Latest / New Manager Conversations with Fexingo: First 90 Days, Managing Former Peers, and Leadership Basics / How New Managers Build Decision Frameworks
Transcript
- Lucas: The hardest part about stepping into a new management role isn't learning the technology or mastering the spreadsheet models. It's realizing that every single day, you are being asked to make a choice where the right answer isn't obvious. When you were an individual contributor, you could just do the work. Now, you have to decide who does what, how much budget gets spent, and which ideas get killed. Luna: And the worst part is that your former peers can smell uncertainty. If you hesitate on a decision, they assume you don't know what you're doing, even if you're just weighing two equally valid options. Lucas: Exactly. That pressure creates a dangerous feedback loop. You start trying to please everyone, or worse, you start relying on gut feeling because it feels faster than analyzing data. But gut feeling is just intuition trained on your past experiences as a peer, not as a leader. And those experiences are biased by friendship, rivalry, and shared history. Luna: So the real trap isn't incompetence; it's invisibility. You're making decisions based on invisible criteria that no one else can see or challenge. Lucas: Right. And today, I want to talk about how to fix that by building explicit decision frameworks. Not complex flowcharts that take hours to draw, but simple, repeatable mental models that force you to slow down and articulate your logic before you commit. Because when you write down why you made a choice, you create accountability. You also give your team a map to understand your thinking, which builds trust faster than any team-building retreat ever could. Luna: I love that distinction between speed and clarity. Most new managers think they need to be fast to prove they're leaders, but actually, they need to be clear to prove they're reliable. Lucas: Precisely. Let's look at a common scenario. You have two senior engineers on your team. One is technically brilliant but difficult to work with. The other is average in skill but incredibly collaborative and mentors juniors well. You have one promotion slot open. As a former peer, you might feel an emotional pull toward the brilliant one because you respected their code during your own tenure there. But as a manager, your job is to incentivize behaviors that help the whole team grow. Luna: It's easy to romanticize the star performer when you miss working with them. But if promoting them destroys team cohesion, you've actually lowered your total output. Lucas: That's the hidden cost. So, instead of asking yourself 'Who do I like more?' or 'Who did better last quarter?', you need a framework. I call this the Impact Versus Influence Matrix. On one axis, you measure technical impact—what did they actually deliver? On the other, you measure influence—how did their behavior affect the people around them? Luna: It forces you to quantify the soft skills. You can't just say 'he's nice.' You have to point to specific instances where his collaboration accelerated a project or prevented a bug. Lucas: Exactly. And once you score both, the decision becomes mechanical rather than emotional. If the collaborative engineer scores high on both axes, they win. If the brilliant engineer only scores high on impact but low on influence, you have a clear conversation about development areas. You aren't rejecting them personally; you're evaluating them against a standard. Luna: That shifts the dynamic entirely. It moves the conflict from 'you vs me' to 'the criteria vs the candidate.' It depersonalizes the outcome. Lucas: It does. And this works for other types of decisions too. Take resource allocation. You have limited budget for training or tools. Do you give it to the person who asks loudest, or the person whose role aligns with the company's strategic goals for next year? Without a framework, you tend to reward volume and urgency, not value. Luna: Urgency is always loud. Value is often quiet until it's too late. So how do you actually build these frameworks without over-engineering your daily workflow? Lucas: You start small. Pick one recurring decision type that stresses you out. Is it assigning tasks? Is it approving time off? Is it prioritizing features? Write down the three questions you ask yourself before saying yes or no. For example, for task assignment: Does this person have the capacity? Does this task require their specific skill set? Will this assignment help them grow toward their next goal? Luna: That last question is crucial. It ties the operational decision back to career coaching, which we talked about in previous episodes, but here it's part of the decision filter itself. Lucas: Yes. It connects the dots. When you use that framework consistently, your team starts to notice. They stop guessing what you want and start aligning their proposals with your criteria. It makes your life easier because you spend less time negotiating and more time executing. Luna: There is a risk though. What if the framework feels too rigid? What if there's a unique situation that doesn't fit neatly into your matrix? Lucas: Good point. A framework is a starting point, not a cage. You should review your criteria quarterly. If you find yourself constantly bending the rules for one person, your