Stepping Up Without Stepping Back: A 90-Day Framework for New UK MedComms Team Leads

Moving from hands-on delivery into people leadership in UK medical communications can feel less like a promotion than a change of species. The skills that earned the role — meticulous referencing, calm client handling, a good eye for a data point — do not automatically translate into leading others who do the same work. The first 90 days are therefore not about being transplanted into management. They are about stepping up without stepping back from the editorial standards that made the promotion possible.

The first fortnight: renegotiate the relationship, not the work

The earliest conversations with former peers set the tone for the next year. They are not a formality, and they are not a chance to reassure everyone that nothing has changed. Something has changed: decision rights, accountability and the shape of your day. Pretending otherwise creates ambiguity that will surface later, usually during a tight deadline.

A useful approach is to hold short, individual conversations in the first two weeks. Ask each person what they need from you now, what they would like to keep owning, and where they want more support. Then be explicit about the boundaries. You may still review work, but you will not be the first pair of eyes on every document. You may still attend client calls, but you will not always lead them. Those distinctions need to be said aloud, not inferred.

Peer advice from established team leads tends to converge on one point: resist the urge to over-correct. Newly promoted leads sometimes swing between clinging to delivery and distancing themselves from it. Neither builds trust. The more sustainable position is visible involvement in standards, not invisible involvement in every task.

Weeks three to six: resetting quality and review expectations

Quality and review are where editorial credibility is most often tested. If you were previously the person who caught every inconsistency, the team may expect you to continue doing so. If you were previously the person who wrote the first draft, they may expect you to keep writing it. Both expectations need gentle but firm revision.

Start by defining what “review-ready” means for your team. In a UK MedComms context, that usually includes a clear source pack, a completed reference check against the agreed style, a factual accuracy review and a note of any unresolved client questions. Publish that definition. Then agree who performs the first-pass review, who signs off internally and who is authorised to approve client-facing changes. The aim is not to add process for its own sake, but to prevent the team lead from becoming a bottleneck.

This is also the moment to clarify how compliance standards are owned. The ABPI Code and MHRA requirements are shared professional obligations, not a single person’s burden. A team lead should model how to raise a concern early, how to document a decision and how to escalate when a client request sits awkwardly against the evidence. That is more valuable than personally catching every issue at the final review stage.

Keep your editorial edge by commenting on substance rather than style alone. A lead who only marks commas will be seen as a proofreader. A lead who asks whether the claim is supported, whether the audience will understand it and whether the review trail is complete will be seen as a standard-setter.

Weeks seven to twelve: deciding, reporting and protecting thinking time

By the third month, the team should be able to point to decisions you have made, not just meetings you have attended. Early wins do not need to be grand. A clearer review rota, a shorter internal turnaround on one recurring document type, or a agreed escalation route for client feedback can all demonstrate progress without destabilising delivery.

Report those wins in plain language. UK MedComms teams are often sceptical of leadership language that sounds borrowed from elsewhere. A short monthly note — what changed, what it fixed, what is still open — is usually more persuasive than a slide deck. It also creates a record that helps during appraisals and client conversations.

Protecting thinking time is not a luxury; it is part of the job. New team leads frequently discover that their calendar fills with other people’s priorities before they have had time to form their own. Block out two short periods each week for review, planning or simply reading around the accounts your team supports. Treat those blocks as you would a client meeting. If they are repeatedly moved, the role is being consumed by administration rather than leadership.

Using the network as a reality check

No team lead should rely solely on their own organisation for perspective. The MedComms Networking community offers a useful external test: are the pressures you are facing common, or are they specific to your team? Informal conversations at events, participation in peer discussions and a lateral buddy outside your line management chain can all provide a calmer view than the immediate inbox.

The community is particularly helpful for the questions that are difficult to raise internally. How much review is reasonable? When should a lead stop attending every client call? What does a fair handover from delivery look like? These are not questions with universal answers, but hearing how others have handled them can prevent unnecessary reinvention.

A simple 30-60-90 plan

• Days 1–30: listen and map. Meet each team member, clarify decision rights, document the current review process and identify the three points where work most often stalls.
• Days 31–60: decide and publish. Agree a review-ready standard, assign first-pass and sign-off responsibilities, and introduce one small process change with a clear owner.
• Days 61–90: report and refine. Share an early-wins note, review what the change has fixed and what it has not, and adjust the plan with the team rather than for them.

The first 90 days will not resolve every tension between delivery and leadership. They can, however, establish a credible pattern: you are still close enough to the work to judge it, and far enough from it to lead the people doing it.