450: The Truth About Being "That Girl" at Work
What is the relationship between small daily improvements and long-term success?
A 1% improvement every day compounds to 365% improvement over a year —this concept from Atomic Habits shows why consistency matters more than dramatic leaps. Rather than expecting overnight transformation, success comes from repeating small habit-building actions day after day, often with relevance and meaning that deepens over time.
The mathematics of compounding improvement is deceptively simple, yet profoundly powerful. When you commit to incremental progress rather than waiting for the perfect moment or the ideal circumstances, you begin to see what Bridget Truxillo discusses in this episode as the real driver of change: consistency itself becomes the competitive advantage.
Truxillo has studied the Seven Habits of Highly Effective People multiple times throughout her life, and she notices something remarkable—concepts that seemed irrelevant or abstract when she was in her 20s have become deeply applicable and urgent by her 50s. This is not because the principles changed, but because her lived experience gave them meaning.
"You don't just get to skip the line or skip trying to get ready or the experiences that give you the confidence. You only ever feel ready by doing the thing."
Bridget Truxillo — Founder and Attorney at Lady Law Shield. After years undercover in narcotics and as the only woman on her SWAT team with the Alachua County Sheriff's Office, she left law enforcement to attend law school. She spent several years in civil litigation before founding Lady Law Shield, a firm dedicated to representing first responders including firefighters, law enforcement officers, dispatchers, corrections officers, and EMTs.
The gap between understanding a principle intellectually and feeling its truth in your bones is precisely where small daily improvements operate. As Truxillo notes, the episode explores how confidence is not something you feel before you act—it is something you build through action, through repetition, through the accumulation of small wins that prove to yourself that you can do hard things.
The discipline to improve by 1% rather than demand 100% transformation overnight is itself the habit. Repeating small actions consistently is what separates those who talk about change from those who experience it. The real power is not in any single day's effort, but in the invisible compound effect that unfolds across months and years.
Why the same habits work differently at different life stages
One of the most counterintuitive insights from Truxillo's experience is that the same principle—the same habit framework, the same recommended reading—lands differently depending on where you are in your life and career. As she shares in the conversation , a leadership principle that felt abstract or overly optimistic at age 25 becomes not just relevant but essential by age 45 or 50.
This is not a flaw in the principles. Experience is the catalyst that transforms generic advice into lived wisdom. You can read a habit book at 20 and gain nothing; you can read the same book at 50, after years of trial, failure, and growth, and suddenly every sentence glows with urgency and applicability. The 1% improvement concept only becomes truly powerful when you have enough accumulated experience to recognize why consistency matters.
How can looking backward at past accomplishments help build confidence when facing new challenges?
When facing a new challenge, stop looking forward at the unknown and instead inventory what you've already survived —a divorce, the death of a loved one, difficult conversations at work. Those past victories are proof that you can handle hard things, and that evidence shifts your mindset from future anxiety to demonstrated resilience.
The shift is simple but powerful: when nervousness creeps in and you feel unprepared, your instinct is to focus on what might go wrong ahead. Instead, Bridget Truxillo advises turning your attention backward to moments when you thought something was impossible—and you did it anyway.
Every difficult thing you've survived leaves a mark, and that mark is concrete evidence of your capability . You didn't skip past those challenges—you went through them, learned from them, and came out the other side. That's not luck. That's resilience.
The goal is to treat your past wins as a reference library. When Bridget discusses confidence-building on this episode of Ordinary To Badass , she emphasizes that this backward look isn't about arrogance—it's about honest accounting. You've already proven you can do hard things. The hard thing in front of you now is just the next one on the list.
"You don't just get to skip the line or skip trying to get ready or the experiences that give you the confidence. You only ever feel ready by doing the thing."
Bridget Truxillo — Founder and Attorney at Lady Law Shield. After graduating from the University of Florida with a degree in horticulture, Truxillo attended the police academy and spent years undercover in narcotics with the Alachua County Sheriff's Office, becoming the only woman on her SWAT team. She later earned her law degree and worked in civil litigation before founding Lady Law Shield, a law firm dedicated to representing first responders—the exact position she once held and the battles she once fought alone.
The mechanics of this perspective matter. Confidence doesn't come from certainty about the future —it comes from certainty about your ability to survive what comes. You're not promising yourself the outcome will be perfect. You're reminding yourself that you've handled uncertainty before, and you can do it again.
This approach works because it's rooted in truth, not wishful thinking. You're not telling yourself you're unstoppable or that everything will work out. You're simply reviewing the evidence: the times you stayed in a difficult conversation instead of walking out, the moments you asked for help, the grief you moved through. Those are real accomplishments, and Truxillo's full conversation explores how this evidence builds genuine confidence rather than false bravado.
Confidence is built by doing hard things, not by feeling ready before you start—look back at past difficulties you've survived as proof of your capability.
When facing new challenges, shift your focus from future anxiety to demonstrated resilience by reviewing what you've already accomplished.
Past victories—whether personal (surviving loss or divorce) or professional (speaking up in meetings, difficult conversations)—are concrete evidence you can handle hard things again.
This backward-looking perspective turns confidence from an emotional guess into a factual reference point based on real experience.
What drives women to avoid reporting workplace misconduct or discrimination despite the mental health costs?
Women often fear being labeled "that girl"—the one who complains, reports issues, or becomes a target —and this silence carries a real cost to their mental health. Bridget Truxillo explains that she spent her entire law enforcement career trying to prove herself without speaking up about unfair treatment, a choice that eventually contributed to her leaving the field. For mental health reasons alone, she emphasizes that women must overcome this fear and speak up professionally.
The Cost of Staying Silent
During her time on the SWAT team, Truxillo noticed a stark pattern: she was being disciplined and singled out for mistakes that her male colleagues made without consequence . After two and a half years of absorbing this treatment without reporting it, she realized the toll was unsustainable. The belief that she had to prove her capability by weathering unfair treatment silently became a trap—one she now recognizes cost her years of psychological strain.
This dynamic reflects a broader pattern in male-dominated fields where women internalize the pressure to be "one of the guys" by never complaining, never appearing weak, and never drawing attention to discriminatory practices. As Truxillo discusses in the episode , this silence comes at a significant psychological cost that shapes careers and wellbeing long after the actual incidents occur.
Speaking Up Professionally Without Fear
The path forward, Truxillo argues, is not to stay silent for the sake of fitting in—it's to speak up professionally and respectfully. Speaking up for your own mental health is not the same as being unprofessional or emotional ; it can be done calmly and clearly. She provides a direct example: "You've got to say something for your own mental health, and you can do it professionally: with all due respect, you know, I'm not going to do that."
