Latest / The Promotion Memo with Fexingo: Getting Visibility, Sponsors, and Executive Presence / How One Employee Got Promoted by Automating Their Own Job
Transcript
- Lucas: So there's this story from a regional bank in the Midwest — let's call it Heartland Financial. A data analyst named Sam was spending about thirty hours a week pulling reports from three different systems, cleaning the data in Excel, and emailing PDFs to department heads. Mind-numbing work, right? Luna: Probably the kind of role where you either automate it or you burn out in eighteen months. Lucas: Exactly. And Sam chose automate. Over about six months, he built a set of Python and SQL scripts that did the entire pipeline — pulled the data, cleaned it, generated dashboards in Power BI, and emailed a weekly summary with no human hands touching anything. Luna: So he basically eliminated the core function of his own job. Lucas: That's what made this interesting. Instead of keeping quiet and coasting, Sam documented every script, wrote a user manual, and trained a junior analyst to run the whole system in about two hours a week. Then he walked into his VP's office with a proposal. Luna: And what was the proposal? Lucas: He said, 'My current role is now mostly automated. I can maintain these scripts in maybe five hours a week. I would like to create a new role for myself — internal automation consultant — where I spend the rest of my time building similar tools for other teams in the bank.' The VP said yes. Within three months, Sam was promoted two levels, from analyst to a manager-level automation specialist. Luna: That is a bold move. I think most people would be terrified that automating your job just gets you laid off, not promoted. Lucas: And that fear is exactly why most people never try this. But Sam understood something: his value wasn't in pushing buttons. His value was in understanding the data pipeline well enough to redesign it. The VP saw that, too. Luna: If we've helped you think through a career move like Sam's, or just given you a new angle on your own situation, that's exactly why we do this show. We deliberately keep it ad-free, so the only thing that keeps this going is listeners who find value in it and decide to support that choice. If that's you, the link is buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. No pressure, just honest. Lucas: Yeah, and we mean that. Now back to Sam — because the real lesson isn't the automation itself. It's how he framed it. Luna: Let's get into the framing. What did Sam do right in that conversation? Lucas: First, he didn't lead with 'I automated my job.' He led with a problem the VP already knew about: the bank was spending too much on manual reporting, and department heads complained about data delays. Then he showed that his scripts reduced turnaround time from two days to twenty minutes. Luna: So he anchored in business value, not self-interest. Lucas: Exactly. Second, he had already done the proof of concept. He didn't ask for permission to start — he showed that it already worked. That eliminates the risk the VP would have felt if Sam had just proposed an idea. Luna: Also, he anticipated the 'what about your current duties' objection by training the junior analyst. That was smart. Lucas: That was the clincher. He said, 'My current work is covered. I've documented everything. There's no gap.' At that point, the VP's only choice was whether to keep Sam in a role that no longer needed full-time attention or to create something bigger. Luna: And the VP chose bigger. Lucas: Now, there's a version of this story where Sam makes a critical mistake. He could have hidden the automation, kept doing the work in two hours, and spent the rest of his time browsing Reddit. Some people do that. Luna: I've heard of people who built entire side businesses on company time doing exactly that. Lucas: Sure, but that's short-term thinking. The hidden-automation path gives you a few months of easy time, but it doesn't build your reputation. It doesn't get you a promotion. Sam's visibility went through the roof because he made the automation visible. Luna: So the first principle is: make your efficiency visible. Don't hide it. Lucas: Second principle: document everything before you pitch. Sam had a twenty-page manual, code comments, a training session log. That's what made his proposal credible. Luna: Third principle: pre-solve the handoff problem. He already trained someone else to run it. That's a huge trust signal. Lucas: Yeah. And fourth: propose a specific new role. Don't say 'I want to do more automation.' Say 'I want to create an internal automation consulting function, starting with the accounting team, then moving to HR and risk.' That's a concrete plan. Luna: Did Sam face any pushback? Lucas: The VP did ask, 'What if the junior analyst leaves?' Sam had already thought of that — he said the scripts were documented