Latest / New Manager Conversations with Fexingo: First 90 Days, Managing Former Peers, and Leadership Basics / How New Managers Measure Psychological Safety
Transcript
- Lucas: Most new managers walk into their first leadership role thinking that if everyone is polite, no one is complaining, and deadlines are met, they are doing a great job. But there is a dangerous gap between surface-level compliance and actual psychological safety, and bridging that gap is what separates managers who retain top talent from those who slowly watch them check out. Luna: Right, because silence is rarely agreement. It is usually just the sound of people deciding that speaking up isn't worth the energy anymore. Lucas: Exactly. And here is the thing we need to address right now before we get too deep into the mechanics: if today was actually useful to you, the way these stay ad-free is listener support. You can buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo — that's F. E. X. I. N. G. O. It helps keep the research sharp and the conversations honest. Luna: Yeah, and thanks for that. Because when you are trying to fix team dynamics, having accurate data matters more than ever. Lucas: So let us look at the specific problem. When a new manager takes over a team of former peers, they inherit existing social contracts. People have learned how to navigate the old boss. Now, suddenly, the rules change, but nobody tells anyone else what the new rules actually are. So what happens? They revert to what is safe. And in most corporate environments, safe means quiet. Luna: I have seen this happen in marketing teams where the new manager is so eager to prove she knows everything that she dominates the conversation, leaving zero room for others to test the waters. Lucas: That is a classic error. But it is not always about domination. Sometimes it is about ambiguity. If a manager says, 'I want open feedback,' but then reacts defensively when someone points out a flaw in the quarterly plan, the team learns very quickly that open feedback is a trap. So they stop offering it. They start offering polished opinions instead. Luna: Polished opinions are much easier to disagree with later, which makes the manager look even less vulnerable. It becomes this self-reinforcing loop of surface-level harmony. Lucas: Precisely. And the metric that fails here is usually satisfaction surveys. By the time you send out an annual engagement survey, the damage is already done. You are measuring history, not current reality. You need to measure psychological safety in real-time through behavior, not sentiment. Luna: So how do you actually measure something as intangible as safety? You cannot just ask people if they feel safe, because they will lie to be polite. Lucas: You observe the ratio of dissent to agreement in low-stakes situations. Look at your weekly stand-ups or planning sessions. Are people building on each other's ideas, or are they waiting for you to speak before they offer theirs? If everyone waits for the manager's cue, that is a high-risk signal. It suggests they view the manager as the sole source of truth rather than a facilitator of ideas. Luna: That makes sense. It is like checking if the air is breathable before you start running a marathon. If the oxygen levels are low, no amount of training will help. Lucas: Great analogy. Another indicator is how errors are handled. When a mistake happens, does the team immediately look for who caused it, or do they look at what process failed? A team with low psychological safety engages in blame attribution. A team with high psychological safety engages in process analysis. As a new manager, your reaction to the first error sets the tone for the next ten. Luna: So if someone misses a deadline, do you ask why they missed it, or do you ask what blocked them? Lucas: Ask what blocked them. That shifts the locus of control from individual failure to systemic friction. It invites honesty. If you ask why they missed it, you invite defensiveness. Defensiveness kills psychological safety faster than anything else. Luna: But what if the person actually was negligent? Do you still ignore the individual accountability aspect? Lucas: No, you separate the investigation from the consequence. First, understand the blockage. Was there a resource issue? A communication breakdown? Once you understand the system, then you address the human element. But you never start with the accusation. Starting with the accusation puts the brain into fight or flight mode, and people in fight or flight mode do not share information. They hide it. Luna: So the goal is to make the environment predictable enough that people don't have to guess what the emotional cost of speaking up will be. Lucas: Yes. Predictability reduces cognitive load. When my team knows exactly how I will react to bad news, they bring it to me sooner. Bad news travels fast in a safe environment. Bad news travels forever in an unsafe one, because people try to bury it until it is too late to fix. Luna: That brings up another point. What about remote teams? How do you read body language when half your team is on mute and turned off? Lucas: You rely on asynchronous signals. Look at your chat logs. Are people replying with brief acknowledgments, or are they adding context? Are they using emojis to soften messages, or is the tone strictly transactional? In remote settings, psychological