The Promoted Lead and the Veteran Who Didn't Get the Role
You are a senior instructional designer at a 2,400-employee health insurer. Six weeks ago you were promoted to lead a team of five designers. Marcus, an 11-year veteran who also applied for the role, now submits work late, has skipped three of six scheduled 1:1s, and said in a team meeting, 'We used to make decisions together.' Your director has committed to redesigning onboarding for 600 new hires a year within 10 weeks. The team is also 30 percent behind on a compliance refresh, and your one open requisition is frozen. The compliance refresh has a hard external deadline in nine weeks. Your pre-promotion 360 was strong on technical judgment and flagged 'avoids difficult conversations.' You have not yet set explicit team priorities or decision rights. Two designers have asked you privately what to prioritize. Your HR business partner suggests 'just document Marcus.' You have a weekly 30-minute 1:1 with each designer and $4,000 for external coaching.
1. What should you do in the next two weeks about Marcus's behavior and the team's uncertainty, and why?
Read the worked answer
Separate three issues. There is Marcus's conduct, your transition from peer to lead, and the team's unclear priorities. Treating them as one 'attitude problem' would likely harden resistance.
Within 48 hours, hold a private conversation. Use observable examples: two storyboards arrived after the agreed review date; three of six 1:1s were missed. Ask an open question about how he experienced the transition, and listen for influence, fairness, or outside-work factors rather than assuming disloyalty. Then state expectations: review dates, 1:1 norms, and decision rights.
Do not 'just document him' yet. Documentation before a clear expectation has been set is procedurally weak and, given he competed for the role, easy to read as retaliation. Hold the 1:1 even if he skips, and offer alternatives.
Reset the team norm publicly. Name the decision process - input is welcome, decisions are made in the team, and once made we commit - without referencing Marcus.
Publish a one-page priority and decision-rights map for onboarding versus the compliance refresh. This answers the two designers' question and reduces rumor.
Delay the coaching spend. Coaching works when the person owns a goal; offer it after the conversation if he names one. Agree a two-week review in writing.
2. By week four Marcus's deliverables are still late. The director asks whether to remove him from the onboarding redesign. How do you decide, and what do you recommend?
Read the worked answer
Decide on evidence and risk, not on irritation. Four tests: (1) Is the delay caused by his conduct or by unclear scope and competing compliance work? (2) Is his expertise critical to the redesign? (3) Is the team's work being slowed by waiting on him? (4) Has he had a fair chance to meet explicit expectations?
If the answers show a performance gap, use a documented improvement plan with measurable milestones - for example, two reviewed deliverables on agreed dates over three weeks - and weekly check-ins. Consult the HRBP on consistency with how the company treats similar cases. Do not use the plan as a way to avoid the conversation; the plan is the conversation made concrete.
Recommend a role adjustment if risk to the 10-week deadline is high: move Marcus to the compliance refresh, where his tenure and technical knowledge may be valuable, and give onboarding leadership to a designer with a track record. Frame it as a business decision, not a punishment, and say what success looks like.
Avoid a public reassignment or a surprise announcement. Tell the team the why in one sentence and protect Marcus's dignity. Fairness, clarity, and delivery all matter; choosing only one will fail.
3. At week six the onboarding redesign is behind and the director wants to add scope. What do you do?
Read the worked answer
Treat this as a scope and capacity negotiation, not a heroics problem. Bring the director a one-page picture: remaining weeks, team capacity net of compliance, current completion, and the cost of each added requirement in weeks.
Use a must/should/could ranking with the director. Protect the compliance deadline because it is externally visible and non-negotiable; negotiate the onboarding scope - for example, launch core modules for the highest-volume roles first and phase role-specific content. Offer a choice between scope, date, or resources rather than absorbing all three.
Re-plan dependencies and name a single owner for the redesign. Check whether the open requisition can be converted to a contract media developer for six weeks; that may be cheaper than slipping. Do not plan on sustained overtime; it hides the capacity gap and damages quality.
Communicate the new plan to stakeholders with what changes and why. If the director insists on the original scope and date without resources, state the risk in writing and ask which risk they accept. That is not insubordination; it is making the trade-off visible.