This approach protects two things at once: your own mental health and your professional integrity. Rather than waiting until mistreatment has compounded over years, addressing unfair treatment early sets a boundary and signals that you will not accept it going forward. The fear of becoming "that girl" is real, but Truxillo's experience shows that the alternative—silence—costs far more.
"You've got to say something for your own mental health, and you can do it professionally: with all due respect, you know, I'm not going to do that."
Bridget Truxillo — Founder and Attorney at Lady Law Shield. Truxillo spent years undercover in narcotics and was the only woman on her SWAT team with the Alachua County Sheriff's Office before leaving law enforcement to attend law school. She worked in civil litigation for several years, then founded Lady Law Shield to represent first responders—firefighters, law enforcement officers, dispatchers, corrections officers, and EMTs—in the battles she once faced alone.
Bridget Truxillo's story reveals a crucial detail that extends beyond this fiche: the episode covers how she later left civil litigation entirely to build a law firm specifically designed to support the very professionals who face these challenges—a personal mission born directly from her silence.
Fear of being labeled "that girl" leads women to internalize mistreatment rather than report it, damaging mental health over time.
Silence in response to unfair discipline or discrimination is not protective—it reinforces the behavior and harms the individual.
Speaking up can be done professionally and calmly, without sacrificing respect or credibility in male-dominated fields.
Addressing mistreatment early sets a boundary and signals that you will not accept unfair treatment going forward.
How should women in male-dominated fields respond when they experience differential treatment or discipline compared to their male colleagues?
Women should speak up about unfair treatment, even when it feels uncomfortable , doing so professionally and respectfully while maintaining clear boundaries. If verbal conversations don't resolve the issue, document the problem in writing to protect yourself legally and mentally—staying silent only reinforces the pattern.
The reality of working in male-dominated fields like law enforcement is that double standards in discipline often go unchallenged . On her SWAT team, Bridget Truxillo observed male colleagues making mistakes without consequences while facing harsh penalties for similar infractions—including being assigned 500 mountain climbers as punishment for actions that went unpunished for men. After two and a half years of this pattern, the disparity became undeniable.
Truxillo's approach to speaking up combines firmness with professionalism. As she explains in the episode , you can say something like "with all due respect" while making your boundary clear: "I'm not going to do that." The key is acting rather than simply accepting the unfair treatment —your mental health and long-term professional credibility depend on it.
If the situation doesn't improve after speaking directly, moving the conversation to written communication becomes essential . An email documenting the differential treatment creates a record that protects you legally if the behavior continues or escalates. This isn't about confrontation; it's about creating evidence and establishing a clear timeline of your concerns.
"You've got to say something for your own mental health, and you can do it professionally: with all due respect, you know, I'm not going to do that."
Bridget Truxillo — Founder and Attorney at Lady Law Shield. Truxillo spent years undercover in narcotics and was the only woman on her SWAT team with the Alachua County Sheriff's Office before leaving law enforcement to attend law school. After working in civil litigation at a law firm, she founded Lady Law Shield to represent first responders—firefighters, law enforcement officers, dispatchers, corrections officers, and EMTs—fighting the exact battles she once faced alone.
The broader lesson, explored in depth in this podcast episode , is that staying silent to avoid becoming "that girl" actually gives unfair systems permission to persist. Speaking up—with professionalism, clarity, and documentation—is the only way to shift the dynamic.
Why Documentation Matters in Male-Dominated Environments
Written records change the power dynamic because they force accountability and create a clear pattern if needed later. When verbal feedback doesn't work, an email documenting what happened, when, and how it differs from how male colleagues are treated becomes your protection. It's not personal; it's procedural.
This approach is especially important in fields like law enforcement, firefighting, and emergency response, where hierarchical structures can make it harder for women to challenge unfair treatment. A written record means you're not relying on someone remembering a conversation or dismissing your concerns as emotional or exaggerated. The details speak for themselves. For more on how preparation and decisiveness matter in these high-stakes environments, hear Bridget's full story on Listenly .
Speak up immediately when you notice differential discipline, using professional language like "with all due respect" to maintain authority while setting boundaries.
If verbal communication doesn't resolve the issue, document the unfair treatment in writing to create a legal and protective record.
Staying silent to avoid being labeled "that girl" only reinforces unfair systems and harms your mental health and career trajectory.
Observe patterns over time—after two and a half years on a SWAT team, Truxillo noticed the disparity was systematic, not coincidental.
What challenges do women in law enforcement face regarding uniform requirements and bodily functions that are rarely discussed in male-dominated workplaces?
Women in law enforcement struggle with basic practical issues that remain entirely unaddressed in workplace training —from finding undergarments that work under protective vests in hot climates to managing bathroom access for menstrual hygiene without explanation or support. These conversations simply do not happen in male-dominated law enforcement culture, leaving women to solve these problems alone and often in embarrassing situations.
The silence around these issues is not accidental. Women in uniform face a unique intersection of physical reality and workplace culture that male officers never encounter. As Bridget Truxillo explains in the episode , even conversations about what women actually wear under their uniforms—sports bras, specific underwear for activities like climbing fences—are absent from police academy training and departmental guidance.
The practical challenge compounds in environments where law enforcement operates. Hot climates, full tactical gear, and extended shifts without predictable breaks create conditions where standard undergarments fail or cause discomfort. Yet no woman officer receives instruction or resources on how to address this reality during her training or career.
Menstrual cycles and the burden of asking without explaining
Perhaps the most striking gap is the absence of any normalized conversation about menstrual cycles and bathroom access. Women officers need to request time away from their posts or duties for personal hygiene during their cycles, but the workplace culture offers no framework for this discussion. When a woman must ask a supervisor for time without being able to explain why—either because she's uncomfortable speaking about her cycle or because the workplace has made clear such topics are unwelcome—she is placed in an impossible position.
This forced silence creates practical and emotional consequences. A woman cannot simply take bathroom time when she needs it the way a male officer can. The details matter: menstrual products may need changing during a shift, or a woman may need to manage leakage or discomfort without announcing the reason to her supervisor. The burden of managing this privately, without support or acknowledgment, adds an invisible layer of stress to an already demanding job. A detailed discussion of how women navigate these specific workplace barriers is explored in depth in this podcast episode .
