Start listening from day one. Bring the team together once there is enough shared experience to make the conversation meaningful.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n During a recent two-day leadership offsite I facilitated, one word kept returning: together<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The team wanted clearer direction, sharper priorities and stronger collaboration. Alongside questions about roles and responsibilities were concerns about trust, belonging and whether things would actually change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These conversations deserve early attention. Without a deliberate reset, unresolved frustrations and familiar habits can shape the new chapter before the team has agreed what that chapter should look like.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The leader\u2019s responsibility begins on day one. The two-day session does not have to.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Around six to eight weeks is a useful planning window<\/strong>, allowing the manager to meet people individually, observe working relationships and understand the team\u2019s history. Team members also gain experience of the new leader, making their feedback more concrete.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is a practical recommendation, not a research-established ideal. Michael Watkins\u2019 work on leadership transitions emphasises learning about the situation while building relationships and securing early progress. The pace should reflect the challenges the leader inherits. Watkins and colleagues, IMD<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Address urgent conflict or confusion immediately. For the reset itself, seek enough shared experience for an honest discussion, without allowing uncertainty to become an accepted way of working.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A new manager joins a story already in progress. People bring expertise, achievements and valuable relationships, alongside disappointments and unresolved concerns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Asking them simply to \u201cmove on\u201d can leave important issues untouched. A reset should help the team distinguish between what deserves preserving and what needs to change:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Structured reflection has a research foundation. Tannenbaum and Cerasoli\u2019s meta-analysis of 46 samples found that properly conducted debriefs improved effectiveness compared with control conditions. This supports making reflection purposeful, although it does not establish that a two-day offsite alone will produce the same results. Tannenbaum and Cerasoli, 2013<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The aim is to carry useful experience forward while ending patterns that keep the team stuck.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Behind a debate about responsibilities may be a concern about belonging. Behind resistance may be pride in something valuable. Behind silence may be doubt that honesty will be welcomed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A leader needs to make these concerns discussable.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Amy Edmondson\u2019s research across 51 manufacturing teams found that psychological safety was associated with team learning behaviour. People need confidence that asking questions, admitting uncertainty or raising concerns will not expose them to interpersonal harm. Edmondson, 1999<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n For the leader, the practical implication is demanding: listen without immediately defending, invite perspectives that challenge your own and respond constructively when someone takes the risk of speaking honestly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Give quieter members time to reflect. Use individual conversations, written input and smaller groups alongside open discussion. Speaking from the heart should be an invitation, never a requirement to disclose personal feelings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Every team member needs a credible opportunity to contribute.<\/strong> The leader must also explain which decisions are open to influence and how the input received affects the outcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In our session, the desired behaviours were concrete: speak candidly, treat feedback as a gift, ask how to help and support decisions once made.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These intentions need clear working agreements, priorities and responsibilities.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Hackman and Wageman\u2019s theory of team coaching emphasises that coaching depends on appropriate timing and enabling conditions. A productive conversation cannot compensate indefinitely for unclear direction or organisational obstacles. Hackman and Wageman, 2005<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Before leaving the room, agree what happens next, who owns it and when progress will be reviewed. Schedule a follow-up, for example four to six weeks later, to examine both delivery and behaviour.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The leader\u2019s credibility grows when people see that speaking openly leads to thoughtful decisions and visible action.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Two days can create the opportunity for a reset. What the leader does before and afterwards determines whether it becomes a different way of working.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Start listening immediately. Make room for every voice. Decide clearly. Follow through.<\/strong>concerns, hopes and convictions people carry, helps the team choose a future it can commit to together.<\/p>\n\n\n\nStart immediately and choose the right moment<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Give the past a place<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Make room for the heart as well as the mind<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Turn the conversation into commitments<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Stepping into an existing management team? Let\u2019s explore what your team needs for a strong new chapter.<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"Gold](\"https:\/\/salomons.coach\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/cropped-SalomonsCoach_Gold_Favivon.png\")