When leaders ask for input but have already decided on the outcome, it creates a 'charade' of empowerment. This practice is incredibly demotivating for team members who believe they have genuine autonomy, only to find out their work was irrelevant.
Related Insights
Relying on consensus to make decisions is an abdication of leadership. The process optimizes for avoiding downsides rather than achieving excellence, leading to mediocre "6 out of 10" outcomes and preventing the outlier successes that leadership can unlock.
Effective delegation of decision-making authority is impossible without first ensuring leaders are deeply aligned on organizational objectives. When individuals are empowered to make choices but pull in different directions, the result is a quagmire, not progress. Alignment must precede autonomy.
Once a task is successfully delegated and handled by a team member, never take it back. Doing so sends a powerful, destructive message: "I don't believe you are competent enough to handle this long-term," undermining their confidence and your leadership.
Leaders can reduce team anxiety and prevent misinterpretation by explicitly categorizing input. 'Do' is a direct order (used rarely), 'Try' is an experiment, and 'Consider' is a low-stakes suggestion (used 80-85% of the time). This ensures a leader's random thoughts aren't treated as gospel.
Instead of solving problems brought by their team, effective leaders empower them by shifting ownership. After listening to an issue, the immediate next step is to ask the team to propose a viable solution. This builds their problem-solving and decision-making capabilities.
Leaders often burn out because their team is overly reliant on them. This dependency isn't a sign of a weak team but rather a leader's subtle micromanagement and failure to truly empower them, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of indispensability.
A leader's attempt to increase velocity by streamlining hiring (e.g., cutting interview rounds) can be misread by the team. What the leader sees as efficiency, employees may perceive as being excluded, making them question if their voice and judgment still matter in the company.
Leaders who always have the right answer often create an environment where others feel devalued and excluded. The blocker's real cost is not the accuracy of their ideas, but the damage done to team connection and collaborative decision-making, which prevents the team from arriving at the best solutions together.
To avoid influencing their team's feedback, leaders should adopt the practice of being the last person to share their opinion. This creates a psychologically safe environment where ideas are judged on merit, not on alignment with the leader's preconceived notions, often making the best decision obvious.
Many leaders, particularly in technical fields, mistakenly believe their role is to provide all the answers. This approach disempowers teams and creates a bottleneck. Shifting from advising to coaching unlocks a team's problem-solving potential and allows leaders to scale their impact.
