Several times a year, I am approached by (or hear about) employees who want to transfer between teams. 

This is the most chaotic, uncertain situation that I routinely find myself in as a manager. The stakes are high; I’ve seen people leave jobs that they didn’t dislike because transfer issues poisoned relationships, and I’ve seen employees who were ready to leave the company find roles they loved and stayed in for years. There’s also no clear playbook for how these things go, and even when there is, I’ve seen emotional leaders override guidelines or exploit rules to prevent transfers from going ahead. 

After having a number of conversations related to transfers, I finally decided to write down my feelings about how to make them less painful. Throughout this piece, I’ll refer to the potential transfer as an Individual Contributor (IC) to differentiate them from their current manager and the hiring manager (of the team they’re looking to move too). 

While some of the thoughts here are specific to data teams (because this is the world I work in and know), I think a lot of this is applicable to technical teams generally, and maybe beyond that. 

Why are transfers so common to & between data teams? 

While any organization would benefit from shared rules about transfers, data teams (specifically, teams that primarily are responsible for manipulating, reporting, and drawing insights from company data) are uncommonly likely to need them, for the following reasons:

Long ramp up times

At every company but the newest of startups, I would argue that data teams have the longest ramp-up periods of almost any role. 

It’s true that other roles take time to understand: engineering roles with sticky legacy systems are not easy, nor are HR or Enterprise Customer Success roles. For all these roles (for all roles, really), there’s a lot of history & context to understand.

But data takes a long time to ramp up on because in addition to having to get ramped up on your own systems and relationships, the company’s history is your product, to a large extent. Every dip in a chart or change in a pattern can generate questions, and you’re likely to get asked about them. Your confidence in these numbers will be evaluated, and you can’t serve the organization effectively without knowing the answers. And knowing the answers takes time.

Internal transfers already know a lot of that history. They know about the major releases and outages. They know how the business responded to the pandemic, and when marketing campaigns went out. Maybe they even know about that bug from 2 years ago that impacted reported landings, or changed how users were deduplicated. 

In fact, they likely know a bunch of stuff that the team they are transferring to, doesn’t. This makes them exceptionally valuable for a data team. In particular, I’ve seen transfers from Marketing and Ad Ops have huge positive impacts on data teams by bringing their understanding of company history with different vendors and strategies that were unknown to data scientists and engineers. Knowledge of the current vendors would be valuable in a lot of places, but knowledge of the historical ones really matters in the data world. 

Lots of potential candidates on different teams

If you were to think about the last company you worked at, and I asked you to list all the people (or all the teams) who consider data manipulation or analysis part of their job, how many people/teams would you come up with? 

Explicit Data teams, of course. Someone in Finance, certainly. Likely Marketing. Maybe some other operations team. If you’re at a bigger company, probably someone in HR and someone in the sales org. This offers a lot of fertile ground for transfers, for a couple reasons.

The first is that it’s difficult for analysts to up-level their skills when they report to a domain expert. Certainly, they’ll be able to learn about their domain, and that’s really valuable, especially if they want to grow into that domain (this is most common in Product, where people aspire to become PMs, but it happens elsewhere too). Switching to data-oriented teams is the other path for them: the opportunity to double-down on analytical skills. 

The other, subtler point is that, unless teams are really intentional, there’s often not a ton of room for career advancement for analysts in different functional areas beyond being a first level manager. Sure, managers (in my experience) value the work their analysts do, and are more than happy to promote them, pay them more, and help them hire a team. That’s very good stuff, and probably leaves room for a whole decade of career progress for the first successful analyst in. But do those analysts have room to become VPs, or decision-makers for the business? And what about the later analysts who work for someone who already runs the analytics team? 

So what’s the problem?

Ok! So there are a lot of people who might be interested in transferring to your data team, and you will get a ton of value out of it! So why is this so hard?

Suspicion of other teams

Steve Yegge famously called out that Data Science teams seem to dislike each other. Unfortunately, I think that’s often true! As a group, we tend to cherish the interdisciplinary nature of our work, but the flip side is that we aren’t always great at creating bright lines about ‘who does what’. 

Interesting problems often have several teams who plausibly could claim them, and so without good communication and coordination, it’s common for teams to feel like they’re competing (eg: who owns your customer LTV estimates? Marketing or Product? Data Scientists or Analysts?). 

In the best situations, these are opportunities to collaborate across teams. In the worst, they are grist for paranoia and building up a collection of gripes. ‘Land grabs’ and refusal to share data between teams aren’t terribly uncommon in my experience. 

In addition to these ‘horizontal’ issues, there are ‘vertical’ issues. Downstream teams (usually analysts) might have tighter relationships with stakeholders, and your more technical teams might feel ‘cut-off’ from decision-makers. On the other hand, those same downstream teams feel like they don’t have the skills or access to ingest & transform data, and worry that their requests for data access and bug fixes are deprioritized behind whatever shiny new thing the data scientists and data engineers are playing with.

Add in the possibility that teams might be perceived as recruiting across these boundaries, and you have a really volatile interpersonal situation on your hands. 

