I’m in a corporate strategy role right now, and I’m genuinely struggling to assess whether this is a solid career move or if I’m in a glorified holding pattern.
On paper, it looks good—the title is impressive, the compensation is competitive, and I’m working on “strategic priorities” for a well-known company. But when I actually think about what I’m learning, I’m less sure.
My days are filled with: (1) synthesizing information from different teams, (2) building models and dashboards that people look at once and never revisit, (3) attending alignment meetings where the same conversation happens three times in different rooms, and (4) presenting findings that generate a lot of head-nodding and zero follow-up.
I know strategy roles are supposed to be different from consulting—less about the recommendation, more about the execution and impact. But I’m starting to wonder if I’m confusing “strategy is slow” with “this role is pointless.”
How do you actually evaluate if you’re getting smarter in your role, or if you’re just getting comfortable? What signals matter? How long should I give it before I start planning my next move?
real check: if ur not getting dumber, ur probably okay. if ur building dashboards no one looks at, thats ur first warning. the second warning is when u realize ur the smartest person with the least influence in the room. if that matches ur daily life, start networking. ur not learning; ur just getting older in a nice office.
wow this is kinda scary to read bc it sounds like ur role might not b giving u what u need? have u tried talking to ur manager about more impactful projects??
This is a critical self-assessment question. Strategy roles vary enormously based on how much actual authority and influence the function holds within the organization. Some strategy roles are legitimately developmental—you’re building business acumen, learning execution realities, and developing influence skills that open doors to leadership roles. Others are decorative—the function exists to create the appearance of strategic thinking without the authority to drive change. The way to tell the difference: (1) Do your recommendations get implemented, even if modified? (2) Are you being asked for your perspective in decisions outside your formal scope? (3) Are leaders actively seeking your input, or do you find yourself pushing to be heard? (4) Are you developing operational expertise, or just processing information? If you’re in a decorative function, the right move is six months of relationship-building followed by a pivot to a role with more structural authority. Don’t spend two years at a company that won’t use you.
You’re in a tough spot, but you’ve got more insight than you realize! Trust your instincts and advocate for yourself!
I was in almost exactly this situation—nice title, decent pay, but feeling like a glorified analyst. What shifted for me was getting really clear on what I wanted to learn from the role and then being pretty direct with my manager about it. Turns out she’d been waiting for me to ask for bigger stuff. Once I stopped trying to be unobtrusive and started proposing more ambitious projects, things got better. But that took a conversation I probably should’ve had in month two, not month eight.
Career development research identifies several measurable signals of a developmental role: (1) Ownership of a clear deliverable with measurable outcomes, (2) Access to decision-makers outside your function, (3) Increasing scope and complexity of projects, (4) Positive feedback that translates into formal advancement. If you’re seeing none of these after six months, the role is likely not developmental. Strategy roles specifically should show evidence of expanding influence. If you’re still primarily in information synthesis after a year, you’re likely in a support function masquerading as a strategy role. Consider your timeline: six months to assess, another six months to network internally or externally, then transition or escalate expectations.
one more thing: if ur manager is also frustrated with the role, ur definitely in a doomed function. that person’s the check on whether the role can become what u want it to be. if theyre happy with status quo, so is the org. read that signal early.
wait so is it like… usually the person’s fault if they’re not getting impact or is it like the company’s structure that’s the problem?? im trying to figure out what to control
Excellent question because the answer matters for your next move. Most strategy roles aren’t designed poorly by accident—they’re designed to match the organization’s actual appetite for strategic change. A strong strategy hire can sometimes expand the function’s influence by proving competence and building relationships, which suggests the limiting factor is still in your control. But if the function itself is peripheral to decision-making, no individual hire can change that. The distinction: Is strategy asking for bigger scope and getting told no? Or is strategy not even invited to the table? First scenario suggests you have room to grow. Second suggests you need a different environment. Your next 30 days should clarify which one you’re in.
You’re capable of making this work! Take action, believe in yourself, and great things will follow!
Another angle: I had a friend in a similar role who realized that the learning wasn’t coming from the projects—it was coming from understanding why the company kept making the same mistakes. That meta-observation about organizational dysfunction actually became valuable context when she moved to operations roles later. Sometimes the education is less about the work itself and more about learning how organizations actually tick, even if it’s not happening the way you’d hoped.