It is a common moment. You are promoted early, asked to lead people who have more years, more history, and more stories of how things have always been done. At first, the challenge feels technical: set direction, assign tasks, keep pace. But under the surface runs a deeper unease: How do I carry authority with those who may see me as too young to hold it?

There is no formula that guarantees ease. What helps is recognising that leadership is not something you impose on people, but something you build with them. Psychology offers tested insights, and experience reminds us that leading older colleagues is not about proving yourself above them, but convening trust alongside them. The path can be seen in four movements: steadiness, belonging, trust, and ownership.

Showing up with steadiness

When you are the youngest in the room, the question hanging in the air is rarely about competence alone. It is quieter and sharper: Can I trust this person to guide us? Older colleagues may unconsciously scan for signs that you are either overcompensating or not yet ready. How you show up in those first moments often sets the tone for whether authority is granted or withheld.

Psychologists call this impression management, the process by which we shape how others perceive us. It is not manipulation but a natural part of human interaction. Research consistently shows that people look for a blend of competence and warmth in leaders. Tilt too far toward confidence, and it risks sounding like arrogance. Tilt too far toward humility, and it can come across as uncertainty. The art is in holding both: clarity of direction paired with openness to others (Cuddy, Glick & Beninger, 2011).

Claim your core message

Clarity calms. When you enter a room of older colleagues, people will not expect you to know everything, but they will look for steadiness. One way to project this is to carry a single clear message into each meeting: the decision required, the purpose of the discussion, or the next action needed. Research on communication anxiety shows that narrowing attention to a simple thread reduces both leader stress and follower doubt (Beebe & Beebe, 2007). Imagine having one line in your pocket: “Today we need to decide how to prioritise X.” Everything else hangs on that.

Name what you don’t know

Credibility grows, not shrinks, when you admit limits. Studies of leader humility reveal that acknowledging one’s own limitations strengthens psychological safety and encourages others to contribute (Owens & Hekman, 2012). With colleagues who have decades more experience, pretending expertise where you have none only fuels resistance. Instead, practise saying: “This is an area where I’ll lean on your experience.” Far from undermining authority, this signals self-awareness and gives space for expertise to surface.

Acknowledge others publicly

Recognition is a quiet but powerful tool. Social psychology shows that public acknowledgment enhances trust and signals security in one’s own role (Grant & Gino, 2010). When you highlight the contribution of a senior colleague, such as “Maria’s analysis last week helped us see the risk more clearly”, you are not giving away authority. You are demonstrating the kind of confidence that shares the spotlight. Over time, this creates an atmosphere where respect flows in both directions.

Attend to small signals

Non-verbal cues often outweigh words. Rapid speech, fidgeting, or darting eyes register as nervousness, while slower pacing, deliberate pauses, and steady eye contact communicate composure. Experiments on non-verbal dominance consistently show that posture and tone shape perceptions of authority more than content (Carney, Hall & Smith LeBeau, 2005). Even something as simple as taking a sip of water before answering a difficult question can project calm rather than hesitation. Recording yourself in a short rehearsal can reveal habits you do not notice and open the way to replacing them with more deliberate signals.

Reflection questions

• Do I want to be impressive, or do I want to be trusted?

• How can I acknowledge the strengths of others in a way that strengthens, rather than softens, my own role?

• What small behaviour from me might help the group feel more grounded?

Belonging before leading

One of the hardest challenges for young leaders is that colleagues may see them as outsiders to the group’s story. People derive meaning and confidence from the groups they belong to. This is the essence of social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). When a younger person is asked to lead older and more experienced colleagues, those colleagues may feel their standing within the group is unsettled. If belonging is threatened, resistance grows.

The task of a younger leader is not to claim authority first, but to affirm belonging. By positioning yourself as part of the team rather than above it, you soften identity threat. Research on leadership and identity confirms that when leaders use inclusive language and highlight shared membership, they build stronger trust and cooperation (van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). Authority flows more easily when people feel their identity is honoured.

Speak the language of “we”

Language shapes belonging. Leaders who consistently use “we” and “our” rather than “I” and “my” signal that they see themselves as insiders. Small phrases can shift perception: “Our project” instead of “my project plan.” “We need to decide” rather than “I want you to decide.” Experiments show that inclusive pronouns increase feelings of group cohesion and reduce defensiveness (Seyranian, 2014). To practise, consciously rewrite one or two habitual phrases into “we” language before stepping into a meeting.

Honour expertise openly

Older colleagues carry history and experience that shape the group’s identity. When you name and value that expertise, you reduce the sense of loss that can come with younger leadership. Public recognition does more than flatter. It affirms that experience is still central to the team’s story. Studies on status dynamics show that when people feel their contributions are visible, they are less likely to resist new leadership (Anderson, Srivastava, Beer, Spataro & Chatman, 2006). A simple practice is to say at the start of a project, “We are drawing on the knowledge that has brought us this far,” and then reference specific examples.