Indecisive ICs

I love working with data professionals, but I have to concede that as a group, we are not the most decisive. We’re analysers. We think things over. We keep an open mind.

When you’re talking about making big changes at work, this indecisiveness can be a killer. Transfers can linger for months, starting rumors about why an Analyst or Data Scientist is switching teams (or not). 

Relatedly, people who are used to gathering information will often talk to a lot of different people on different teams, trying to understand what different roles look like. That’s good! They should be making informed decisions! But when an analyst talks to three other teams, and then chooses one of them, it doesn’t feel great to the others, who might feel spurned or judged.

Lack of an open process that’s perceived as fair

This is not unique to data teams, but the standards on internal transfers are all over the place. I’ve seen teams with incredibly rigorous, selective interview processes for new employees just ‘wave in’ internal transfers based on personal relationships or internal reputation. 

Couple this with the fact that it’s not obvious that individual teams are hiring, or that there are open roles to apply for, and it can feel like certain opportunities are only open to those who have relationships with ‘the right people’. For others on the outside of these relationships, this process can feel a lot like an “old boys’ club”.

Managers can expect to know about all of the people who ask for a new role, but not all those people who would apply for a new role if they knew it was open or a possibility. If one group of people is more comfortable with promoting themselves than another, it’s going to lead to uneven outcomes and bias.

This pattern is deeply corrosive to relationships and team culture. If you’ve ever felt like you were passed over for promotion, or saw someone else get a role that you would have been interested in, you might be having an emotional reaction just reading this. These feelings are deep seated and truly very difficult for people to get past. 

How should this work? 

I don’t think that there’s ‘just one way’ for transfers to work. Companies operate differently and with different expectations. However, I think there are a few guidelines that make things run a bit more smoothly. 

Publish potentially open roles (ideally on a job board)

Posting roles is the single most important thing you can do to improve your internal transfer process. At my current role, we have an internal job board and we aim to post roles there before we consider internal transfers. Some companies won’t have this, but most companies will have an all-hands or at least a company-wide slack room (or similar) where you can advertise a role.

Posting is important to clarify the role, reduce bias in team formation, and to make people feel like they’re on an even playing field.

Posting a role is clarifying because you are writing down responsibilities and expectations. Internal transfers can be overconfident in their knowledge of what life on another team entails. I remember a potential transfer who did not realize that the team they wanted to work with had an ‘on call’ schedule: seeing it spelled out helped the applicant make a more informed decision.

Posting a role reduces bias because it ensures everyone sees the opportunity, and applies. It is almost certain that a manager’s communication pattern embeds biases towards certain teams, personalities, interests, ages, genders and/or ethnicities. These mean that without a posted role, only some of the people at the company who might be qualified for a role are likely to know about it. By posting a role, a manager can decouple their communication patterns from finding the best person for the role. 

Even if a manager doesn’t have any bias in their communication, the practice of posting roles gives employees comfort that they’re on an even playing field. The transparency of the process gives the rest of the team confidence that these decisions are made out in the open, and that even if they disagree with decisions and timetables, at least they know that their career advancement isn’t solely dependent on getting 1:1s with the right people. 

A practical consideration: transfer as a ‘save’ 

Sometimes, a talented employee will say that they aren’t happy in their current role, or that they are interested in working for a team that doesn’t have a current opening. There are many variations on this, but the most common situations I’ve seen are: 

• Burnt out managers looking to move to senior IC roles

• ICs looking to escape teams in difficult situations

To be candid, I’m very conflicted about these situations. They generally put managers in a tough situation: is this person valuable enough that I still want them in a new role that I feel is less valuable (and if you think the new role is more valuable, why didn’t you move them before they asked)? 

In general, I think helping people be successful (and finding a valuable place at the company for them) trumps most other considerations, so I tend to err on the side of supporting these transfers. I worry about this, though, especially in the case of teams that don’t seem to have a clear path to sustainable success. I find myself drawing these transfers out over many months as we ramp up recruiting and support for the teams that these people are departing. 

No direct recruiting

If you manage both teams involved in a potential transfer (ie the current manager and hiring manager both report to you), you can approach an IC and ask them about moving teams. This is a reassignment to move a person into a role you think will add more value to the company, and you, as the manager of the teams, are empowered by the company to make this decision (with the consent of the employee). You should not be shy about this.

In any and every other situation, DO NOT directly recruit people to your team from other teams! There are lots of reasons this is a bad idea!

• There is likely a power differential between you and a person you would be recruiting. Some people have a really hard time saying no to authority! You would not believe how far out of hand I have seen this get!

• If you do this, you will more or less instantly lose the trust of your peer managers, who will view you with suspicion!

• You may be causing your boss a big problem, by recruiting someone away from a role that they think is more important to the organization!

If you think that the company would be substantially better off with a person moving from one team to another, go to their manager and talk about it, and/or to the person who is high enough up that they manage both where the person is now and where they should go. This manager is empowered by the company to make this decision. 

Personally, the furthest I will go is to make sure that the role is well publicized to the people I think might be a good fit. 