The absence of these conversations also signals to women that their bodies—and the normal biological functions those bodies have—are incompatible with the role. In a profession where physical capability is already scrutinized and questioned for women, this silence reinforces a false message: that "real" law enforcement officers do not have the bodily needs women have, and therefore women must hide or suppress these needs to belong.
Bridget Truxillo — Founder and Attorney at Lady Law Shield. Truxillo spent years undercover in narcotics and was the only woman on her SWAT team with the Alachua County Sheriff's Office in Florida before leaving law enforcement to attend law school. She later worked in civil litigation at a law firm and now represents first responders—firefighters, law enforcement officers, dispatchers, corrections officers, and EMTs—through her firm, addressing the professional and legal challenges she once faced alone.
The cost of this silence extends beyond individual discomfort. When women must figure out these issues in isolation, they lose energy and focus that could go toward their actual work. They may also internalize shame or feel that their bodies are somehow a liability to their profession—a false and harmful conclusion that workplaces should actively work to dismantle. The full conversation in this podcast reveals how widespread these challenges are and why organizational change is overdue.
455: 8 Leadership Lessons from Women Who Changed the Room | Part 2
What specific preparations should new leaders undertake to build confidence and decision-making capability before crises arise?
Know your policies, your people, and who holds expertise before the moment of decision arrives. Build relationships before you need favors, understand your environment, and think through consequences of situations you've already handled —because preparation creates options, and options make decisiveness easier when crisis hits.
The five pillars of crisis readiness
The foundation of decisive leadership rests on five concrete practices you must undertake long before any emergency surfaces. Know your policies and procedures inside and out, so you're not scrambling to find answers when time is critical. Know who your people are—their strengths, capabilities, and limits. Know where expertise lives in your organization and identify it by name, not by title.
Beyond knowledge of structure, know who you can call for help . This isn't about having a list; it's about relationships tested and understood before pressure arrives. As discussed in this episode of Ordinary To Badass , leaders who remain calm in crisis are those who've already mapped their support network.
Understanding your terrain and building intelligence
Understand the environment in which you operate. Ask questions before the crisis arrives—not defensively, but to genuinely comprehend the landscape, the constraints, and the opportunities. Learn from every situation you've already handled , extracting lessons about consequences, timing, and what works in your specific context.
This mirrors how leaders throughout history have approached high-stakes moments: they gather intelligence, study the terrain, build networks early, and prepare extensively. The result is not fearlessness, but something more valuable—a foundation of options that makes the final decision clear when it comes. Marie Sonneman explores how preparation separates leaders who freeze from those who act.
"Leadership isn't a personality type. It's a strategy. It's understanding people, understanding the room, knowing what you can control, building relationships, creating evidence, communicating your impact, preparing before the moment comes, asking for what you want, and then moving when it's time to move."
Marie Sonneman — Leadership Coach and Law Enforcement Lieutenant. Drawing on her dual background in law enforcement command and executive coaching, Sonneman has guided hundreds of leaders through high-pressure decisions. Her insight reflects both operational experience and years of coaching professionals navigating complex organizational dynamics.
What many observers miss is the invisible work. When you see a leader make a decisive call during crisis, you're witnessing the final five seconds—not the months or years of relationship-building, terrain study, and consequence analysis that preceded it. Preparation removes uncertainty , and removing uncertainty removes the paralysis that keeps others frozen. The full episode details how specific leaders applied this principle across radically different contexts—from Silicon Valley to historical liberation movements.
Know your policies, people, expertise sources, and support networks before crisis arrives—don't build this infrastructure in the moment.
Ask questions and gather intelligence about your environment and stakeholders while things are calm, so you understand the terrain before you need to navigate it.
Build relationships continuously, long before you need a favor—network depth is your crisis insurance.
Preparation creates options; options create confidence; confidence enables decisive action when time is short.
What misconception do people commonly hold about decisive leaders and what actually enables decisiveness in crisis situations?
People see the moment a decisive leader makes the call and think they're fearless, but they're only seeing the final five seconds. You don't see the…
How should professionals structure their asks for promotions, raises, or additional responsibilities to increase likelihood of approval?
Connect your ask to your value and create a business case. If you want more responsibility, explain where you're prepared to own it. For a promotion,…
What strategy should professionals use when they cannot control an important career decision made by someone else?
When you cannot control whether your boss promotes you, you absolutely control whether you develop yourself . You may not control how one person perceives your potential, but you can control whether that person is the only one who knows your work. The strategy is to build something that gives you more options—so no single person can destroy your entire plan.
The real problem most professionals face is invisible: they're betting their entire career on one relationship, one manager, or one company's judgment. That's a fragile position. If that one person leaves, gets demoted, holds a grudge, or simply doesn't believe in you, your trajectory stalls—unless you've built alternatives.
Marie Sonneman explores this dynamic in the second part of her leadership lessons episode , examining how women navigate situations where gatekeepers hold institutional power. The lesson applies equally to anyone whose advancement depends on someone else's decision.
Three levers you actually control
First, skill development is entirely in your hands . Your boss can choose not to promote you, but they cannot stop you from learning. Take courses, build expertise, master domains that matter in your industry. This makes you valuable to other managers, other companies, and future opportunities—not just your current employer.
Second, visibility beyond your immediate boss matters more than most people realize . Make your work known to peers, senior leaders, and people outside your direct reporting line. Present at meetings, contribute to cross-functional projects, build relationships at industry events. When multiple people know your capabilities, one person's skepticism loses power.
Third, optionality protects you . Build skills and a network that create genuine career choices. If you're so specialized or so dependent on your current role that you have nowhere else to go, you're stuck. But if you're developing portability—if other organizations would want you, if you could transition to adjacent roles—then you're not trapped by a single person's judgment.
Why this matters when the stakes are high
The dynamic becomes urgent when decisions feel truly blocked. Promotion denial, being passed over for a key assignment, or being told your work isn't good enough—these moments create fear. The instinct is often to work harder for the same person hoping they'll finally see your value. But the podcast conversation on navigating career blockades reveals a different logic: if one person's approval is your only path forward, you need to create other paths.
This doesn't mean quitting or becoming disloyal. It means recognizing that your professional worth exists independent of any single person's perception . You can be a good employee to your current employer while simultaneously building leverage, skills, and relationships that give you real options.
"Leadership isn't a personality type. It's a strategy. It's understanding people, understanding the room, knowing what you can control, building relationships, creating evidence, communicating your impact, preparing before the moment comes, asking for what you want, and then moving when it's time to move."
