After promotion: building a relationship with your team

You have waited a long time for promotion. Now there is a new office, different authority and a wish to begin well: perhaps bringing pastries for colleagues on Monday. By lunchtime, few people have thanked you, and the first rule change meets resistance. It is easy to conclude that you have not been accepted. The team also needs time to understand the new situation.

Yesterday, you were colleagues with similar duties. Today, work allocation, evaluation and some decisions depend on you. Friendliness still matters, alongside clear rules through which people gradually learn what to expect.

Someone else may have wanted the role and feel disappointed. Others may worry about schedules or feel comfortable with change. Ask about expectations and concerns rather than assuming everyone is envious or waiting for a mistake.

Explain which decisions you now own, what you want to understand before changing things and when you will respond. Speak separately with a close friend on the team about work discussions, confidentiality and evaluation. Transparent criteria protect both people from a situation where friendship has to replace a working agreement.

A manager’s comment can affect whether someone raises a problem next time. Interrupting an uncomfortable question or joking about an error may communicate more than intended. Return to specific words, acknowledge their effect and explain how you want to act in future.

High standards can coexist with respect. Specify the expected result, available resources and review method. If work needs improving, show what is missing and leave room to discuss scope. Trust is easier to sustain when doubts and overload can be raised without humiliation.

Recall someone you learned with: a coach, teacher, colleague or someone close. Record several qualities and the actions through which you experienced them. Perhaps they reviewed work carefully, gave a demanding but manageable task or helped after a mistake.

Choose an action to bring into your own leadership. What would it look like at the next meeting? How will you know whether it helped? Ask an employee directly, leaving room to say the approach did not suit them.

Participation and unanimity are different conditions. Before discussion, explain who makes the final decision, what limits apply and what the team can influence. Some questions require agreement from everyone involved; others need consultation or prioritisation.

To rank several suitable options, try multivoting. Write options clearly, allow questions and additions, then agree on equal votes, such as three per person.

Each person distributes three marks: all on one option, two and one, or one each across three. Agree beforehand whether multiple votes for an option are allowed. For private choices, collect identically formatted sheets and count them after everyone finishes.

Show everyone the result. Resolve ties against agreed criteria or hold another round among tied options. Hear concerns about risk and feasibility: marks reveal preferences, while checking conditions informs a decision. Name the owner, next action and review date.

Seeing the Point, Jim Cain’s activity using geometric pieces, is a familiar example of exploring assumptions described by RSVP Design. In a version involving seven pieces and five arrows, four figures are assembled from pieces and another appears in the space between them. Running it requires the appropriate set and diagram; seven arbitrary paper scraps may not reproduce the task.

With a set available, give the group its exact instructions, time for an independent attempt and room to clarify rules. Afterwards, discuss assumed constraints, when they were checked and what helped reveal another arrangement. A solution using the gap changes how the materials are seen.

Bring this back to work specifically: which resources are genuinely missing, and which ways of organising them remain untested? A colleague’s doubt may reveal a habitual assumption or a real obstacle. Explore it rather than declaring that person responsible for possible failure.

Amy Edmondson’s study associated team psychological safety with learning behaviour. For a manager, this invites attention to whether people can ask questions, report mistakes and seek help. Clear standards and responsibility for agreements remain alongside that openness.

Make room for regular conversations: what worked, what is obstructing progress and what decision is needed from you? After your own error, show how you repair it. If you need support, find a mentor or colleague outside direct reporting lines with whom you can discuss decisions without disclosing others’ private information.

A journal or notebook can hold one conversation a day: what you meant, how it sounded and what you heard back. Over time, these episodes provide material for changing your leadership. A new role becomes clearer through consistent actions, agreements and willingness to review them.

RSVP Design: Jim Cain’s Seeing the Point. Amy Edmondson, 1999: Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams.