A New Role, A Sensitive Shift

Hi Everyone.
I have finally taken a breath from my relentless travelling for work and have found some time to breathe. And just as I thought I was ready to return to my small life's much loved routines, a new challenge is about to hit me. My brain is saying that it is a positive challenge...but, my first reaction is anxiety...so, I decided to put my thoughts down, which normally helps.

There’s a very particular moment in every company’s life when someone, somewhere, usually after a meeting that didn't go as well as planned and in fairness did not actually need to happen, says 'We need a new role'. Not a new person, a new role. Which is corporate language for 'something is on fire and we’ve run out of people to blame'.

I have seen it so many times before. It starts innocently enough. A project is wobbling. Deadlines have become more of a vibe than a commitment. Clients and leadership are using phrases like 'loss of confidence' and 'take it away and align'. Risk registers are bulging. Slack channels have gone suspiciously quiet — the digital equivalent of everyone avoiding eye contact.

And then someone brave (or exhausted) manages to verbalise the obvious -'There are gaps in the structure.' Gaps. Such a polite word for large, screaming voids where accountability should live.

So, the company decides to create a shiny new role. It's described as 'Providing oversight. Bringing clarity. Ensuring alignment. De-risking delivery.'
Translation: Doing the parts of the job someone else is currently failing at.

But, here’s the uncomfortable bit. The new role doesn’t emerge in a vacuum. It emerges directly adjacent to someone, who is already supposed to be holding the responsibility. And that someone… isn’t performing.

They’re missing dependencies. Decisions are delayed. Risks are either invisible or being monitored in perpetuity. Escalations arrive late, often wrapped in optimism. The business case is forgotten. The business risk grows. Senior leaders start waking up at 3 a.m. thinking about impacts and penalties. Investors ask increasingly pointed questions. The phrase “single point of failure” starts being used in hushed tones.

So, leadership does what leadership does when courage and diplomacy must awkwardly hold hands - they carve out part of the underperforming colleague’s scope and reassign it.

Not publicly framed as “because you’re not delivering.” Oh no. It’s framed as 'We’re strengthening the structure. This project has grown in complexity. We need more dedicated focus at this level.'
Translation: We can’t afford this to go wrong again.

But what does this mean in practice?

Here’s what we don’t always say out loud - Scope equals status. Scope equals visibility. Scope equals authority. Scope equals future promotion slides.
So, when leadership takes scope away from someone, they’re not just redistributing tasks. They’re subtly redrawing the power map.

And everyone notices. Colleagues notice. Stakeholders notice. The person losing scope absolutely notices.

Even if it’s presented as a natural evolution, people are perceptive. They can see when someone's responsibility shrinks and as an immediate reaction, someone else's grows.

Now, let’s add the layer that makes leadership’s palms sweat.
Imagine the above scenario with the responsibility being taken away from a male colleague and given — in part or in full — to a female colleague.

Suddenly, what was already delicate and uncomfortable becomes politically radioactive. Because now it’s not just about performance.
It’s about optics. It’s about fairness. It’s about bias. It’s about narratives that may or may not exist but could absolutely take on a life of their own.

Leadership now has to manage - the underperforming male colleague’s pride, the incoming female colleague’s credibility, the team’s interpretation, HR’s blood pressure, and of course, the unspoken fear of being accused of favouritism, discrimination, or some sinister gender chess move.

All this while the project is still on fire.

Let’s be honest. In many corporate cultures, men have historically held more visible authority. When that authority is quietly trimmed, it can feel less like a rebalancing and more like a public demotion. Even if it’s not labelled as one.

There can be...Defensive reactions. Subtle undermining defeatist energy. Long explanations in meetings that used to be five minutes and are now twenty.

Because losing scope can feel like losing identity.
And when the person stepping into that scope is a woman? The emotional cocktail gets stronger.

There are whispers among the wider teams....Was it deserved? Is this optics? Is this a diversity play? Is this punishment? Is this a takeover?

None of which are helpful when what leadership actually needs is stable delivery and reduced risk.

Meanwhile, the woman stepping into the newly created role gets the delightful bonus of walking into a situation where the structure was failing, the previous male owner of the scope may feel threatened and face a team that is unsure who really has authority.

She must prove this isn’t symbolic. She must not appear too aggressive or be named bossy. She must not appear too soft. She is expected to stabilise the project, repair confidence, and navigate male ego landmines — ideally while smiling and being collaborative.

Because if she asserts control firmly, she risks being labelled abrasive. If she moves cautiously, she risks being labelled 'not strategic enough.'
It’s an impressive tightrope act with no net provided.

So, how do leadership communicate this change? Carefully, painfully carefully.
They rehearse phrases like: 'This isn’t about performance', 'We’re evolving the structure', 'This allows everyone to focus on their strengths'.
They hold one-on-one conversations before broader announcements. They try to preserve dignity. They emphasise growth, opportunity, scale and complexity. They avoid the words 'risk' and 'mistakes', even though that’s the whole reason this is happening.

Because if they admit the truth too bluntly, which is that they cannot the current scope owner to manage this alone, they create fallout.
But if they’re too vague, the team fills in the blanks with speculation.
Leadership, at this moment, aren’t managing a project, they’re managing a narrative.

But, here is the slightly cynical reality - organisations rarely create new roles purely out of visionary foresight. They create them when pain becomes expensive, when underperformance becomes visible, when risk becomes measurable, when stakeholders start raising eyebrows.

The new role is often less about innovation and more about damage control with better branding.

And yet, here’s the less cynical counterpoint, sometimes it’s exactly what is needed. Sometimes the existing structure truly cannot carry the load. Sometimes the business has outgrown the original design. Sometimes one person is drowning quietly. And sometimes the bravest thing leadership can do, is acknowledge that and act.

The real challenge isn’t creating the role.
It is protecting dignity while correcting risk. It is supporting the underperforming colleague without enabling them. It is backing the new female leader visibly and consistently, while making authority clear to the wider team and refusing to let gender narratives overshadow performance realities.

Because if the change is handled timidly, the project continues to wobble.
If it’s handled clumsily, they lose trust.
If it’s handled transparently but respectfully, they have a shot at stabilising both delivery and culture.

In summary, companies don’t like admitting that structures fail. People don’t like admitting that they’re out of their depth. Leaders don’t like admitting that they waited too long.

But growth exposes weaknesses. Complexity exposes gaps. And risk exposes underperformance.

Creating a new role to absorb scope from someone, who isn’t delivering, is not inherently cruel. Sometimes it’s necessary.

The sensitivity arises because scope equals power. Power equals identity. And when identity intersects with gender, history shows up to the meeting whether invited or not.

The cynical take?
It’s all politics dressed up as “organisational design.”

The hopeful take?
It’s leadership learning, awkwardly and imperfectly, how to course-correct before the damage becomes irreversible.

And honestly, if they can stabilise the project, preserve two careers and avoid a civil war in the process?
That is not just leadership.
That is Olympic-level diplomacy.