Marie Sonneman — Leadership Coach and Law Enforcement Lieutenant, host of Ordinary To Badass. Sonneman draws on both military and civilian experience to help professionals navigate power dynamics and career decisions they don't control.
If you want to see how this principle played out for historical figures facing institutional gatekeeping—from women in physics to artists reclaiming their own work— the full episode dives into concrete examples across different industries and eras.
You control your own skill development, even when you cannot control someone else's promotion decision.
Make your work visible to people beyond your immediate manager so one person's skepticism doesn't determine your worth.
Build portability and career options so no single relationship or role can trap you.
The strategy isn't to work harder for the same person—it's to create alternatives that reduce your dependence on any one person's judgment.
How should leaders approach developing talent once women are already in the room?
Getting women into the room is only half the battle—the real leadership question is who gets developed, who gets encouraged, and who gets the high-profile assignments once they're there . Talent can sit directly in front of you and never transform into opportunity without deliberate leadership choices about visibility, risk, and forgiveness.
Access alone does not create equal paths. Two people standing in the same room can face entirely different obstacles, opportunities, and invisible gatekeeping. As Marie Sonneman explores in the episode , the story of women studying mathematics and physics at prestigious institutions like the Swiss Federal Polytechnic Institute reveals a deeper truth: presence does not equal power or opportunity.
The leadership challenge is behavioral and visible. Leaders must track themselves on concrete questions: who receives the high-profile assignment, who gets encouraged to take risks, who gets forgiven when they stumble, and who gets told they're "not ready yet"? These choices are not neutral—they shape who rises and who stalls.
Talent becomes opportunity through intentional visibility and deliberate resource allocation . A skilled employee can remain invisible if no one senior advocates for them, if they're excluded from key meetings, or if failure is treated differently depending on who fails. Leaders who close the opportunity gap ask these uncomfortable questions regularly and audit their own decisions against them.
This is discussed at length in this episode , which examines how four very different women navigated moments when access and opportunity diverged—moments that reveal what leadership truly requires when simply getting into the room isn't enough.
"Leadership isn't a personality type. It's a strategy. It's understanding people, understanding the room, knowing what you can control, building relationships, creating evidence, communicating your impact, preparing before the moment comes, asking for what you want, and then moving when it's time to move."
Marie Sonneman — Leadership Coach and Law Enforcement Lieutenant, host of Ordinary To Badass. Sonneman brings field experience in high-stakes decision-making and organizational dynamics to her examination of how women navigate power, visibility, and opportunity in male-dominated spaces.
The gap between access and opportunity
Presence in the room does not guarantee the same experience or trajectory. Historical examples illuminate this: a woman studying alongside Albert Einstein at a prestigious institution had access to the same lectures and laboratories, yet faced completely different institutional support, publication opportunities, and credit for intellectual work . The institution was the same; the path forward was not.
Leaders create this gap—or close it—through daily micro-decisions about who gets mentored, who gets stretched, and who gets a second chance. These decisions compound over years, determining who stays, who advances, and who leaves because opportunity never materialized despite talent being visible the entire time. Discover why doing excellent work behind the scenes doesn't automatically lead to recognition —a related lesson from the same episode.
Leaders must audit who receives development, encouragement, risk-taking opportunities, and forgiveness—these allocations reveal whether opportunity is truly equal.
Talent sitting in front of you only becomes opportunity when it is actively seen, advocated for, and resourced by senior leadership.
The same room, institution, or team can offer drastically different paths forward depending on invisible gatekeeping and whose failures are treated as learning moments versus disqualification.
Leadership is a strategic practice—not a personality trait—and requires deliberate choices about visibility, risk, and who gets second chances.
454: 8 Leadership Lessons from Women Who Changed the Room | Part 1
How did Rosalind Franklin's experimental work on DNA structure get recognized and misrecognized in scientific history?
In the early 1950s at King's College London, Rosalind Franklin and graduate student Raymond Gosselin produced photograph 51, an X-ray diffraction image containing critical information about DNA structure —yet Maurice Wilkins showed it to James Watson without Franklin's knowledge, and both Franklin's work and Watson and Crick's double helix model appeared in the same 1953 Nature issue, though her foundational contribution was largely overshadowed for decades.
The invisible researcher behind a breakthrough
Rosalind Franklin's story exemplifies a recurring pattern in scientific history: being right does not guarantee being recognized . Her experimental rigor and technical brilliance produced evidence that answered one of biology's most fundamental questions, yet the pathway to public credit ran through institutional gatekeepers who did not give her agency over her own work.
What happened at King's College was not simple oversight. Wilkins shared photograph 51—the clearest X-ray diffraction image of DNA—with Watson without obtaining Franklin's consent. This was not a matter of different interpretations or competing claims to the same data. It was access to her research redirected through channels she did not control , enabling Watson and Crick to refine their model with evidence Franklin had generated but not yet published under her own name.
Recognition deferred, then redefined
The 1953 Nature publication did grant Franklin and Gosselin a platform: their paper appeared in the same issue as Watson and Crick's double helix model. Yet structural positioning in print did not translate to historical billing . The narrative that persisted for decades credited Watson and Crick as the discoverers, relegating Franklin's experimental work to a supporting role—a pattern as explored in this episode's examination of how women's contributions get reframed in male-dominated fields .
King's College London has since formally recognized Franklin's role, describing her data as critical to understanding DNA structure . This reclamation matters not merely as historical correction, but as a reminder that institutional legitimacy and personal credit are not automatic—they require visibility, voice, and control over one's own narrative.
"Being right and being influential are not the same thing. You can be 100% right and still persuade absolutely nobody."
Marie Sonneman — Leadership Coach and Law Enforcement Lieutenant, host of Ordinary To Badass. Sonneman draws on her experience coaching women in male-dominated environments to identify patterns where competence alone does not secure recognition or advancement.
This principle captures Franklin's predicament exactly: her photographs were irrefutable , her methods were rigorous, her conclusions were sound—and yet she lost control of how that work reached the world. Influence required not just data, but also the institutional standing to frame it on one's own terms, the peer relationships that could advocate for credit, and the structural power to decide who saw what, when.
For a deeper look at how workplace categories and institutional gatekeeping limit career advancement, explore how women often get locked into narrow professional roles in this podcast's related investigation.
Why does doing excellent work behind the scenes not automatically lead to recognition and promotion?
Senior leadership often only sees the final PowerPoint, not the disaster you prevented, the employee you stopped from quitting, or the six months you spent…
What is Hedy Lamarr's contribution to wireless communication technology and how was it recognized?
