There is a particular kind of leader I see often in my work. They are bright, capable, ambitious, and deeply committed. They were the person everyone could count on. They solved problems quickly, earned trust through competence, and often advanced because they were exceptionally good at what they did. Then, somewhere along the way, they were asked to manage people.
And suddenly, the rules changed. The very strengths that helped them stand out as an individual contributor did not automatically translate into leading a team. What had once felt clear now felt relational, messy, and deeply human. The questions became less about output and more about trust. Less about solving problems and more about developing people. Less about being the best doer in the room and more about creating the conditions for others to do their best work. This is one of the reasons I was so eager to talk with Matt Gjertsen.
Matt is the founder of Better Every Day Studios, a leadership development company focused on helping great engineers become great managers. His background is unusually rich for this work. He is a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy with a degree in physics, later earning a master’s in strategic public relations from George Washington University. He served for nine years on active duty as an instructor pilot in the T-1 and KC-10 before moving into the private sector, where he spent more than four years at SpaceX leading learning and development across onboarding, management training, and technical education. Today, he works with organizations like Vast Space, Lockheed Martin, and the XPRIZE Foundation to build better managers and stronger teams.
What I appreciate about Matt is that he does not make management more complicated than it needs to be. His upcoming book, Minimum Viable Manager, takes a phrase usually reserved for startups and product development and applies it to leadership in a way that feels both clever and deeply practical. His argument is not that management is easy. It is that many new managers need a clearer, more human starting point.
And in his view, that starting point comes down to three foundational practices: building trust, setting expectations, and asking for better feedback.
That framework may sound simple. But simplicity is not the same thing as superficiality. In fact, one of the things this conversation reinforced for me is that the most powerful leadership practices are often the ones people overlook because they seem too basic. We assume that because they are straightforward, we are already doing them well. Many times, we are not.
Why Management Feels Harder Than It “Should”
One of the reasons management can feel so disorienting is that many people are promoted into it without being meaningfully prepared for the relational shift it requires. This is especially true for technical professionals, founders, and high-performing individual contributors. They are often promoted because they are strong at execution. They understand the work. They are reliable under pressure. But no one has explicitly helped them understand that management is not simply doing more of what got them there. It is a new job entirely.
Matt named this well in our conversation. He talked about how many brilliant engineers, technical leaders, and founders suddenly find themselves responsible for people and think, “Wait, why does this feel so hard?” They are not unintelligent. They are not incapable. They have simply been handed a role that asks for a very different set of muscles. And in many organizations, those muscles are assumed rather than developed.
Add to that the cultural shifts of the past several years, and the challenge becomes even clearer. We are leading in a post-COVID world where many people missed key years of social, workplace, and interpersonal development. Hybrid and remote work have brought undeniable benefits, but they have also changed how trust and connection get built. There is less accidental interaction. Less informal learning. Fewer low-stakes moments of observation and relationship-building. The leaders entering management now are often doing so in a context where connection cannot be assumed. It must be created more intentionally. That makes Matt’s framework not just useful, but timely.
Trust Is Not a Soft Skill
If there was one throughline in this conversation, it was trust. Matt is very clear that trust is foundational. Without it, teams do not perform at a high level, feedback does not land, and expectations do not translate into meaningful action. Trust is what allows people to take risks, admit mistakes, ask questions, and contribute honestly.
This aligns closely with what we know from Amy Edmondson’s research on psychological safety. Psychological safety is not about making work comfortable or lowering standards. It is about creating an environment where people feel safe enough to speak up, contribute ideas, raise concerns, and acknowledge uncertainty without fear of humiliation or punishment. Teams with higher psychological safety are more likely to learn, innovate, and adapt. Those outcomes are not separate from performance; they are part of it.
What I appreciated about Matt’s take is that he does not treat trust as abstract. He sees it as something built through repeated small moments. He talked about the value of icebreakers in meetings, which some leaders might dismiss as unnecessary or awkward. But his point was not that every team needs performative bonding exercises. It was that leaders need to create small, structured opportunities for people to know one another as human beings.
That matters. It matters even more in workplaces where people are moving fast, working across time zones, or trying to reconnect after long periods of remote interaction. Connection does not happen simply because people are on the same org chart. It has to be nurtured. And in my experience, many leaders underestimate how much trust can grow from a small but consistent signal that people matter.