Find common markers of identity

Belonging deepens when you highlight what is shared beyond age or years of service. This might be professional pride, a shared client, or a purpose that matters to all. Research on identity leadership shows that when leaders link themselves and others to a common identity, performance improves (Steffens, Haslam, Reicher & Platow, 2014). To embed this, identify two or three values that matter to the group and repeat them consistently. For example: “What unites us is our care for clients and our attention to detail.”

Step in as a convener

Identity is reinforced in how people come together. By creating opportunities for colleagues to exchange knowledge and shape direction, you place yourself within the group’s story rather than outside it. Social identity research shows that leaders who act as conveners of group dialogue strengthen cohesion and reduce divisions (Haslam, Reicher & Platow, 2011). Practically, this means organising small group conversations where older members can share lessons and newer members can add fresh perspectives. Your role is to host that exchange.

Reflection questions

• How often do I use the language of “we” instead of “I” when I speak?

• In what ways could I honour the expertise of older colleagues without sounding deferential?

• What common values or experiences might I emphasise to strengthen the group’s sense of belonging?

Trust is built one relationship at a time

Once a young leader has steadied their presence and affirmed belonging, the next task is to nurture individual trust. Leadership is not experienced in the abstract but in the quality of the relationship each person feels with you. Leader–member exchange theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) shows that leaders develop distinct relationships with each team member, and it is these one-to-one bonds, more than formal hierarchy, that predict trust, loyalty, and performance.

The danger for younger managers is to rely too heavily on position. Colleagues with more years of experience are less likely to be swayed by titles. What matters is whether the relationship feels reciprocal, respectful, and reliable. Research confirms that when employees perceive high-quality exchanges with their leader, they report higher satisfaction, stronger commitment, and greater willingness to go the extra mile (Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer & Ferris, 2012).

Start with listening, not telling

One of the simplest ways to improve the quality of an exchange is to begin with curiosity. Younger leaders often feel pressure to prove themselves by giving answers. Yet studies on leader listening show that when leaders prioritise listening, employees report greater trust and role clarity (Kluger & Itzchakov, 2017). In practice, open your one-to-one meetings with “What is most important for you right now?” and let the other person shape the start of the conversation.

Seek advice, not only compliance

Asking experienced colleagues for their perspective signals respect and partnership. Research shows that leaders who request input from subordinates are seen as more competent and trustworthy, especially when the expertise gap is obvious (Brockner et al., 2004). Rather than issuing instructions, frame tasks as a dialogue: “Given your experience with this client, what would you recommend?” This not only affirms their standing but also gives you access to knowledge you do not yet have.

Be consistent in small commitments

Trust is less about grand gestures than about the steady fulfilment of promises. High-quality leader–member exchanges are characterised by predictability and reliability (Liden, Sparrowe & Wayne, 1997). If you agree to check in next week, make the time. If you promise to raise a concern, follow through. Each small delivery accumulates into a pattern that says, “I can be counted on.” Without consistency, words of respect ring hollow.

Tailor recognition to the individual

Not everyone values recognition in the same way. Some prefer public acknowledgement, others value private appreciation. Research on personalised leadership shows that when recognition aligns with personal preference, it strengthens trust and loyalty (Wayne, Shore & Liden, 1997). A practical habit is to ask directly, “How do you prefer to be recognised when work goes well?” and then act on what you hear. This shows attentiveness to the individual, not just the role.

Reflection questions

• Do I rely more on my position or on the quality of my relationships to influence others?

• When was the last time I sought genuine advice from an older colleague?

• What small promise could I keep this week that would strengthen trust with one person?

Empowering through ownership

When you are younger than those you lead, the temptation can be to prove control by tightening your grip. Yet people rarely thrive under control. Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) shows that human motivation is strongest when three needs are met: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Older colleagues in particular are more motivated when they feel trusted to use their judgment, recognised for their expertise, and connected to a larger purpose.

For a young leader, the invitation is to shift from directing to stewarding. Your authority is not in prescribing every step but in creating conditions where others’ motivation and skill are released. Research across workplaces confirms that when leaders grant autonomy and recognise competence, employees show greater commitment, creativity, and wellbeing (Deci, Olafsen & Ryan, 2017).

Create choice within structure

Autonomy does not mean the absence of direction. It means providing clear goals while leaving room for people to shape the path. Studies on job design show that choice in how to carry out tasks enhances intrinsic motivation and performance (Gagné & Deci, 2005). In practice, state the outcome you need, then invite: “How would you approach this?” By doing so, you signal trust and open the door to more ownership.

Name and affirm expertise

Competence thrives when it is recognised. For older colleagues, this can be especially important, as their identity is often tied to years of skill and contribution. Research on feedback shows that specific, strength-focused recognition enhances engagement more than generic praise (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Make it a habit to identify and say aloud where a colleague’s expertise has shaped the team’s progress: “Your experience in negotiations kept this on track.” This builds energy to contribute further.

Framework in terms of purpose

Relatedness comes not only from relationships but from connection to a larger story. Studies on purpose at work show that when people see how their efforts contribute to something meaningful, motivation is more durable (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003). Younger leaders can strengthen relatedness by naming the purpose behind tasks: “This process matters because it protects clients at a vulnerable moment.” The emphasis shifts from compliance to contribution.