During World War II, Hedy Lamarr worked with composer George Antheal on a frequency hopping system for radio-controlled torpedoes that was patented in 1942…
How can workplace categories and reputation limit career advancement opportunities?
Once people categorize you professionally, your brain gets lazy and theirs do too —they stop seeing potential beyond what they already know. If you want to break free from that category, you cannot wait passively; you must actively provide evidence of the new capabilities you want to be known for, whether that's leadership, decision-making, handling conflict, or developing others.
The trap is real: you become known for one thing—the technical expert, the reliable operator, the specialist—and that label hardens into a ceiling. People's minds organize you into a box, and that cognitive shortcut becomes their default . They see you through that filter because it's efficient for their brains. Breaking out requires more than competence; it demands visibility and proof.
Waiting for someone to "discover" a hidden side of you does not work. You must take concrete action—volunteer for projects outside your category, offer ideas in meetings, step into leadership roles, and let people see you making decisions and handling real conflict. Each action is a data point that challenges the old story they told themselves about who you are.
As explored in this episode of Ordinary To Badass , this lesson emerges from studying how women like Oprah Winfrey and Ruth Bader Ginsburg navigated rigid perceptions and shifted how others saw them through deliberate action and ownership.
The category trap and how brains lock you in
The moment you accumulate enough evidence in one domain, people's brains move into a kind of holding pattern. Cognitive ease takes over —they have a filed-away mental image of you, and they stop updating it. This is not malice; it is how human brains work when information is already organized.
The cost is steep: that category becomes your ceiling for advancement. If you are labeled a specialist, you will not be seen as leadership material. If you are known as the person who keeps their head down, you will not be trusted with high-visibility decisions. The category itself, once solidified, shrinks your opportunities.
The only exit is active re-categorization. You must give them new evidence they cannot ignore . Taking on leadership projects, making bold contributions in meetings, and visibly handling tough situations are not career moves—they are reclassification campaigns. Each action rewrites the narrative about who you are and what you are capable of.
A deeper dive into how legendary women like Oprah built career leverage—and why simply being talented was not enough—is detailed in the full Ordinary To Badass podcast , which examines the strategic actions these leaders took to escape the constraints of others' expectations.
Moving from waiting to showing
Silence is the enemy of reinvention. Sitting quietly and hoping someone will spot your hidden talents is a losing strategy— busy people are not hunting for undiscovered potential in their colleagues . They are managing their own work, and their mental models of you are set.
Visibility is the currency. When you volunteer for stretch assignments, people see you in a new role. When you contribute ideas boldly in meetings, they hear a different voice. When you step into conflict and manage it well, they witness a capability they had not associated with you before. Each instance is a brick in a new wall.
The strategy is simple in concept but demands courage in practice: you must be willing to be seen doing things outside your category . Not perfectly. Not with years of prior experience. Just enough to show you are serious about the shift. That seriousness, repeated, begins to reshape how others perceive you.
Why is building career leverage more powerful than making yourself valuable to a single organization?
If you build all your value inside one system, one boss controls your opportunities, one organization controls your title, and one person controls whether you're ready. Career leverage—your knowledge, relationships, reputation, experience, ability to solve problems, communication skills, judgment, and body of work—belongs to you alone , not to any employer.
What Actually Stays with You
The fundamental question is this: if your title disappeared tomorrow, what would still belong to you? Organizations change. Bosses move on. Corporate structures reorganize. But the skills, relationships, and reputation you've built exist independently of any single institution.
Career leverage is built on assets you own outright —not credentials issued by someone else, not authority granted by a hierarchy. When you focus exclusively on being valuable to one organization, you're betting everything on that single relationship continuing. The moment it ends—through layoff, restructuring, or your own departure—you lose access to the titles, resources, and opportunities that organization controlled.
As Marie Sonneman explores in this episode , women who changed their fields—like Oprah Winfrey—understood this principle early. They didn't stop at being the best performer within someone else's system; they built ownership of their own career assets.
The Danger of Organizational Dependence
When a single boss controls whether you're "ready" for the next opportunity, when one organization controls your title, and when your prospects live entirely within one company's structure, you've surrendered leverage. Your advancement depends on someone else's decision , not on the value you've actually accumulated.
This is why two people with identical skills can have radically different career outcomes: one built relationships and reputation that transcend any single employer; the other kept all value locked inside an organizational system. The first person can move fluidly between opportunities. The second is trapped waiting for permission.
The podcast explores how strategic leaders navigate this dynamic, particularly women working in male-dominated environments where access to opportunity is already constrained.
Building Assets That Travel with You
Career leverage grows when you deliberately build assets that remain yours regardless of your employer: a network of people who know your work and trust your judgment, a reputation for solving specific problems, visible evidence of your accomplishments, expertise that's recognized outside your current workplace, and relationships with people who can open doors elsewhere.
Each skill you develop, each person you build a genuine relationship with, each problem you solve visibly—these compound into portable career capital that no organization can take away. They form the foundation of true professional independence.
"Being right and being influential are not the same thing. You can be 100% right and still persuade absolutely nobody."
Marie Sonneman — Leadership Coach and Law Enforcement Lieutenant. Sonneman teaches women in male-dominated environments how to build influence that transcends their current role or organization, drawing on her experience leading across law enforcement and her work coaching emerging leaders.
This insight connects directly to career leverage: being competent within one organization is not the same as building career assets that give you options. Influence and visibility that extend beyond your immediate workplace create leverage. The full episode details how Oprah Winfrey's strategic move from employee to producer-owner in 1986 exemplifies this shift—she transformed from having value within a system to owning the system itself.
Titles and organizational authority disappear when you leave; career leverage—knowledge, relationships, reputation, and problem-solving ability—stays with you for life.
Building value solely within one organization means one person controls your opportunities, limiting your real career options.
Career leverage is built through portable assets: genuine relationships, visible accomplishments, recognized expertise, and a reputation that extends beyond your current employer.
The most powerful career moves involve shifting from being valuable within someone else's system to owning your own platform and opportunities.
How did Oprah Winfrey build career leverage beyond simply being talented and valuable?
Oprah moved from being the talent working inside somebody else's machine to becoming an owner through Harpo Productions . By gaining production control over her show, she transformed her relationship with her employer and built leverage that gave her options beyond dependence on one boss or organization.
