The first 30 days: listen, set expectations, agree how we work

A new lead's first big move should be to listen, not to announce. A listening round is one conversation with each person on the team, with the same open questions for everyone. You take notes and promise nothing on the spot.

Why bother, if you've worked with these people for years? Because you know what they told a peer. A lead hears a filtered version: people weigh their words differently once you approve their leave and shape their work. The round also tells everyone that decisions will come after their input, not before it.

At Klasna the round runs at the end of January, about 45 minutes per person, before the first 30 days end in early February. The same questions for all four matter: they let you compare answers and keep anyone from feeling singled out.

What you learn decides what you change. A lead who changes things first and asks later has to undo half of it.

A listening round is only as good as its questions. Two rules carry most of the weight, the same ones that work in customer interviews.

First, don't lead the answer. A question that hints at what you hope to hear gets a polite yes, especially from someone who reports to you. Second, ask about real, recent events, not opinions or imagined futures. People are good at describing what happened last Tuesday and poor at predicting what they would do.

Compare “Don't you think the hand-up rule is too loose?” with “Tell me about the last ticket you passed up. What happened just before?” The first asks for agreement. The second gets a story with details you can learn from: what was missing, who was busy, why passing up felt easiest.

Also avoid questions about a colleague (“Isn't Taras rushing?”): they invite gossip and tell everyone you'll discuss them too.

Before the round, look at the team's recent numbers, but use them to choose what to ask, not whom to judge. A single metric rarely tells you who is weakest; it tells you where to be curious.

Klasna's December–January table shows why. Taras closes the most tickets, 33.85% of the team's, and replies fastest, but 9.50% of his tickets come back. Maryna closes 273 fewer, and only 1.77% come back. Bohdan replies slowest, about 36 minutes, yet his reopen rate is a solid 3.72%. Nobody is simply best or worst.

Each number becomes a question: what does Taras count as done? What does Maryna check before closing? What happens in Bohdan's first half hour?

Mind the base, too. Maryna's 94.78% positive survey answers rest on 134 answers, Taras's 78.24% on 216. A higher rate on a smaller base is a reason to ask, not proof. And in the round itself you listen for how each person works; you don't rank anyone from a table.

A good listening round produces answers that sting. The way you react in that moment decides whether people stay honest in the next conversation.

The rule is simple: thank, note, come back. Thank the person for saying it, write it down, and return later with what changes. Don't argue (“That's not how it was”), don't defend yourself, and don't fix it on the spot with a promise you haven't thought through.

At Klasna, Olha says it straight: she applied for the lead job too, and asks you not to make the round “a show of listening” if decisions are made. Then: “Hard tickets used to be mine. Now Taras sends you anything tricky, and frankly so do I. Why dig in, if you'll take it anyway?”

That's gold. It explains the January hand-up numbers from the inside, in one sentence. The right reply is a thank-you and a note, and a real answer once the round is over and you can say what the team will do differently.

Good listening-round questions each open a different door. Choose a handful that together cover the work, the blockers, the person's growth and your own behavior.

• “Tell me about the last ticket you passed up.” shows where a habit comes from. Olha's answer (“Now Taras sends you anything tricky, and frankly so do I”) explained the team's hand-ups in one sentence.
• “What slows you down in a normal week?” surfaces blockers the lead can remove: a missing template, a slow tool, a rule nobody understands.
• “Which part of the work would you like more of?” shows where the person wants to grow, the raw material for later delegation.
• “What should I keep doing, and what should I stop?” invites feedback on you. It's easier to answer than “any feedback for me?”, because it's specific.

Ask them all in the same order with everyone, and write the answers down in the person's words. After the round, share the themes back with the team without naming who said what.

After the round, write two short lists: what I expect from you, and what you can expect from me. That's setting expectations. Said once on a call isn't enough: spoken expectations fade and get remembered differently, least of all in a remote team where someone missed the call or works in another time zone.

A good line is concrete and checkable. “Before handing a ticket up, write what you tried” works; “Take ownership” doesn't, because two people will read it differently. The other list matters as much: “I answer hand-ups within two working hours”, “I don't cancel one-to-ones”, “You hear about changes before they're announced”.

Keep each list to five or six lines. If you can't keep a promise, don't write it: one broken line costs more trust than a short list.

Then ask the team what's missing. People remember, and defend, expectations they helped shape.

Expectations cover the lead and each person. A working agreement covers how the team works together. Four topics are enough for a support team: response times, which channel for what, handover when a shift ends or the power goes out, and how we disagree.

How you make it matters as much as what it says. Draft it together in one meeting, with written comments for anyone who can't join live. Try it for a month, then review it. A rule the team made is a rule the team defends; a rule the lead sends round is a rule people work around.

Good lines are concrete enough that two people read them the same way: “On shift, a new customer message gets a first reply within 45 minutes.” “Urgent: the team chat with a tag; everything else: the ticket thread.” “We disagree in the thread or on a call, never in front of a customer.”

Notice the 45 minutes: a number the whole team can meet, Bohdan included, not the fastest person's pace.

The pieces of a new lead's first month work best in a fixed order, because each one feeds the next.

1. Prepare: look at your own calendar and the team's recent numbers to choose your questions.
2. Listen: one conversation with each person, the same open questions, notes, no promises.
3. Share back: tell the team the themes you heard, without naming who said what. It shows people they were heard and keeps individual answers private.
4. Set expectations both ways, informed by what you heard, and ask what's missing.
5. Agree how we work: the working agreement, made with the team, with a date to review it.

Skipping ahead is the usual mistake: an agreement drafted before the round answers problems you guessed, not the ones the team has.

How it fits together: listening gives you the problems, expectations say who does what, and the agreement says how the team works. The next lesson takes the hardest conversation of the month, with Olha, and shows how influence differs from the authority your title gives you.