06-11-2021, 06:11 PM
<p>Team,<br>First of all, I like your podcasts, it's a community for defusing stressful situations one by one.<br>My question today is about a specific situation.<br>I am a technical leader with 6 years of experience. I have CAD and techs working for me. I worked on a project last year, and my management sees it as a nomination for the company's biggest recognition. I worked on the riskiest part of the project and got an "Outstanding" rating as a result. My manager changed to a new one earlier this year.<br>Therefore, for the nominations, my former manager and the new manager will be included in the application and will attend all the dinners and receive awards if the project makes it to the final.<br><br>I'm annoyed because I've done the lion's share, and there's another tech leader who deserves this recognition much more.<br>The inclusion of my new manager just because of the chain of command is a bit of our problem.<br>I'm cold, but I don't know how to express it in a healthy way. I respect the structure of the organization and know that managers bear the risk of non-compliance. I also have a good relationship with senior management, and they are very well aware of this effort, but the result of this organizational structure in recognition looks killed everywhere (not just in my organization), so much so that I feel like Scott Adams - I don't want to be in the position of a loan recipient. Yes, they are chains in defining the "Why" part of the project; but I have performed "How"- both of which are equally important, and the second is more complex than the first.<br>Can you help me determine justice in this common situation ?<br></p>