The shift from employee to owner fundamentally changed how Oprah negotiated her power. When Marie Sonneman explores this strategy in the episode , she emphasizes that Oprah's move was deliberate: she didn't wait to be handed control—she built the infrastructure to gain it. Talent alone gets you a paycheck. Ownership gets you leverage.
Control over the product itself
The critical move was gaining control over production , not just performance. Oprah didn't just deliver her talent to a network; she controlled what was being made, how it was made, and who profited from it. This distinction matters because it means she wasn't replaceable in the same way a talent confined to performance would be.
By owning Harpo Productions, Oprah changed the entire dynamic of her career negotiations. She had options. She could take the show elsewhere, control its quality, and determine its future. A network couldn't simply swap her out without losing the property itself. This is how the podcast illustrates career leverage in practice —not through scarcity of talent, but through control of an asset.
This strategy reveals why many talented people never build lasting power: they remain replaceable. Oprah built a moat around her influence by being not just irreplaceable talent, but the owner of the enterprise that delivered the talent. When the Oprah Winfrey Show went national in 1986, she had already begun structuring ownership that would define her decades of influence to come.
The leverage cascade
Ownership created options, and options created leverage in every subsequent negotiation. Once you own the product, you can negotiate from a position of control. You're not asking permission; you're making decisions. This shift applies beyond Oprah's specific story, as discussed in this leadership podcast , to anyone building a career—whether in corporate roles, creative fields, or entrepreneurship.
The lesson isn't that everyone must start a production company. It's that building control over a key asset or outcome generates leverage that can't be taken away by a single boss or organization. That might mean owning intellectual property, building a client base, controlling a process, or developing unique domain expertise tied to an outcome you own.
What is the difference between having a strong argument and being able to influence decision-makers at work?
Being right and being influential are not the same thing. You can be 100% correct and still persuade absolutely nobody. The key is to stop leading with your own needs—like saying you're understaffed—and instead identify what your decision-maker actually cares about, then frame your argument with specific data around their priorities, whether that's overtime costs, customer complaints, missed deadlines, liability, or staff turnover.
From Facts to Influence: The Reframing Strategy
The gap between logical correctness and real-world persuasion lies in audience alignment . Your boss or stakeholder operates within a set of constraints, metrics, and priorities that may have nothing to do with your department's internal problems. When you walk in with "we need more people," you're speaking to yourself, not to them.
Instead, you must reverse-engineer their concerns. Are they worried about labor law violations? Mention liability exposure. Focused on quarterly revenue targets? Show how staffing gaps translate to missed deadlines or lost customer retention. This approach is detailed throughout the Ordinary To Badass episode , where the host explores how historical figures like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Oprah Winfrey, and Hedy Lamarr didn't simply argue their positions—they strategically chose how to present them.
Specificity and data are essential. Vague requests are easy to dismiss. Instead, bring numbers: "Our three-person team is working 15 hours of overtime weekly. At our current billing rate, that's $2,400 in uncompensated labor costs. Adding one junior role would reduce overtime by 60% and improve project turnaround time by two weeks, directly supporting the Q4 client retention goal."
The shift from "being right" to "being influential" requires empathy for the person making the decision, not frustration with their apparent blindness to your problem. As explored in this podcast , influence is a skill—one that can be learned and practiced just like any other professional capability.
The Historical Evidence: Strategy Over Righteousness
Women leaders throughout history have understood this principle. When Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued sex discrimination cases before an all-male Supreme Court in the 1970s, she didn't lead with moral outrage. Instead, as the episode illustrates , she brought cases involving men harmed by gender bias laws—shifting the frame to align with the justices' existing legal reasoning and values, making her argument irrefutable on their own terms.
Hedy Lamarr's frequency-hopping patent, filed in 1942, wasn't rejected because the technology was flawed—it was sidelined because the inventor lacked the credibility network to persuade military decision-makers. Influence isn't always about having the right idea; it's about having the right messenger and the right frame for your audience.
"Being right and being influential are not the same thing. You can be 100% right and still persuade absolutely nobody."
Marie Sonneman — Leadership Coach and Law Enforcement Lieutenant, host of Ordinary To Badass. Sonneman specializes in helping women in male-dominated fields develop the strategic communication and influence skills needed to lead effectively without sacrificing authenticity.
If you want to dive deeper into how to read your audience and choose your approach based on their specific pressures, the full episode explores real-world examples of women who changed the room—not just because they were right, but because they knew how to make their case heard.
Correctness alone does not move decision-makers; alignment with their priorities does.
Identify what your stakeholder actually cares about—cost, risk, compliance, revenue—before building your pitch.
Support your argument with specific data tied to their metric: overtime costs, customer impact, missed deadlines, or retention numbers.
Influence is a learned skill, not a personality trait—it requires empathy for the other person's constraints and objectives.
How did Ruth Bader Ginsburg use strategic audience understanding to influence an all-male Supreme Court on gender discrimination cases?
Ginsburg didn't argue gender discrimination only from women's perspectives—she brought cases involving men harmed by discriminatory laws, letting an all-male bench experience bias from a direction they could personally understand . The strategy worked: the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Stephen Weisensfeld, whose wife died during childbirth, in a landmark case that advanced gender equality through the justices' own lived recognition of injustice.
Ginsburg's approach reveals a fundamental principle of persuasion: being right and being influential are not the same thing. An advocate can hold the strongest legal argument imaginable and still fail to move a decision-maker who cannot see themselves in the problem. The Weisensfeld case showed that sometimes the most powerful way to change a room is to reframe the issue so decision-makers see their own interests at stake .
When Ginsburg argued before the Supreme Court in the 1970s, she faced a structural barrier: nine male justices with no lived experience of gender discrimination as women experience it. Rather than accept this as an insurmountable obstacle, as described in this episode on leadership strategy , she strategically selected cases where men were the direct victims of gender-based laws. The case of Weisensfeld, a man denied Social Security survivors' benefits because those benefits were designed to favor widows over widowers, gave the justices a concrete human story—a grieving father fighting for his right to care for his child without bureaucratic punishment.
This wasn't about watering down the feminist argument or abandoning women's equality. Instead, Ginsburg recognized that unanimous support from an all-male court was worth more than a divided ruling with ideological allies . By choosing cases where men were harmed, she demonstrated that gender discrimination laws hurt the entire system of justice, not just one group. The unanimity of the Weisensfeld ruling sent a powerful message: this was not a partisan issue, but a matter of constitutional principle.
