How I Learned to Stop Fixing People and Start Supporting Them

Management evolution from aggressive director to supportive leader

Early in my career when I was making the transition from software engineering into leader and manager, I had a much more aggressive and opinionated view and approach to the role. One of the ways this manifested was in my approach to people—I wasn't really managing them, I was trying to remake them into a version of me.

The Software Engineer's Approach to People Management

Looking back, the amount of inexperience is a bit embarrassing. I was clearly approaching the problem the same way I was approaching software development—I thought being a leader meant identifying what was "wrong" with people and fixing it:

• The Quiet Engineer: "You need to speak up more in planning meetings"

• The Detail-Oriented Tester: "You're slowing us down with all these edge cases"

• The Collaborative Developer: "You need to be more decisive and stop asking for so much input"

• The Process-Oriented PM: "You're overthinking this—just make a decision"

I had this mental model of what the ideal developer and "ideal team member" was and was spending too much time and energy trying to mold people into it.

The Course Correction

I'm thankful that I had some great people around me, access to enough coaching, not to mention a healthier dose of impostor syndrome that made me question my approach to things constantly—which allowed me to quickly change my approach.

I shudder to think what could have happened had I continued to go in that direction. If I had to make an educated guess:

• People would have stopped bringing me problems

• One-on-ones would have become performance improvement sessions instead of support conversations

• Team members would start saying "I'll handle it myself" more often

• My best performers would be drained after our meetings

I don't think this experience is something unique to me. Many of us engineers-turned-managers struggle with this transition. As long as you can recognize the challenge and understand that your job isn't to make everyone the same but to help each person contribute their unique strengths to the team's success, then the sky is the limit.

The Mindset Shift That Changed Everything

Through coaching and constant self-reflection (thank you, impostor syndrome), I gradually realized I was solving the wrong problem. The issue wasn't that my team members were broken and needed fixing—the issue was that I was trying to create a team of clones instead of leveraging diverse strengths.

The turning point came when I started asking a different question:

From "What's wrong with this person?" To "What conditions do they need to do their best work?"

The New Framework: Support, Don't Fix

Calling this a framework might be a but a strech, the real shift didn’t came as new managemnt technique — it was about understanding the root problem, it wasn’t people it was building my understanding of what makes teams effective.

When I was trying to "fix" people, I was operating from a scarcity mindset. I believed there was one right way to contribute, and anyone who didn't fit that mold was lacking something essential. But teams don't succeed because everyone does everything the same way. They succeed because different people bring different strengths to solve complex problems.

The quiet engineer who frustrated me in meetings? Their written analysis was consistently the most thorough and thoughtful. The detail-oriented tester who "slowed us down"? They were preventing production issues that would have cost us weeks of firefighting. The collaborative developer who seemed "indecisive"? They were building consensus that prevented the team conflicts I'd seen tear apart other teams.

I had to learn to see these differences as features, not bugs.

The supporting approach isn't about being nicer or more accommodating. It's about being smarter about human nature. People perform best when they can leverage their natural strengths, not when they're constantly fighting against their instincts. My job became creating conditions where each person's natural approach could contribute to team success, rather than trying to force everyone into the same mold.

This meant asking different questions entirely. Instead of "How do I get this person to be more like me?" I started asking "What does this person naturally excel at, and how can that help us solve our problems?" Instead of "What's wrong with their approach?" I asked "What am I missing about why their approach might be valuable?"

When This Approach Doesn't Work

Now, there are probably some of you reading this with a more cynical view of your teams and people in general. I want to be clear: shifting from "fixing" to "supporting" doesn't mean becoming permissive or avoiding difficult conversations.

The support-first approach works when people are effective but different from you. It doesn't work when there are genuine performance or behavioral issues that impact the team. Supporting instead of fixing isn't always the answer:

• Performance issues: Sometimes people genuinely aren't meeting basic job requirements

• Cultural problems: Values misalignment needs to be addressed directly

• Skills gaps: Some capabilities are genuinely required for the role

It can be challenging to distinguish between "different but effective" and "actually problematic." This distinction becomes clearer when you focus on outcomes rather than methods.

I learned this distinction the hard way through situations where I tried to "support" my way around fundamental problems. I once promoted someone to Director too early and failed to provide the stronger direction they needed.

Over time, it became clear they were causing significant misalignment within their team and creating conflict with other departments. I had misdiagnosed an ego and performance problem as a communication challenge, spending months trying to coach someone who needed clear accountability instead.

A Practical Framework for New Managers

If you're struggling with this transition like I did, here are the questions that help me distinguish between supporting natural differences and addressing real problems:

Before Every Development Conversation, Ask:

• Is this a performance problem or a style difference?

• What would success look like if this person did it their way?

• How can their natural approach contribute to team goals?

• What support do they need to be effective in their own style?

The "Strengths-First" Meeting Structure:

• What's energizing you at work lately? (Identify what they naturally excel at)

• What's draining your energy? (Identify mismatches between role and strengths)

• How can we do more of #1 and less of #2? (Environmental changes, not personal changes)

The Meta-Lesson

The hardest part of management isn't teaching people skills—it's recognizing that your way isn't the only effective way. Every person I tried to "fix" was already effective; they just weren't effective in ways I recognized or valued.

Supporting people means creating conditions where their natural strengths can solve real problems. Fixing people means forcing them to solve problems the way you would.

The best teams aren't full of identical high performers. They're full of different high performers whose strengths complement each other.