ICs apply or talk to hiring manager first to register interest

Once the role is publicized and an IC decides they are interested, the first step should be for them to speak to the hiring manager on the team they are trying to move to. The hiring manager should be able to give the IC one of three answers within a few days:

• Yes, we would love to have you on the team, without any interviewing

• No, we don’t think you’re a fit for the role (or it’s already filled)

• You are welcome to interview for the role

Those are, effectively, the three answers, with slight variations on timing and other considerations. 

I don’t think that the current manager should have much of a say in employee mobility beyond timing (and maybe setting attainable exit criteria in some cases), but maybe in certain situations there’s a need for obtaining a blessing from other people in the organization. 

I have seen people suggest that ICs should speak to their current manager first, which I disagree with. Just like most people probably wouldn’t tell a manager if they were looking for a role externally: if it doesn’t work out, you likely damage your relationship with your manager, and your manager is less likely to advocate for you or invest in you if they think you have one foot out the door. 

I have heard people clarify that ICs should talk to their current manager if they’re unhappy in their current role, which is true but a different thing.

Should there be any restrictions on ICs transferring? 

Generally, I don’t think there should be many restrictions, but there are edge cases:

• Minimum time in role: This is the most common restriction: the idea is that new employees don’t add much value when they start in a new role, and it’s a bit unfair to the manager to train them up and then hand them off.

• In good standing: Some places require employees to be in good standing before they can transfer.

• Critical project: If an employee is working on a very important project, and wants to work on things that are perceived as being less valuable, this is sometimes blocked.

• Regulatory restrictions: sometimes people from one part of the organization can’t know what’s happening on another side. This is most common in finance, between research & banking, but I imagine it happens in other places.

I’m sure there are other restrictions as well. None of these are inherently bad policies: it will depend a lot on the company, team, and situation. 

When a manager wants their team to switch parts of the organization

One case that seems like a transfer but is not is when a manager wants to move their team to a different part of the organization. This seems like an internal transfer, but it’s not: it’s a bottoms-up reorganization.

The process should have some similarities to an internal transfer (no direct recruiting, the potential transferer approaches the potential new manager first) but this has to go to the executive who is responsible for the whole reporting structure. 

Candidly, from the exec’s perspective, this is tricky: moving a team away from a manager significantly changes their job. I’ve seen this happen, but most execs may not be on board with this at all, and probably will only be on board with it if the current manager can be persuaded.

Still, I think it makes sense to go to the exec first, just to see if they’d be supportive if you could get the other manager on-board that it’s the right thing for the company (not just for the person/team that wants to transfer). The exec is presumably going to have to sign off on this anyways, so it’s better to ensure that the support is there before going into the conversation with the manager who might be handing over a team. 

Do’s and Don’ts

So that’s a lot. Let’s wrap this up with some simple things to remember. 

If you’re the hiring manager

It’s ok to aggressively publicize your roles, but don’t go to specific people and ask them to join your team! Don’t do it! Trust me!

If an internal candidate reaches out to you, keep it to yourself until you know if you want to interview or think it’s plausible you’ll want to hire them! If you need to check with others on your team, treat this as sensitive information and keep the number of people involved to a minimum. 

If you do end up accepting someone as a transfer, be generous with the team that’s transferring the person, and expect the transfer to take several weeks. Set a firm, clear end-date where the IC knows that their old manager shouldn’t be asking for additional work from them, but let the IC know that maintaining a strong relationship between teams is a priority. 

If you’re the IC

Your primary obligation in this is to yourself: find the role that is best for you, be proactive about reaching out and having discussions with different teams. 

I have seen ICs that thought that they should go to HR when they want to transfer teams. They aren’t your first stop (unless you’re trying to transfer into HR)! The hiring manager for the role you want is the right person to talk to. HR is there to help set standards on interviews, timing, and to flag potential issues (like pay & leveling disparities between teams) 

Expect this to take a while, probably as long as interviewing externally. You’ll probably save time identifying a team, but the ‘notice’ period will be longer, almost certainly. 

Like it or not, if you transfer, you’re going to have to tell your current manager. The idea of saying you don’t want to work on their team anymore, but you still are going to see them regularly at work, might make you feel uncomfortable. Try not to worry about it too much. A good manager is going to be glad that you’re staying at the company. If you’re scared, that’s a knock on the manager. 

Your (current) manager may try to ‘keep you’ by asking about why you’re leaving and trying to address your concerns. I think this can potentially be a productive conversation. Hopefully, the reason you’re leaving is because you want to do what the other team is doing: if that’s the case, there’s probably not that much to talk about. If you’re concerned about your career progress, I’d encourage you to talk about it with your manager separately. 

If you’re the manager whose IC is leaving

It’s ok to ask the IC why, and to try to address concerns. It’s even ok to ask if they would consider staying if you change a few things. However, it’s easy to panic when someone is leaving, so be careful not to make promises that you can’t follow through on, or even those that you know are not in the best interests of the team. 

Above all, don’t take it personally. It’s hard enough for people to find fulfilling roles that are right for them. If they’re staying at the company, honestly, you’ve done fine. Smile, congratulate them, and get to work filling your open role (start by posting on the internal job board)!