The deeper lesson, explored more broadly in this discussion of women who changed entire rooms , is that strategic audience understanding requires ego to take a back seat. Ginsburg could have insisted on making every case about women's suffering and women's rights—a morally sound position. Instead, she chose the harder path: understanding what language, what evidence, what human story would actually move her specific audience. That flexibility didn't compromise her goal; it accelerated it.
Meeting decision-makers where they can hear you
Ginsburg's Weisensfeld strategy illustrates why knowing your audience's psychology matters as much as knowing the law . A justice required to rule on abstract principles of equality might find reasons to distinguish or delay. But a justice confronted with a sympathetic man denied rights because of his gender cannot hide behind ideology—he must either rule fairly or explain why one form of discrimination is acceptable.
This principle extends beyond the courtroom. In the broader episode , the host connects this to how leaders can influence teams, organizations, and systems that may initially seem resistant. The common thread is the same: frame your argument in terms your audience already cares about , not only in terms you wish they cared about. Ginsburg cared passionately about women's equality; she won by framing it as justice and fairness for all.
"Being right and being influential are not the same thing. You can be 100% right and still persuade absolutely nobody."
Marie Sonneman — Leadership Coach & Law Enforcement Lieutenant, host of Ordinary To Badass, exploring the gap between having correct arguments and moving hearts and minds.
Ginsburg brought cases where men were harmed by gender discrimination laws, reframing the issue so male justices could see themselves in the injustice.
The Weisensfeld case achieved unanimous Supreme Court support by demonstrating that discriminatory laws hurt the entire justice system, not just one group.
Strategic audience understanding means framing your argument in language and evidence your decision-maker already values, not just in terms you believe are most important.
Being factually and morally right is necessary but not sufficient—influence requires meeting people where they can hear you.
How can someone identify that they are ready for a promotion even when they doubt themselves?
Self-doubt does not mean you are not ready. Look for external signals: your boss actively encouraging you to apply, receiving responsibilities others are not getting, and genuine support from coworkers . These indicators matter far more than your internal confidence level.
Most people wait until a promotion opening appears before they begin preparing. By then, it is already too late. The real preparation happens months in advance—when you are taking on tasks others are not, when your boss is nudging you toward advancement, and when your team is rooting for your success. These are the signs that count.
Self-doubt is remarkably common among capable professionals. As an example, Sheryl Sandberg did not feel qualified for her role when she first took it on—yet her family members pushed her to pursue it anyway, and she became one of the most recognized leaders in tech. Her internal doubt bore no relationship to her actual readiness.
Your boss's encouragement is the clearest signal
When your supervisor is actively encouraging you to apply for a promotion, they see something you may not see in yourself. They work with you daily and understand your capabilities. That encouragement is not casual—it is evidence. A boss who invests time in pushing you forward has already assessed your readiness; they are not wasting effort on someone unprepared.
This signal often appears before the job opens publicly, as discussed in detail across the Ordinary To Badass podcast episodes on promotion strategy . Pay attention to whether your leadership is giving you extra visibility, assigning you stretch projects, or having conversations about your career path. These are the moments that matter.
You are receiving responsibilities others are not
If you are given tasks or projects that your peers at your current level do not receive, your organization is testing you for the next level. This informal trial run is how organizations quietly prepare people for promotion . You are not imagining it—management is intentionally seeing if you can handle more.
These expanded responsibilities often come without an official title change or fanfare. But they are real tests of whether you belong in a higher role. If you are consistently trusted with work above your current pay grade, that is a concrete indicator that readiness is already present.
Coworker support tells you something about your impact
When colleagues are encouraging you to go for a promotion, they are reflecting back what they see: your competence, your reliability, your worth to the team. This peer validation is especially significant because it comes with no agenda —they are not trying to advance you for their benefit; they simply see that you belong at the next level.
Before you apply, listen for this encouragement. Do teammates ask you for advice? Do they speak up for you in meetings? Do they suggest you should be in the running? These signals often arrive before you even consider applying. As Marie Sonneman explains in the episode , the people around you frequently recognize your readiness before you do.
"If you spend this whole time getting all your ducks in a row and getting ready and talking to mentors and getting this training that you need, that is what makes you the obvious choice for a promotion."
Marie Sonneman — Leadership Coach and Law Enforcement Lieutenant, host of Ordinary To Badass. Sonneman combines frontline experience from law enforcement with executive coaching expertise to help professionals navigate career advancement and workplace challenges. She hosts regular live sessions on workplace leadership and the often-overlooked dynamics of promotion readiness.
Preparation is the bridge between doubt and confidence. You do not need to feel certain about your readiness—you need evidence of it. The evidence comes from what others see in you, not from how you feel about yourself. When your boss believes in you, when your work demonstrates growth, and when your peers support your advancement, that is your readiness made visible.
One detail that often goes overlooked: the host addresses a striking gender gap in promotion confidence , noting that men tend to apply for promotions when they feel approximately 60% ready, while women often wait until they feel 80–90% ready. This gap rarely reflects actual readiness—it reflects confidence patterns. Knowing this pattern can help you recognize whether self-doubt is a real barrier or simply a familiar habit.
Your boss actively encouraging you to apply is a clear sign of readiness, regardless of how you feel internally.
Receiving responsibilities others at your level do not receive signals that management is preparing you for advancement.
Peer support and encouragement from colleagues reflect genuine recognition of your capability and impact.
Self-doubt is common even among highly qualified professionals and does not indicate lack of readiness.
What should you do if a promotion opens up before you feel ready?
The host advises going for it anyway, arguing that applying early still provides valuable experience and puts candidates ahead of those who have not…
Should you apply for a promotion even if you do not meet 100% of the qualifications?
Yes — the host emphasizes that not meeting 100% of listed qualifications should not disqualify a candidate from applying, unless requirements are strictly…
How can someone build a mentor relationship without formally asking someone to be their mentor?
Instead of the awkward direct ask, request advice from a respected colleague on a specific topic, implement that advice, then circle back to tell them how it worked—using the formula "you said X, I did Y, and it resulted in Z." People naturally want to invest in ambitious individuals who listen and act on guidance, which builds a genuine mentor-type relationship organically.
The Three-Step Formula That Works
The traditional approach of formally asking someone to be your mentor can feel uncomfortable for both parties. Marie Sonneman recommends a low-pressure alternative that lets the relationship develop through action : ask a respected colleague for their input on a challenge or skill gap, actually implement their suggestion, and then report back on the outcome.
This cycle works because it demonstrates two qualities mentors look for in mentees. First, you show you're willing to listen and act —not just collect advice passively. Second, you close the loop by reporting results, which gives the mentor concrete proof that their guidance had real impact.
