u/pinkspellme

I work in a creative/brand team. I was hired directly by the VP, and about a month after I joined, a colleague was promoted to Brand Director and became my manager. This was not explained when I was hired, and the operating model has felt unclear ever since.
The whole team is based in one country, while my manager works remotely from another. I know remote management can work, but in this case it seems to add distance and make the flow less direct.
In practice, the VP, agencies, and other teams often come directly to me for creative direction, reviews, storyboards, urgent feedback, and strategic work. On several major projects, I have managed the creative side independently and the work has been well received.
The issue is that my manager seems to manage me differently from other people in the team.
When she receives requests, she often keeps me off the original thread, forwards the task separately, replies to stakeholders herself, and remains the gatekeeper between me and the people I need to work with. She decides who I speak to and when.
But when the VP or other teams contact me directly, she wants to know who contacted me, asks to be copied, or wants to be added after the work has already started. She does not seem to apply this consistently to other colleagues.
There are two recent examples:

Example 01: An internal presentation was shared with me because the VP had asked someone to get my quick review. I had already provided feedback when my manager told me that the VP was apparently not expecting me to review it. When I said I had already seen it, she asked who had sent it to me. After learning that the VP had asked for my review, she joked that he had probably “spaced out” when she had asked him.

Example 02: On a separate project, the VP asked me to put her in the loop and show her the current progress and my comments. I asked him whether he wanted to transfer the feedback to the agency himself or wanted me to reply directly. He told me to reply directly, so I did and copied her.

The VP also does not naturally include her on every major project or event. (he does the same thinh with other directors within his team).
Sometimes she hears about a project through contacts in other departments, raises a concern around a small point, and then becomes part of the thread. I understand managers need visibility, but it feels like a repeated pattern: the work is already moving, she enters late, gives limited feedback, and then becomes associated with the outcome.

There is also a workload issue. Another designer is meant to support me, but my manager has assigned him to execute presentation work instead. That work is moving slowly, and the VP has started asking about delays. From where I sit, unclear ownership, too many handoffs, and gatekeeping are making things less efficient.

Our company is currently pushing simpler processes and fewer unnecessary approval layers. At the same time, our CCO has just left, there is an interim setup, and a new CCO may join later.
So the whole function feels politically and structurally ambiguous.

How would you interpret this? Is this normal manager visibility, or does it sound like someone trying to control access and claim visibility around work they are not actually leading?

I work in a creative/brand team. I was hired directly by the VP, and about a month after I joined, a colleague was promoted to Brand Director and became my manager. This was not explained when I was hired, and the operating model has felt unclear ever since.
The whole team is based in one country, while my manager works remotely from another. I know remote management can work, but in this case it seems to add distance and make the flow less direct.
In practice, the VP, agencies, and other teams often come directly to me for creative direction, reviews, storyboards, urgent feedback, and strategic work. On several major projects, I have managed the creative side independently and the work has been well received.
The issue is that my manager seems to manage me differently from other people in the team.
When she receives requests, she often keeps me off the original thread, forwards the task separately, replies to stakeholders herself, and remains the gatekeeper between me and the people I need to work with. She decides who I speak to and when.
But when the VP or other teams contact me directly, she wants to know who contacted me, asks to be copied, or wants to be added after the work has already started. She does not seem to apply this consistently to other colleagues.
There are two recent examples:

Example 01: An internal presentation was shared with me because the VP had asked someone to get my quick review. I had already provided feedback when my manager told me that the VP was apparently not expecting me to review it. When I said I had already seen it, she asked who had sent it to me. After learning that the VP had asked for my review, she joked that he had probably “spaced out” when she had asked him.

Example 02: On a separate project, the VP asked me to put her in the loop and show her the current progress and my comments. I asked him whether he wanted to transfer the feedback to the agency himself or wanted me to reply directly. He told me to reply directly, so I did and copied her.

The VP also does not naturally include her on every major project or event. (he does the same thinh with other directors within his team).
Sometimes she hears about a project through contacts in other departments, raises a concern around a small point, and then becomes part of the thread. I understand managers need visibility, but it feels like a repeated pattern: the work is already moving, she enters late, gives limited feedback, and then becomes associated with the outcome.

There is also a workload issue. Another designer is meant to support me, but my manager has assigned him to execute presentation work instead. That work is moving slowly, and the VP has started asking about delays. From where I sit, unclear ownership, too many handoffs, and gatekeeping are making things less efficient.

Our company is currently pushing simpler processes and fewer unnecessary approval layers. At the same time, our CCO has just left, there is an interim setup, and a new CCO may join later.
So the whole function feels politically and structurally ambiguous.

How would you interpret this? Is this normal manager visibility, or does it sound like someone trying to control access and claim visibility around work they are not actually leading?