Expectations Are a Form of Care
The second pillar in Matt’s framework is setting expectations, and I found this part of the conversation especially useful because expectations are so often discussed in ways that feel either rigid or vague. Matt drew on the military concept of “Commander’s Intent,” which I think translates beautifully into civilian leadership. At its core, commander’s intent is about giving people enough context to understand the purpose of the work, the desired outcome, and the constraints they need to operate within. It is not micromanagement. It is not just task delegation. It is clarity.
This is one of the places where I see leaders unintentionally create stress. They think they are empowering people by being hands-off, but in reality they are withholding the context people need to make good decisions. Or they assume expectations are obvious when they are not. Then, when things go off course, everyone feels frustrated and misunderstood. Clear expectations are not controlling. They are generous.
They reduce unnecessary ambiguity. They help people know what good looks like. They make it easier to prioritize, decide, and ask better questions. They also create the conditions for accountability that feels fair, because people can only be accountable to what has actually been made clear. In many ways, setting expectations well is one of the most compassionate things a manager can do. It says: I want you to succeed, and I am willing to help define the field you are playing on.
Feedback Works Better When It Starts With Curiosity
The third pillar in Matt’s model is feedback, and this was another area where his practical approach stood out.Most people have had enough experience with poorly delivered feedback to approach the topic with tension. We think of feedback as corrective, uncomfortable, or top-down. But Matt made a subtle and important shift: before giving feedback, ask for it. That shift matters because it changes the dynamic from evaluation to conversation.
He talked about asking better questions and doing so in a way that is specific, assumptive, and constructive. Rather than waiting for feedback to emerge passively or asking broad questions that invite polite answers, he encourages managers to ask in ways that help people actually say something useful. That aligns with what so many leadership and coaching conversations require: enough safety for honesty, enough structure for clarity, and enough humility for mutual learning.
What I also appreciated is that this approach fits well with an appreciative inquiry mindset. It does not mean ignoring problems or only focusing on strengths. It means asking questions that generate movement rather than defensiveness. It means seeing feedback not as an isolated event, but as part of a culture of learning.
This is particularly important for first-time managers, who often feel they need to get feedback “right” in a polished, authoritative way. Matt’s approach offers a more human path. Start with curiosity. Make it specific. Assume there is something useful to learn.
Better Management Happens in Small Moments
One of the things I kept thinking throughout this conversation was how easy it is to overcomplicate leadership. We reach for advanced frameworks, complicated competency models, and high-level abstractions when sometimes what a manager needs most is a grounded reminder that people are paying attention to the small things.
Matt’s work is powerful because it honors the significance of those small moments. He is not promising that one icebreaker question will transform an entire organization. He is saying that small acts of care, clarity, and connection compound. They create the texture of a team. They shape the emotional climate in which work gets done.
And in a time when many people feel disconnected, overstretched, and under-supported, that matters.
What Leaders Can Take From This
For leaders who are early in management, or who have been managing for years but want to return to the basics, this conversation offers a very useful reset. It suggests that management does not begin with charisma, authority, or certainty. It begins with trust. It deepens through clear expectations. And it grows stronger when feedback becomes a shared practice rather than a one-way event.
It also reminds us that leadership is fundamentally relational. We can talk about performance, profitability, and productivity, and those things matter deeply. But they are built on human interactions. They depend on whether people feel safe enough to contribute, clear enough to act, and connected enough to care. That is why management is not just a technical skill. It is a profoundly human one.
And for those who are stepping into management for the first time, that may be the most reassuring message of all. You do not need to become a completely different person overnight. You do not need to master every theory of leadership before you begin. But you do need to pay attention to the things that make people feel seen, supported, and clear. Those things are not extra. They are the work.
A Practical Place to Begin
If you are reading this as a founder, a first-time manager, a technical leader, or even an experienced people leader who wants to reset, one useful place to begin is with your next team meeting.
Matt suggested starting meetings with a simple icebreaker question, and I think that is more powerful than it may sound. Not because the question itself is magical, but because it signals that people are more than their deliverables. It opens the door to familiarity, empathy, and trust. It reminds the team that connection is not separate from effective work. And from there, watch what else becomes possible.
That is where better management often starts. Not in grand gestures, but in small, repeated choices that tell people they matter. That, to me, is the heart of Matt Gjertsen’s Minimum Viable Manager. And it is why I believe this framework is such a valuable contribution right now. Because in a workplace that often asks people to move fast and prove themselves constantly, there is something deeply powerful about returning to the basics of trust, clarity, and care. And when leaders get those things right, they do far more than manage well. They create the kind of teams people want to be part of.