Why Ambitious People Attract Mentors
The hidden advantage of this approach is that people are naturally drawn to helping those who take action . When someone implements your suggestion and comes back with a success story, you feel invested in their growth. You've already seen them execute once, which removes doubt about whether they're serious.
As explored in the episode , this dynamic is especially powerful for women building leadership networks, because it sidesteps the formal power dynamic that can feel intimidating. Instead of asking for a relationship, you're asking for expertise—which is far easier to grant.
The three-part cycle—seek input, implement, report back—repeats naturally. Each iteration deepens the relationship without either party ever needing to label it as "mentorship." Marie Sonneman discusses how this mirrors her broader framework for career advancement, which emphasizes strategic relationship-building months before a promotion even opens.
"If you spend this whole time getting all your ducks in a row and getting ready and talking to mentors and getting this training that you need, that is what makes you the obvious choice for a promotion."
Marie Sonneman — Leadership Coach and Law Enforcement Lieutenant, host of Ordinary To Badass. Sonneman combines her experience as a law enforcement officer with career coaching to help women navigate workplace dynamics and prepare for advancement. Her approach emphasizes the importance of early, deliberate preparation and authentic relationship-building as cornerstones of career success.
The mentorship-through-action model fits into a larger preparation timeline covered in detail on the podcast : candidates should begin building relationships and seeking guidance six to twelve months before a promotion is expected to open. This gives you time to gather advice, implement changes, and demonstrate growth before the actual opportunity arrives.
What should a promotion candidate do in the six to twelve months before a promotion opens?
Candidates should strategize their timeline by identifying missing skills, pursuing relevant training such as LinkedIn Learning courses or certifications,…
At what percentage of readiness do men versus women typically apply for promotions?
Men typically apply for a promotion when they feel approximately 60% ready, while women tend to wait until they feel 80 to 90% ready. This readiness gap directly undermines women's career progression and advancement opportunities.
The confidence gap that holds women back
This disparity reveals a fundamental confidence gap between genders when it comes to career advancement. Women's tendency to wait longer before applying isn't about lacking qualifications—it's about how they perceive their own readiness compared to men's self-assessment.
As Marie Sonneman explains in Ordinary To Badass , this hesitation costs women real opportunities. When a woman waits until she feels 80–90% ready, she's often already overqualified for the role. Meanwhile, a man who applies at 60% readiness moves forward with the same or greater actual capability—he's simply more willing to take the leap.
The host argues that feeling 60% ready likely means being closer to 80 or 90% ready in reality. The gap isn't about actual competence; it's about perception and willingness to take calculated risks.
Why preparation matters more than waiting
Rather than waiting until you feel "completely ready," the real strategy is to prepare strategically, as detailed in the Badass Promotion Blueprint . The host recommends starting preparation six to twelve months before a promotion is expected to open—not after it's announced.
This proactive approach flips the equation: instead of waiting until you meet every single criterion, you identify gaps early and close them deliberately. As discussed in this podcast , the women who advance are those who begin building their readiness long before the opportunity appears, then apply with confidence at the right moment—not when they've checked every box.
"If you spend this whole time getting all your ducks in a row and getting ready and talking to mentors and getting this training that you need, that is what makes you the obvious choice for a promotion."
Marie Sonneman — Leadership Coach and Law Enforcement Lieutenant. Sonneman hosts Ordinary To Badass, a leadership podcast focused on empowering women to advance in their careers and step into authentic leadership roles.
What is the H-P-B method for evaluating promotion readiness?
The H-P-B method involves reviewing each knowledge, skill, and ability listed in a job announcement and marking it with an H if you have it, a P if you can…
How should candidates use a job announcement to prepare for a promotion?
Read the full job announcement from top to bottom — every qualification, every preferred experience, every Knowledge, Skill, and Ability (KSA) listed. Then map your own background directly onto those requirements, and pinpoint what you bring that no other candidate does. The announcement is not just a checklist: it tells you exactly what problem the organization is trying to solve, and your job is to show you are the solution.
The job announcement already contains the answer — most candidates just don't read it carefully enough
A job announcement is a precise brief from the hiring panel. It names the qualifications they require, the experience they prefer, and the competencies they expect. Yet most candidates skim it once and move on to polishing their résumé.
Marie Sonneman, host of Ordinary To Badass , is direct about this: the announcement tells you exactly what the panel needs. Your entire preparation should be organized around those signals — not around what you happen to find easy to talk about.
Reading for the problem the role is meant to solve is especially important. Every open position exists because something needs fixing, improving, or scaling. Candidates who address that underlying need — not just the listed bullet points — stand out immediately.
From matching requirements to owning your differentiator
Once you have matched your experience to each requirement in the announcement, the real work begins: identifying what only you bring. Every competitive candidate will check most of the boxes. The question is what your specific background, context, or perspective adds that theirs does not.
This is a core step in the Badass Promotion Blueprint, the six-step framework Sonneman teaches — and it applies whether you are in law enforcement (where candidates often cannot even apply until five years into the role) or in any other field. The announcement gives you the target; your differentiator is what makes you the right shot.
As Sonneman explains in episode 453 of Ordinary To Badass , this level of deliberate preparation is also what closes the confidence gap. Research shows women tend to wait until they feel 80–90% ready before applying, while men apply at roughly 60% readiness. Doing the work of matching your experience to the announcement — concretely, on paper — builds the evidence-based confidence that makes applying feel justified.
KSAs — Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities
KSAs are the specific competencies listed in a formal job announcement to define what the role requires. In structured hiring processes — especially in government and law enforcement — candidates are often evaluated directly against each KSA. Identifying and documenting your evidence for each one is a core part of the application strategy covered in Ordinary To Badass . "If you spend this whole time getting all your ducks in a row and getting ready and talking to mentors and getting this training that you need, that is what makes you the obvious choice for a promotion."
Marie Sonneman — Leadership Coach & Law Enforcement Lieutenant, Ordinary To Badass
Sonneman is a working law enforcement lieutenant who built the Ordinary To Badass podcast around one premise: women don't need to wait for permission to step into leadership. Through the Badass Promotion Blueprint and her Sundays with a Supervisor Instagram Live series, she translates frontline management experience into actionable career strategy for women navigating workplace advancement.
When is the biggest mistake people make when preparing for a promotion?
Most people start preparing for a promotion once a job opening is announced or they hear someone is retiring. According to the host, by that point it is…
