading. The patterns it describes in initial hiring evaluations apply directly to how seniority history continues to operate in an ongoing management relationship. (AIHR: 11 Ways to Avoid Interviewer Bias)
How to Give Feedback That Is Actually About the Work
You do not need to surface the history with them directly. You do not need to name it in a 1-on-1. The work happens in your head before you walk into the room.
Name the history to yourself. Before the conversation. Out loud. In private.
Say it directly: this person was once above me in the org chart. That dynamic existed. It ended. What does this person actually need from me today?
You cannot set something aside that you have not first picked up and named. Trying to manage this well without doing that step is like trying to drive without acknowledging you are looking at the rearview mirror. The history is always just on the edge of your peripheral vision.
Anchor every piece of feedback in a specific behavior. A specific situation, what they did, the impact it had, and what a better response would have looked like. Not a general impression.
"In Thursday's team meeting, you redirected a question from your engineer before they had finished asking it. Two people stopped contributing for the rest of the session. Next time, let them finish before you decide how to respond."
When feedback is anchored to what actually happened, the history has less surface area to distort it. The work is specific. Your response should be too.
Run the equity test before any significant conversation. Ask yourself one question before you walk in: would I give this same feedback, at this level of directness, to someone with no shared history?
If the answer is no, stop and find out why. That gap is where the old dynamic is still running.
When the History Includes a Formal Evaluation
The most charged version of this situation is when the seniority history includes a moment when this person formally evaluated you.
They interviewed you. They reviewed your work. They held, at some point, a position of documented judgment over your career path.
I have been in this situation. I was promoted to manage a manager who had originally interviewed me as a candidate and decided not to hire me. I knew the history before I took the role. I thought it would not matter. I was wrong.
It took me a long time to catch what that history was doing to my feedback. I thought I had processed it. The feedback told a different story.
When the history includes a formal evaluation, the confirmation bias SHRM describes becomes harder to neutralize. You are not working against a vague general impression. You are working against a recorded conclusion that was once attached to your name. That conclusion does not evaporate at promotion time.
The same three steps apply: name it specifically, anchor feedback in behavior, run the equity test. But in this version, the naming step matters more. You have to say not just "they used to outrank me" but "they formally evaluated me, and they reached a conclusion about me." That is the specific thing you are setting aside before you walk in.
For more on navigating the complexities of working with people after formal evaluation processes have run their course, Ask a Manager has written directly about what this dynamic looks like from the other side. (Ask a Manager: I need to partner with a team that rejected me for a job)
Monday Action
Before your next 1-on-1 with this person, take five minutes and write down two or three pieces of feedback you plan to share.
For each one, ask yourself: would I give this same feedback, at the same level of directness, to someone with no shared history between us?
The gap between what you wrote and what you would give someone else is where the work is.
Have you managed someone who was once above you in the org chart? What did you have to work through to make the feedback relationship clean?
You're great at the work. Let's make you impossible to ignore.
If you are looking for help giving feedback that builds trust across complicated team dynamics, consider reaching out. https://www.jessestaffordcoaching.com
Comments
Post a Comment