Latest / New Manager Conversations with Fexingo: First 90 Days, Managing Former Peers, and Leadership Basics / How New Managers Fix Broken Team Dynamics
Transcript
- Lucas: Most people think the hardest part of becoming a manager is handling difficult individuals, but the real trap is usually the invisible architecture of the team itself. When you step into a role where everyone used to be your peer, you aren't just managing tasks; you are managing the social contract that dictates how they talk to each other. If that contract is broken, no amount of individual coaching will fix the output. Luna: Right, because if two senior engineers are actively sabotaging each other's code reviews, your one-on-one with Bob won't matter if Alice still feels threatened by him. It is systemic before it is personal. Lucas: Exactly. And this is where the donation segment fits perfectly, because keeping this show ad-free relies entirely on listener support. A small group of you chip in monthly through buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo, which literally funds the research and production so we can keep these conversations sharp and honest. It isn't a transaction, it is just sustaining the signal amidst the noise. Luna: Yeah, and I appreciate that transparency. It allows us to dive into the messy stuff without worrying about brand safety or sponsor constraints. So let's get back to that broken social contract. What does it actually look like in practice? Lucas: It looks like zero-sum games disguised as collaboration. I saw this recently with a mid-level operations team at a logistics firm that was trying to launch a new regional hub. On paper, they had clear goals. In reality, every department was hoarding information to make themselves indispensable. The data silos weren't technical; they were political. Luna: That is classic scarcity mindset. If they believe there is only one promotion track and limited resources, they have to win locally even if they lose globally. Lucas: Precisely. And the new manager inherited this dynamic because the previous leader was either too distant or too focused on individual stars to notice the friction. When Lucas took over that hypothetical scenario, he didn't start with performance reviews. He started with process mapping. He forced the team to map out every handoff between departments and explicitly wrote down who held the final decision right for each node. Luna: Oh, that is brutal but necessary. Because usually, people avoid writing things down because ambiguity protects them from accountability. Lucas: Spot on. Ambiguity is comfort for the status quo. By forcing clarity, Lucas exposed that three different people thought they owned the vendor selection process. Once that was out in the open, the tension shifted from passive-aggressive emails to actual negotiation. The manager then facilitated a single session where they agreed on a shared metric: time to market for the hub, not individual department efficiency. Luna: So he changed the incentive structure. Instead of rewarding speed within their own bubble, he rewarded speed across the whole chain. Lucas: He did. And here is the critical nuance. He didn't fire the most obstructive person. He made obstruction costly to their own reputation in front of peers. When you shift the norm from 'protecting my turf' to 'solving the bottleneck,' the high performers naturally gravitate toward being the connectors. The blockers either adapt or reveal themselves as cultural liabilities. Luna: I love that. It shifts the burden of proof onto the behavior, not the person. You aren't saying 'you are toxic.' You are saying 'this process fails.' It feels much safer for the team to engage. Lucas: It is safer because it is objective. But let's talk about the fear factor. New managers often worry that if they change the rules, they will seem arbitrary or power-tripping. How do you frame this reset without sounding like you are micromanaging? Luna: You frame it as clarification, not correction. You say, 'I want to make sure we are all aligned on who decides what, so we don't waste time guessing.' It positions you as a servant-leader removing friction, not a dictator imposing order. Lucas: That is a strong distinction. Servant leadership is a buzzword, but the mechanism is real. If you remove ambiguity, you reduce anxiety. People hate not knowing what is expected. When you provide clear decision rights, you give them permission to act. They stop waiting for your nod on every tiny thing. Luna: And that speeds up execution. Which brings us to another common pitfall. The new manager tries to fix everything at once. They rewrite the org chart, change the meeting cadence, and redefine the KPIs in week two. That causes chaos. Lucas: It creates whiplash. The best approach is the 'one big thing' rule. Pick the single most dysfunctional interaction and fix that first. In the logistics example, it was the vendor selection. Once they saw that fixing that one handoff saved them ten hours a week, trust in the new manager's judgment skyrocketed. Then you tackle the next layer. Luna: Small wins build credibility. Especially when you are former peers. They need proof that you see the system differently than they do, not just louder. Lucas: Right. And this ties back to the identity crisis many new managers face. They feel like they have to be the smartest person in the room again. But in a dysfunctional team, the smartest person is often the one enabling the dysfunction by doing everyone else's work to meet deadlines. Luna: Yes! The hero complex. You jump in to save the project, you look good, but the team learns nothing and remains dependent on you. It reinforces the very dependency that makes the team fragile. Lucas: So the manager has to be willing to let a small failure happen to expose the structural flaw. If the vendor selection drags on, let it drag on. Don't fix it yourself. Sit in the meeting and watch them struggle. Then ask, 'What blocked this? Was it a skill gap or a process gap?' Usually, it is the latter. Luna: That requires a lot of emotional stamina. Watching your team stumble is painful when you know exactly how to fix it. But holding back is the only way to force the system to self-correct. Lucas: It is painful, but it is necessary. And it signals that you are building capacity, not just delivering results. Over the long term, that builds a more resilient organization. You aren't just shipping a product; you are installing an operating system for how the team interacts. Luna: Which is exactly what separates a good manager from a great one. Anyone can hit a quarterly target by grinding the team hard. But a great manager leaves the team better structured than they found it. Lucas: I agree. And for those listening who are in their first ninety days, start by auditing your team's communication loops. Where is information getting stuck? Who is talking past each other? Map those frictions, define the decision rights, and align the incentives around the shared goal. It is unglamorous work, but it is the foundation of everything else. Luna: If you strip away the personality conflicts and look at the workflow, you often find the real problem is just a lack of clarity. Clear is kind. Unclear is unkind. Lucas: That is a great line to remember. Unclear is unkind. Because it forces people to guess, and guessing leads to errors and resentment. So, clarity is an act of respect. Luna: Absolutely. And it frees up mental energy for creative problem solving instead of political maneuvering. Lucas: So, as you move forward, ask yourself: is my team collaborating to beat the competition, or are they collaborating to protect their own positions? If it is the latter, you have some housekeeping to do before you can truly lead. Luna: And don't forget to check in with your own peers. Sometimes the dysfunction comes from above, and you need to align with your boss to get the resources or authority to fix it. Lucas: Good point. You cannot fix your team's dynamics in a vacuum. You need the air cover from your own leadership to enforce the new norms. It is a multi-layered game. Luna: True. It is never just about the direct reports. It is always about the ecosystem. Lucas: So, what is one friction point in your current team that you haven't addressed yet because you were afraid of the conversation? Is it a process gap or a relationship gap? Luna: I bet most listeners have a process gap hiding behind a relationship excuse. Identifying that difference is the first step to fixing it. Lucas: Exactly. Once you name it, you can solve it. Until then, it just drains energy. Thanks for listening, and keep building systems that make good behavior easy.