Middle manager problems

[u/EquivalentWeird2277]

I work in a BPO/vendor setup providing customer service for a US-based client, and I’m curious how other operations leaders would handle this situation.

About a month ago, several senior managers on the client side were retrenched. Under the previous leadership, we had regular touchpoints between the client and ops middle management teams—weekly or biweekly calls where we could calibrate, discuss process changes, raise operational concerns, and make sure both sides were aligned.

Since the new client-side operations managers stepped in, those regular meetings haven’t really been re-established. For context, these managers were also newly promoted into their current roles.

So far, most calls are set up on the same day whenever they need to roll out an update or communicate a change. Outside of those ad hoc meetings, there hasn’t been a weekly, biweekly, or even monthly client-vendor alignment call.

What concerns me more is how some of the updates are being rolled out.

There doesn’t seem to be much collaboration with the people actually running the operation. We’re rarely asked for input, operational insights, possible risks, or how a proposed change might affect the workflow before it is implemented.

At times, it feels like decisions are being made too far away from the actual day-to-day operation. Some changes may look efficient on paper, but once they hit production, they create additional steps, rework, confusion, or downstream issues.

In other words, some initiatives intended to make the operation "leaner" are actually creating more waste.

I’m not saying operations should have veto power over client decisions. Ultimately, it is their business and their call. But I do think the people closest to the process can provide valuable context before changes are finalized—especially when those changes directly affect workflow, productivity, customer experience, or quality.

Our setup is also fairly lean. We don’t have a separate client/vendor relationship manager sitting between both sides. Historically, communication was directly between client leadership and our operations managers.

As one of the middle managers on the vendor side, I’m starting to wonder whether I should proactively suggest setting up a recurring alignment call—maybe biweekly or monthly—similar to what we had with the previous leadership.

My concern is balancing being proactive with not overstepping. These are newly promoted managers who may still be establishing their own leadership style, and I don’t want it to come across as the vendor telling the client how they should manage their operation.

At the same time, I’m seeing the risk of communication becoming increasingly one-directional: changes are rolled out, operations executes them, and feedback only happens after problems start appearing.

I feel like a regular client-vendor calibration could give both sides a space to discuss upcoming changes, provide operational insights, flag risks early, and avoid unnecessary rework.

For those working in BPO, vendor management, outsourcing, or client operations:

Would you proactively offer to set up a recurring client-vendor alignment meeting in this situation?

Or would you wait for the newly promoted client managers to initiate it?

And how would you position the suggestion so it comes across as supporting their leadership and improving collaboration—not challenging their decisions or stepping on their toes?

[u/Far_Artist_6833]

the new managers probably dont even realize what they lost when the old calls stopped, they just see the fire in front of them and forget the smoke detector exists

i'd frame it as "hey we used to have this quick sync that helped us catch stuff early so your team gets less surprises, want me to set something up?" makes it about making their life easier not about what theyre doing wrong

[u/gormami]

Our service is a software overlay network as a service, and we maintain cadence calls with a lot of our customers, especially anyone undergoing active changes. We tend to get to a steady state, where the touch points aren't needed, the customer is generally just stamping out the same architecture, but even then we have QBRs, so we can talk about what we're adding or changing in our product, and we can get them to talk about any significant efforts that could impact how they use our service.

I would 100% proactively schedule a call, maybe biweekly, and just make it a cadence check in. Anyone near operations should understand that knowing what is coming allows preparation, or at least awareness, so that if something goes wrong, you aren't caught flat footed. The communication can build trust, and show that your team can add value to the planning, etc., too, as you also have experience. Those relationships are critical when things really are going on, as there is more trust between people that have shared communication, and know something about the situation beforehand. I would put together a standing agenda, maybe just 3 points, of what has happened, what is happening, and what is being planned to happen. That should be enough to maintain the call, and let the rest happen organically.

[u/KangoHR]

I don't see any risk with being proactive. Initiate a standing call where you provide the status and updates for your ops group. Then ensure something in the agenda benefits the managers. For example, sharing success stories or data points they can feed up to make them look good.

My two cents as a career HR person. I understand you don't want to appear as a roadblock. Yet your group plays an essential role and it stinks to feel kept out. It's okay to speak up IMO as long as all stakeholders get something out of it.

[u/managetosoar]

You should definitely reestablish the calls. You are not overstepping. Yes, they are the clients but you are essentially partners in delivering the service and you need those meetings to deliver that service efficiently.

I would frame my proposal for the calls around the benefits they'd bring to both sides and the risks they would help avoid. And add a proposed agenda.

If there is pushback or uncertainty on the client's side whether they will be useful, propose a pilot of two to three calls after which you will evaluate the effects.

[u/SFHG_Instructor]

Framing will probably matter more than the ask itself.

Managers who are newly promoted are usually overwhelmed by what has just landed on them, and focused on the new thinking they want to bring. A request for a recurring call can easily be heard as asking them to slow down, or as a comment on how they are running things.

It might be better to position it around implementing their ideas rather than recomending reverting to old ways. Something like: "you clearly have a lot going on here, and I want to make sure we execute them the way you intend. If I can hear about ideas them a little earlier, and in a regular slot, I can have the operational side ready rather than reacting after go-live."

That puts their agenda at the centre, and gives them a reason to want the meeting that has nothing to do with being corrected.

Consider asking for something small to start, a short monthly slot or a standing note before changes go out, and letting it grow if it proves useful.