I started managing on easy mode. I moved up within the same department, and when I took on management of the team, I had several years more experience than those I was managing, so there was no particular awkwardness. My team was all experienced prospect researchers, though, and for a while, it was smooth sailing. We were a small team with a large workload, but my team members were operating at a high level, bringing innovative ideas and new approaches to the department while maintaining their excellent day-to-day work.  

Within a few years, though, most of that group had left for promotion opportunities they could not all get on our team. Shortly after, I got the resources to double the size of the team. We became a team full of brand new researchers who had started all around the same time. Since then, I’ve taken on management of two other teams as well, and experienced many shifts in team composition. There’s a lot that goes into leading a team, from politics to strategic thinking to industry expertise. But the people management part is ultimately what most determines the success of your efforts. And the dynamics of managing those people—the challenges, and opportunities—can vary significantly depending on the “life stage” of your team, so to speak. Here are some themes I’ve noticed.  

The Newbies 

The challenges of a team full of new folks are obvious—they need training and support as they onboard, and meanwhile, work that needs to get done may be distributed amongst a smaller number of longer-tenured employees. But when CU’s Research team ended up with seven new hires within a year and a half, it wasn’t all stress and angst. New people have new-people energy. They ask questions about things you’ve long taken for granted. They bring ideas from the teams or industries they worked in before. When our brand new Research team started, within a few months, one of them had overhauled one of our most cumbersome manual processes. Others had used their fresh-start energy or prior experience to improve our team’s relationship with certain fundraiser units vastly. Team leadership had created more documentation and consistency in work processes as well, motivated by all the training needs.  

The Old Hats 

When a team is full of long-tenured employees, it can operate like a well-oiled machine. Staff know all the standard processes and tools, and can cut through work tasks with speed and efficiency. Their instincts are honed. And, they have had time in the industry and at the org to absorb and synthesize new ideas. That scrappy, experienced Research team I first managed came up with new predictive models. They explored tools like Tableau and Python. They cut through huge swaths of customer requests.  But, as I mentioned, most of them left. Even with a perfect career path structure (which we did not have at the time), there will be limits to how much each team member can progress, so a team tilted towards long-timers can be unstable. And (I can say this because I’m an old-timer myself), longer-tenured folks can sometimes get cynical about trying new things (“It didn’t work the first three times!”), overly committed to certain status quos, or just overly used to workarounds and inefficiencies.  

The Half and Half 

Having a team that’s all new or all long-tenured isn’t ideal from a manager’s point of view, as I’ve experienced first-hand. Having a mix is the best of both worlds in some ways: experience, energy, a questioning spirit, and institutional knowledge to give context and realism to any brainstorming. The Prospect Management team I oversee, for example, has been able to navigate the aftershocks of a database transition, planning for two separate campaigns, and multiple campus leadership transitions, in no small part due to the combined power of more experienced Analysts who could help mentor and strategize, and newer staff who brought valuable prior experience and a baggage-free approach to old problems. But there can be challenges as well. It can be easy to funnel all the complex work to the more tenured part of the team, especially if they have distinct roles (e.g., “Senior Research Analyst”). This makes sense to a degree, but it can also deprive the newer employees of learning experiences and a sense of independence and exploration. Being more intentional about equity, role clarity, and professional development becomes more critical.  

The Size Variable 

Another variable that overlies and complicates all of this is team size. A smaller team, just through the pressure of necessity, can push through some of the challenges listed above more quickly. When my teams have been smaller, new staff have had to onboard more quickly, and all staff have had to take on broader responsibilities, giving them better context to innovate and strategize from. On a larger team, there is more grace, and this can lead to a lack of urgency. But the benefits above can also be magnified on a larger team. More man-hours means more time to spend innovating, building relationships, documenting internal processes, mentoring, etc.  

It’s a complicated calculus overall, and by no means do I feel that I’ve mastered it. After an easy start, though, I can say that I have learned a lot about managing under a variety of circumstances. I know that there is no perfect configuration, no one mix that I’d prefer to all others. Which is a good thing, because change is the one constant in management and life.   

Meg Kinney
Senior Director of Portfolio Intelligence, Research, and Data Management

Meg Kinney has worked at the University of Colorado for 12 years, starting there as a Researcher after graduating from library school. She has served on the Apra Rocky Mountains board as President and Treasurer, and on the Apra Chapter Committee.