Host space for collaboration

Autonomy and competence are reinforced when people connect in ways that matter. Creating moments where colleagues can share insights and co-create decisions builds both relatedness and motivation. Research on collaborative goal setting shows that when teams participate in shaping goals, they feel more accountable and invested in outcomes (Kuvaas, Buch, Weibel, Dysvik & Nerstad, 2017). Practically, this might mean convening a short session to let experienced voices shape priorities, with you acting as host.

Reflection questions

• Where might I be holding too tightly to control, and what small choice could I return to others?

• How often do I name the expertise of my older colleagues in ways that strengthen their motivation?

• What purpose language could I use to lift a routine task into something more meaningful?

Conclusion

Leading those who are older and more experienced is not an accident of timing. It is an invitation to practise leadership without relying on age, title, or history. What steadies the room is how you show up, how you affirm belonging, how you invest in trust one relationship at a time, and how you create conditions where others can flourish.

Younger leaders do not need to act older. They need to act with clarity, respect, and courage. When they do, authority is not demanded but granted.

Final reflection question: When I look back years from now, will I be remembered as someone who tried to prove myself, or as someone who created the conditions for others to thrive?

Do you have any tips or advice? What has worked for you? Do you have any recommended resources to explore? Thanks for reading!

References

Anderson, C., Srivastava, S., Beer, J.S., Spataro, S.E. and Chatman, J.A. (2006) ‘Knowing your place: Self-perceptions of status in face-to-face groups’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), pp. 1094–1110. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1094.

Beebe, S.A. and Beebe, S.J. (2007) Public speaking: An audience-centered approach. 6th edn. Boston: Pearson Education.

Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M.J., Francesco, A.M., Chen, Z.X., Leung, K., Bierbrauer, G., Gomez, C., Kirkman, B.L. and Shapiro, D. (2001) ‘Culture and procedural justice: The influence of power distance on reactions to voice’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(4), pp. 300–315. doi:10.1006/jesp.2000.1451.

Carney, D.R., Hall, J.A. and Smith LeBeau, L. (2005) ‘Beliefs about the nonverbal expression of social power’, Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 29(2), pp. 105–123. doi:10.1007/s10919-005-2743-z.

Cuddy, A.J.C., Glick, P. and Beninger, A. (2011) ‘The dynamics of warmth and competence judgments, and their outcomes in organizations’, Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, pp. 73–98. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.004.

Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985) Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

Deci, E.L., Olafsen, A.H. and Ryan, R.M. (2017) ‘Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science’, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, pp. 19–43. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108.

Dulebohn, J.H., Bommer, W.H., Liden, R.C., Brouer, R.L. and Ferris, G.R. (2012) ‘A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader–member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future’, Journal of Management, 38(6), pp. 1715–1759. doi:10.1177/0149206311415280.

Gagné, M. and Deci, E.L. (2005) ‘Self-determination theory and work motivation’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), pp. 331–362. doi:10.1002/job.322.

Grant, A.M. and Gino, F. (2010) ‘A little thanks goes a long way: Explaining why gratitude expressions motivate prosocial behavior’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(6), pp. 946–955. doi:10.1037/a0017935.

Haslam, S.A., Reicher, S.D. and Platow, M.J. (2011) The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence and power. Hove: Psychology Press.

Hattie, J. and Timperley, H. (2007) ‘The power of feedback’, Review of Educational Research, 77(1), pp. 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487.

Kluger, A.N. and Itzchakov, G. (2017) ‘The power of listening at work’, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, pp. 55–79. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113156.

Kuvaas, B., Buch, R., Weibel, A., Dysvik, A. and Nerstad, C.G.L. (2017) ‘Do intrinsic and extrinsic motivation relate differently to employee outcomes?’, Journal of Economic Psychology, 61, pp. 244–258. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2017.05.004.

Liden, R.C., Sparrowe, R.T. and Wayne, S.J. (1997) ‘Leader–member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future’, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15, pp. 47–119.

Owens, B.P. and Hekman, D.R. (2012) ‘Modeling how to grow: An inductive examination of humble leader behaviors, contingencies, and outcomes’, Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), pp. 787–818. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0441.

Pratt, M.G. and Ashforth, B.E. (2003) ‘Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work’, in Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E. and Quinn, R.E. (eds.) Positive organizational scholarship. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, pp. 309–327.

Seyranian, V. (2014) ‘Social identity framing communication strategies for mobilizing social change’, The Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), pp. 468–486. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.10.013.

Steffens, N.K., Haslam, S.A., Reicher, S.D. and Platow, M.J. (2014) ‘Leadership as social identity management’, Annual Review of Psychology, 65, pp. 267–291. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143708.

van Knippenberg, D. and Hogg, M.A. (2003) ‘A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations’, Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, pp. 243–295. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(03)25006-1.

Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M. and Liden, R.C. (1997) ‘Perceived organizational support and leader–member exchange: A social exchange perspective’, Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), pp. 82–111. doi:10.2307/257021.