Managers Change. Labels Stay.
How a poorly handled manager transition can quietly damage someone’s career.
In the last five years, I’ve changed managers six times. Sounds like a lot? Apparently, it is not so unusual. Studies of individual organizations suggest that 30–45% of employees change managers within a year.
And those changes aren’t necessarily harmless.
According to Pave’s 2025 analysis, employees experienced manager changes had higher attrition rates. Another study published in Organization Science found that when managers moved, their employees’ lose in appreciation — annual bonuses fell by 4%, while long-term incentives fell by 17%.
These findings show that manager changes have real consequences. And I believe one particularly harmful part of these transitions — poor handovers causing damage — gets far too little attention:
What does the old manager tell the new one about the employee?
How a few words become a label
Imagine a manager telling their successor: “Great person, but too operational.” Or: “Strong technically, but sometimes shows poor judgment.”
Sounds like constructive feedback, right? Except the new manager hasn’t worked with this person yet. They receive an opinion dressed as useful context. And from that moment, they start looking for evidence supporting this opinion. Thanks to the confirmation bias fallacy we all have.
Achievements are questioned. Decisions face extra scrutiny. Strengths receive less credit. The employee feels increasingly underappreciated. Leaving is not the worst outcome for the employee. The worst part? They may not even know what they’re fighting against, miserable without a chance to take back the control.
I know how it feels
“Too operational.” “Poor judgment.” I took them for example as those were my labels.
Twice in my career, I’ve had to deal with the labels that I got aware of. And to be fair, there were objective grounds behind both statements. I acknowledged them, reflected on them, and worked to improve.
But the labels stayed.
My strategies and supporting arguments repeatedly came under scrutiny, while other people’s opinions seemed to be treated as hard facts. It was deeply frustrating. Not because I couldn’t take criticism. But because I was constantly fighting a distorted image of myself, even after addressing the issues that had created it. It took a toll on my confidence, motivation, and sanity.
And here’s the truly uncomfortable part. I’ve made the same mistake myself. Multiple times.
As a manager, I’ve passed constructive feedback about employees to their new managers behind their backs, believing I was helping. The harm was done.
I deeply regret those decisions, and I’m sorry for them. That’s why I’m writing this.
So, how do we do it right?
My rule of thumb today is simple:
If you can’t hand over constructive feedback properly, don’t hand it over at all.
Share achievements. Share examples of the great work delivered and skills proved. But don’t pass negative judgments about someone’s personality, abilities, or potential.
“Wait,” you might say. “What about employee development? Shouldn’t the new manager know what needs improvement?” Of course. Growth requires honest feedback, grounded in reality. But feedback loses context when passed between people. What was once a specific observation becomes a general judgment. A temporary development area becomes a permanent trait.
I’d rather let the new manager identify improvement points through firsthand observations. And trust the employee to bring their own development goals into the new relationship. The alternative risks giving someone a label they might spend years trying to remove.
Of course, there are exceptions. Serious misconduct, safety concerns, or active formal processes such as Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs) require proper documented handling. Those need to follow established HR processes, with the employee informed and involved.
Get Alex Novikov’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
But everyday constructive feedback is not the same thing as a formal performance issue.
What does the law say?
Interestingly, several countries already recognize the importance of employees knowing what’s recorded about their performance.
In Germany, §83 BetrVG gives employees the right to inspect their personnel files and attach their own statements. In the UK, data protection rules give employees rights to access personal information in performance records and challenge factual inaccuracies. The regulator also advises employers to distinguish opinions from facts and record disagreements.
In the US, Massachusetts law requires employers to notify employees when negative information is added to their personnel records and allows employees to add written responses. California law provides access to performance-related personnel records.
These laws prescribe the principle is worth borrowing:
People deserve to know what is being said about their performance, especially when it can affect their careers.
My five levels of manager handover
- Best: A written, evidence-heavy assessment, free of unsupported judgments, reviewed by the employee. Discussed in a meeting with both managers and the employee.
- Good: A written or verbal handover focused on achievements, goals, and factual context. No negative labels.
- Acceptable: No informal or formal performance handover whatsoever. Let the new manager build their own assessment.
- Poor: Passing along a written performance assessment with evidence based criticism without involving the employee to review it.
- A-hole move: Passing negative judgments about an employee behind their back, without giving them a chance to respond.
Is the best approach a lot of work? Absolutely. And a departing manager probably has a hundred other things to finish. I get it. That’s why I’m being pragmatic:
If you can’t do it right, at least don’t do it wrong.
A manager change shouldn’t force someone to defend their reputation all over again. Don’t set your people up for months of frustration, lost opportunities, or a damaged career because you wanted to be “helpful” in a private conversation.
Sometimes the most responsible handover is knowing what not to say. And above all —
Don’t be the a-hole who hands over a label the employee never had a fair chance to challenge.
Sources & further reading
Research:
- Frederiksen, Kahn & Lange (2020), Supervisors and Performance Management Systems. Journal of Political Economy.
- Burnfield (2005), Concurrent and Lagged Effects of Leadership Behavior on Subordinate Stress and Health. Bowling Green State University.
- Baek, Bidwell & Keller, My Manager Moved! Manager Mobility and Subordinates’ Career Outcomes. Organization Science. Cornell summary.
- Pave / Matt Schulman (2025), Manager changes and employee attrition.
Legislation & guidance:
- Germany: §83 BetrVG — Personnel files.
- UK: ICO — Employment records guidance.
- US: Massachusetts, Chapter 149, §52C; California — Personnel records access.
The research concerns specific organizational samples and does not directly establish that poor feedback handovers caused the reported outcomes. The handover problem is a heuristic — as a factor contributing to the negative effects of manager changes.