safety often manifests in the willingness to type out longer, more nuanced responses rather than just hitting reply-all with a thumbs-up. Luna: I notice that when I am unsure about a direction, I tend to send shorter, vaguer messages. It is almost like a defense mechanism to avoid looking incompetent. Lucas: That is a very common pattern. And as a manager, you need to reward the vulnerability of asking questions. If someone sends a long, detailed question that reveals they are struggling, thank them publicly for the clarity. Show the rest of the team that asking for help is a strength, not a weakness. Luna: Does that create a risk of dependency? Like, do people start asking obvious questions just to get praise? Lucas: It can, if you are not careful. But the key is to praise the intent and the detail, not just the act of asking. If the question is obvious, you answer it privately and gently. You do not shame them in public. Public shaming is the nuclear option of destroying psychological safety. Luna: So you are essentially teaching them how to be vulnerable at the right level of intimacy with the work. Lucas: Exactly. There is a concept called 'constructive conflict.' Teams with high psychological safety argue about ideas, not people. If a debate stays focused on the merit of the proposal, that is healthy. If it starts to include personal attacks or dismissive language, that is a boundary violation that needs immediate correction. Luna: How do you correct that in the moment without shutting down the debate entirely? Lucas: You pause the meeting. You say, 'Let's step back. We are focusing on the person now, not the problem. Let's return to the data.' It is a firm, neutral intervention. It shows the team that you are monitoring the quality of interaction, not just the output. Luna: That requires a lot of emotional discipline from the manager. You have to suppress the urge to just let it go if it doesn't seem like a big deal. Lucas: It does. And that is why new managers struggle. They think they are being nice by letting small slights slide. But every time you let a slight slide, you normalize disrespect. You teach the team that standards are flexible. Flexibility is good for processes; it is terrible for culture. Luna: So consistency is actually kinder than niceness in this context? Lucas: Consistency creates trust. Niceness creates confusion. When your team knows exactly where the line is, they feel safe operating within it. They know you won't explode over a minor error, but they also know you won't tolerate chronic disregard for norms. Luna: This sounds like a lot of active management. Is there a way to automate some of this monitoring? Lucas: Not really. Psychological safety is a human metric, not a technical one. However, you can create structures that make it easier. For example, use anonymous polling for sensitive topics during large meetings. Or implement a 'round robin' format where everyone must speak in turn, preventing dominant voices from crowding out quieter ones. Luna: The round robin approach is interesting. It forces participation, but does it force genuine contribution or just noise? Lucas: It forces presence. And presence is the first step toward contribution. Once people are in the room, metaphorically or literally, you can coach them on how to contribute meaningfully. Silence gives you nothing to work with. Noise gives you material to shape. Luna: So you trade the risk of awkwardness for the certainty of engagement? Lucas: Exactly. Awkwardness is temporary. Disengagement is permanent. You want to manage the awkwardness. You want to make sure people feel seen, even if their first few contributions are rough. Luna: What about the manager who thinks they are building safety by being super friendly? Like, bringing in donuts and chatting about weekends? Lucas: That is social bonding, not psychological safety. Social bonding is nice, but it is superficial. Psychological safety is about professional risk-taking. You can have a fun team that is terrified of failing. You can have a serious team that trusts each other deeply. The two are not correlated. Focus on the work, not the snacks. Luna: That is a hard pill to swallow for managers who equate popularity with effectiveness. Lucas: It is. And that is why the first ninety days are critical. You have to establish the contract early. Tell your team explicitly: 'My job is to remove obstacles, not to dictate solutions. I expect you to challenge me when I am wrong. I expect you to flag risks early. That is the only way we win.' Luna: And then you have to prove it every single time someone tests that boundary. Lucas: Every single time. One slip, and the whole structure collapses. But once it holds, it becomes the invisible infrastructure of your team's success. People work harder, smarter, and longer for a team where they feel safe. Luna: It transforms the workplace from a place of survival to a place of growth. Lucas: It does. And that is the ultimate ROI for a new manager. Not just hitting the quarterly number, but building a team that can sustain that performance without burning out. Luna: So the question for listeners this week is not just 'Am I managing well?' but 'Do my people feel safe enough to tell me when I am not?' Lucas: That is the litmus test. If they do, you are doing better than you think. If they don't, you have work to do, starting with your own ego.