Hello Friends,

MAY THE 4TH BE WITH YOU.

Have you ever been handed the keys to a car - then told the engine is off limits?

Today's issue is about a key employee being asked by a founder to take the lead on a big project but given no authority, no clear brief and no clear project goal.

If you want your issue to be considered for an upcoming Newsletter, just fill out this form.

The Situation:

Lisa is the Head of Customer Management at a 20-person startup. She was hired specifically because the founder, Will, knew things needed to change. The customer retention has been poor with many customers being first-time and one-time buyers.

Will gave Lisa a clear mandate: review the customer acquisition strategy and overhaul the entire customer experience journey. Full ownership. No bureaucracy.

What Lisa found in practice: every structural change she proposed was quietly redirected. Will had built the original strategy and process himself. He had opinions on every step. Meetings that should have taken 10 minutes became 60 minute deep dives into why it had always been done a certain way.

A few months in, Lisa has produced a new process that is 70% Will's original, 30% her improvements - not being the hybrid is optimal but because that is the only version Will would approve.

Lisa is frustrated. She needs to find a way to have a real conversation - without eroding the trust that got her the role.

THE HOLLYWOOD TAKE

In The Bear, Carmy returns to run his family's sandwich shop after his brother's death. He brings Michelin-star instincts into a kitchen that runs on loyalty, habit and controlled chaos.

Every change Carmy tries to make threatens something someone else built - and in doing so, implies the old way wasn't good enough.

His "Cousin" Richie pushes back constantly, not because he doesn't want things to improve, but because changing the process feels like erasing the person who build it.

Sound familiar?

SOCIAL SCRIPT:

Lisa understands that Will founded this company and has deep context on why decisions were made.

She respects his experience and wants to build on it, not tear it down. In every conversation, she signals collaboration.

She frames her ideas as enhancements, not replacements. She picks her battles carefully - pushing on the things she believes matter most, conceding on things she can live with.

The more she concedes, the more the mandate she was hired to deliver starts to disappear.

INNER SCRIPT:

Lisa wonders if she misread the brief. Did Will actually want to change - or did he want someone to validate what already existed?

She feels a creeping resentment that she is professional accountable for the outcomes she doesn't have the authority to drive.

She also feels guilty for that resentment. Will took a chance on her. He has more skin in the game that she does. Who is she to say he's wrong?

Underneath all of it: if she pushes too hard, she might be the one who ends up leaving her job.

ACTUAL SCRIPT:

Lisa requests a dedicated conversation - not in a project review, not at the end of a busy meeting - specifically about how they are working together on this initiative.

She frames it around risk, not frustration.

1. Name the mandate, not the conflict - "When I came on board, the goal was to rebuild...from the ground up. I want to make sure we're still aligned on what that means - because I want to deliver that properly."
2. Surface the constraint without accusation - "Something I've noticed is that the changes I've proposed have moved towards the original process in most cases. That might be right - but I want to be honest that I'm not confident the outcome we'll get will move the needle the way we both want it to."
3. Invite the real conversation - "I rather know now if there are things that genuinely can't change - so that I can design around them clearly - than find out at the end that my hands were tied without either of us saying so."
4. Propose a test - "Could we pilot one part of the new process as I've designed it - with agreed metrics - so we have actual data to make decisions from rather than go by instinct and preference?"

This approach does something important: it shifts the conversation from Lisa vs. Will to both of them vs. the work problem. It also makes light of the dynamic that has been invisible. With that, Will can either acknowledge it or double down. Both outcomes give Lisa clearer information about what kind of position she is actually in.