framework is flawed. Maybe you're not weighting the right factors. Or maybe you're letting bias creep back in. The beauty of the written model is that it exposes those inconsistencies immediately. Luna: So the framework isn't just for you; it's a diagnostic tool for your own leadership habits. It shows you where your blind spots are. Lucas: Exactly. Now, let's pause for a moment. If we've helped you think through a career move or decision this week, consider supporting the show. A couple of dollars a month is genuinely what keeps these going — buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo, if you've gotten something out of them. That's F. E. X. I. N. G. O. It’s ad-free content built by listeners who value practical advice over hype. Luna: Thanks for keeping the signal to noise ratio high. It really matters when you're trying to cut through the clutter of generic management advice. Lucas: Back to the topic. Once you have these frameworks in place, the next step is communication. You need to share them with your team. Not all at once, but gradually. Start by explaining your reasoning in one-on-ones. 'I chose Project A for you because it aligns with your goal of learning Python, as we discussed.' Luna: That transparency is powerful. It stops the rumor mill. People hate uncertainty more than they hate bad news. If they understand the logic, they can accept the outcome even if it's not what they wanted. Lucas: Right. And it invites feedback. If someone disagrees with your framework, you can discuss it. 'Why do you think influence matters less than impact in this case?' It turns a directive into a dialogue. That’s how you build a culture of critical thinking rather than obedience. Luna: Obedience is fragile. Critical thinking is scalable. You can scale trust, but you can't scale control. Lucas: That's a great way to put it. Control requires you to be everywhere. Trust requires you to be clear. And clarity comes from structure. Another area where frameworks save you is in conflict resolution. When two team members disagree, don't just play referee. Ask them to present their cases using a standard format. What is the problem? What is the proposed solution? What are the risks? Who bears the cost? Luna: It stops emotions from derailing the meeting. You're focusing on the architecture of the argument, not the tone of voice. Lucas: Exactly. You become the arbiter of the process, not the judge of character. And over time, your team starts adopting that language themselves. You'll hear them say, 'What's the risk profile here?' or 'Who owns the downside?' You've embedded a management vocabulary into their daily speech. Luna: That’s the ultimate win. When they speak your language, they start thinking like leaders. You’re effectively multiplying your own brainpower across the team. Lucas: But remember, frameworks require maintenance. They aren't set-and-forget. Every six months, sit down with your direct reports and ask, 'Are our decision criteria still aligned with our goals?' Priorities shift. Markets change. Your team evolves. If you don't update the framework, it becomes a relic that slows you down instead of helping you. Luna: Stagnation is the enemy of good management. Even a simple checklist needs to be relevant to be useful. Lucas: Absolutely. I see so many new managers cling to the processes they used as contributors. But contributing is linear. Managing is multidimensional. You need tools that reflect that complexity. A decision framework is one of those tools. It doesn't make the decision for you, but it ensures you're making it for the right reasons. Luna: It also protects you. If things go wrong, you can look back at your documented reasoning. Was it a bad outcome from a good decision? Or was it a lucky outcome from a flawed assumption? That distinction is vital for learning. Lucas: Yes. And it separates you from managers who just guess. When you can articulate your logic, you command respect. Not because you're loud, but because you're consistent. Consistency breeds predictability, and predictability breeds psychological safety. Luna: Psychological safety allows people to take risks. And innovation requires risk. So the framework is actually an enabler of creativity, not a constraint. Lucas: That's the counterintuitive truth. Structure creates freedom. When you know the boundaries and the rules of engagement, you can focus your energy on the content of the work, not the politics of the decision. Luna: So my takeaway is: pick one decision type this week, write down your current implicit criteria, and then formalize them into three explicit questions. Test it. See if it helps. Lucas: Do exactly that. And share the results with your team. Watch how their behavior changes when they realize you're operating on a system, not on a whim. It transforms the relationship from reactive to proactive. Luna: From reactive to proactive. I like that. It puts you in the driver's seat rather than the passenger seat. Lucas: It does. The first ninety days are about establishing your rhythm. And if that rhythm is built on clear, repeated decision frameworks, you set a foundation that lasts far beyond the initial probation period. Luna: Here's to making choices that stick, not just choices that happen. Lucas: To clarity over speed. And to building systems that serve the team, not just the manager.