and he could train a replacement in a week. He also offered to cross-train a second person as backup. Luna: So he had answers ready for every objection. Lucas: That's the preparation you need. One more thing: Sam didn't ask for a raise in the first meeting. He asked for the role. The compensation adjustment came later, when HR evaluated the new position. By separating the conversation, he kept the focus on value creation, not personal gain. Luna: I think that's a tactical mistake a lot of people make. They lead with 'I want a promotion and more money.' It makes the conversation adversarial from the start. Lucas: Sam's approach was collaborative. He said, 'I see a way to create more value for the bank. Here's how. Let's figure out if this makes sense.' The VP felt like a partner, not a target. Luna: Were there any risks Sam didn't consider? Lucas: One big one: by automating his own job, he made his previous skill set redundant. If the VP had said no, Sam would have been in an awkward position. He would have essentially volunteered that his current role could be done by a junior person. Luna: That's a gamble. But it sounds like Sam had enough confidence in his broader value to take it. Lucas: He did. And I think that confidence was based on something real. He had been at the bank for four years. He knew the data systems inside out. He had a track record. If the VP had said no, Sam probably could have found a similar role at another bank. Luna: So the automation gambit works best when you already have some political capital. Lucas: Exactly. If you're new or your performance has been mediocre, this is a risky play. But if you've built credibility, it's actually safer than staying in a role that's slowly becoming obsolete. Luna: Let's talk about the timing. When should someone try this move? Lucas: Sam did it after he'd already proven the automation worked for six months. That gave him data. He could say, 'Over six months, we saved 120 hours of manual work per month.' That's a concrete number. Luna: So the timeline is: automate first, prove it works, then pitch. Lucas: Right. Don't pitch an idea. Pitch results. The VP didn't have to imagine what the automation would look like — Sam showed him the dashboard, the usage statistics, the feedback from department heads who loved getting reports in twenty minutes. Luna: What about the type of work that's automatable? Not everyone is in a data-heavy role. Lucas: True. But most knowledge work has repetitive components. Scheduling, reporting, data entry, email sorting, status updates. If you have a task you do every week that follows a pattern, it's probably automatable. The key is to automate something that's visible to senior leaders — something they care about. Luna: Sam's reports went to department heads. So his automation directly improved their experience. Lucas: Exactly. If you automate a task that only you see, the impact is invisible. Automate something that touches other people — especially senior people — and your value becomes obvious. Luna: Let's say someone wants to try this. What's the first step? Lucas: Map your weekly tasks. Find the one that takes the most time and is most rule-based. Then learn just enough automation to do that one thing. Don't try to automate everything at once. Sam started with one report. Then he built from there. Luna: And once you've built it, document it and train someone else. That's the part that turns a personal efficiency into a promotion case. Lucas: Right. The training is what proves you're not indispensable in the old role. It frees you to move into the new one. Without that step, you're just a person who's good at automation, but you're still stuck doing the old job. Luna: One last thing — Sam's story also shows the importance of having a sponsor. The VP was clearly someone who believed in him. Lucas: He didn't start with a sponsor. He built that relationship by delivering results. The VP became a sponsor because Sam made it easy for him to say yes. The proposal was so well-prepared that the VP could take it to his boss and look smart. Luna: That's a good point. Sponsorship is often earned through preparation, not just good work. Lucas: Sam's story is a template, but not everyone will get a two-level promotion. What I like about it is that it's proactive. He didn't wait for someone to notice his good work. He created a new value stream and then attached a role to it. Luna: And the alternative—hiding the automation—would have given him nothing but a few months of easier work. Lucas: Yeah. The hidden-automation path is a dead end. The visible-automation path is a career move. Sam chose the right one. Luna: So if you're sitting on a repetitive task that you've already streamlined, maybe it's time to stop hiding it and start building a case. Lucas: That's the takeaway. Automate, document, train, pitch. Then see what happens. You might surprise yourself.