Latest / New Manager Conversations with Fexingo: First 90 Days, Managing Former Peers, and Leadership Basics / How New Managers Can Rebound From a Leadership Mistake
Transcript
- Lucas: So you're six weeks into your new manager role. You're in a sprint review, the team is present, and a junior engineer proposes something you know won't work. You cut them off—maybe a little too sharply—and explain why it's a bad idea. The room goes quiet. You see their face fall. And you realize: you've just made your first real leadership mistake. Luna: Oof. That specific scene—it's almost a rite of passage for new managers. I've heard variations of it many times. What comes next is the real test. Lucas: Exactly. And today we're going to walk through a real case. A product manager at a mid-size SaaS company—let's call her Priya—did exactly this in a sprint review. She dismissed a suggestion from a developer she used to be peers with. After the meeting, she knew she'd messed up. Luna: What did she do about it? Lucas: The first thing she did right: she didn't over-apologize in the moment. She didn't send a group apology email. Instead, she went to the developer one-on-one later that day, and said something like, 'I handled that poorly. Your idea had merit, and I should have taken the time to explain why I had concerns, not just shut it down.' She owned the behaviour, not her intent. Luna: That's key, right? Don't say 'I'm sorry you felt that way.' Say 'I messed up.' I think a lot of new managers default to explaining why they were right, which just makes it worse. Lucas: Absolutely. And the research backs that up. The Center for Creative Leadership has a well known model called the trust repair ratio. They found that it takes roughly two positive interactions to repair the trust lost from one negative one. But the catch is: those two positive interactions have to be genuine and relevant, not just small talk. Luna: So after the one-on-one, what's step two? Does Priya need to address the team? Lucas: She did. In the next sprint review, she started by saying, 'Last time I was too quick to dismiss an idea, and I want to model a better process. Going forward, if an idea comes up that I have concerns about, I'll say 'let's capture that and I'll share my reasoning after the meeting' rather than shutting it down.' That's a systemic fix. Luna: That's smart. She's not just apologizing—she's committing to a new behavior. And that behavior—the 'capture and defer' move—is something the whole team can hold her accountable to. Lucas: Right. And she went a step further. She created what she called a 'decision log'—a shared document where she would record decisions made in meetings, the reasoning behind them, and invite anyone to challenge the reasoning asynchronously. It turned a moment of defensiveness into a culture of transparency. Luna: I love that. Because often the real damage from a mistake like that is the chill it puts on future contributions. People stop speaking up. A decision log signals that you value input, even after the fact. Lucas: Exactly. And this is where the framework comes in. I think of it as the four Rs: Recognize, Repair, Rebuild, Reinforce. Recognize the mistake quickly and privately. Repair the relationship with the person most affected. Rebuild trust with the broader team through consistent, transparent behavior. And Reinforce by putting a system in place to prevent the same mistake. Luna: Let's talk about the Reinforce step. Is it always a decision log? Or are there other systems that work? Lucas: The decision log is just one example. Another common one is the 'pre-mortem'—before a project kicks off, the team lists everything that could go wrong. That surfaces concerns early, in a structured way. Or some managers institute a 'no interruption' rule in meetings: if someone is presenting an idea, you can't interrupt until they've finished. The point is to create a ritual that counteracts the instinct to shut things down. Luna: I want to push back on something, though. In the remote work era, where we spend most of our time on video calls, the public mistake feels even more exposed. And the one-on-one repair is harder to schedule. Do you think the same four Rs apply? Lucas: They do, but the execution is different. In a remote setting, the 'Recognize' step might need to happen over a direct message, not a hallway conversation. And the 'Repair' step—that one-on-one—should be a video call, not an email or Slack. You need to see their face, and they need to see yours. Tone is too easily misread in text. Luna: And what about the public repair? In the Priya case, she addressed it in the next sprint review. But in a remote world, do you do that in the same channel where the mistake happened? Lucas: I think you do. If the original mistake was in a team-wide Zoom meeting, the repair should be in the next team-wide Zoom meeting. If it was in a Slack thread, the repair can be a follow-up in that same thread. The key is to be visible in the same space where the trust was broken. Luna: That makes sense. The one thing I'd add is: don't let the mistake define you. I've seen new managers get so preoccupied with a single misstep that they become overly cautious and stop making decisions. That's almost worse. Lucas: That's a great point. The goal isn't to avoid mistakes entirely—that's impossible. It's to show that you can handle them with maturity. And here's a data point: according to a study by the Harvard Business Review, leaders who admit mistakes are perceived as more competent, not less. Because vulnerability signals confidence. Luna: Vulnerability as competence. That's a nice paradox. Lucas: It is. And if we've helped you think through a career move or a tricky management situation, that's exactly why we do this show. We deliberately keep it ad-free—no sponsors, no interruptions. If you want to support that choice, the link is buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. Luna: Yeah, it's a small gesture that makes a big difference. We appreciate everyone who's chipped in. Lucas: So back to the four Rs. Let's talk about the 'Rebuild' step more concretely. After Priya did the one-on-one and the public apology, she needed to demonstrate that she'd actually changed. So she started asking more questions in meetings. She would say, 'What am I missing?' or 'Help me understand the downside of my approach.' That signals humility. Luna: And that's the two positive interactions, right? Each time she does that, it's a deposit in the trust bank. Over time, the original mistake becomes a story about growth, not failure. Lucas: Exactly. And the final step—Reinforce—is where you lock in the learning. For Priya, the decision log became part of her team's workflow. She kept it up for months, and it evolved. Eventually, team members started adding their own decisions and reasoning. It became a knowledge base. Luna: So the mistake actually led to a process improvement that benefited everyone. That's the ideal outcome. Lucas: It is. And I think that's the takeaway for any new manager: your mistakes are not just setbacks—they're data. They tell you where your leadership blind spots are. If you address them transparently, you can turn a moment of failure into a foundation of trust. Luna: And it starts with the first step: actually recognizing you made a mistake. Which sounds easy, but for a lot of new managers, the ego gets in the way. Lucas: Especially when you're managing former peers. You feel like you have to project confidence. But the most confident thing you can do is say, 'I was wrong.' Luna: Alright, so to wrap up: the four Rs—Recognize, Repair, Rebuild, Reinforce. And the bonus lesson: don't try to be perfect. Be accountable. Lucas: Well said. For our listeners, if you've got a story about a leadership mistake that taught you something, we'd love to hear it. You can find us on the Fexingo network. Until next time.