Stop Being the Answer: Why Great Leaders Create Capability, Not Dependence

Sep 20

Sometimes the greatest obstacle to developing our employees is our own need to be needed.

THE CULTURE PRESCRIPTION™ | THE LEADERSHIP JOURNAL

By Sharra Schewee-Blair

There was a time in my leadership career when I measured my effectiveness by how many problems I could solve.

If something went wrong, I stepped in. If an employee had a question, I provided the answer. If a situation became complicated, I took control.

I knew my operations. I understood my responsibilities. And I genuinely wanted my team to succeed.

I thought I was being helpful.

Looking back, I recognize that some of those well-intentioned behaviors were creating a problem I hadn't considered.

I was becoming the answer to questions my employees needed opportunities to answer themselves.

And the more answers I provided, the more dependent my team could become on me.

It took experience, reflection, and a few uncomfortable realizations to understand that being a leader's biggest resource doesn't mean being responsible for every decision.

Sometimes it means knowing when to stop providing the answer.

When Being Helpful Becomes a Leadership Habit

I think this is particularly relevant for leaders who were promoted because they were exceptional individual contributors.

Before becoming managers, many of us were recognized for our ability to solve problems, make decisions, and get things done.

We became the person others relied on.

Then we moved into leadership, where our responsibilities changed, but some of our habits didn't.

We continued solving problems because we were good at it.

We continued providing answers because we knew them.

And when something needed to be completed quickly, doing it ourselves often seemed easier than explaining how someone else could approach it.

I've been there.

In healthcare operations, where staffing challenges, patient needs, and competing priorities can demand immediate attention, it's easy to fall into the habit of becoming everyone's problem solver.

Sometimes that's necessary. Leaders have responsibilities that require timely decisions, intervention, and escalation.

But not every situation requires us to take control.

And when we consistently step in where employees could reasonably think, decide, or act independently, we may unintentionally limit their development.

Are You Solving the Problem or Developing the Person?

One of the most meaningful changes in my leadership philosophy came when I began asking myself a different question.

Instead of immediately considering how I would solve a problem, I started thinking about how I could help someone else develop the ability to solve it.

That doesn't mean withholding information or allowing employees to struggle unnecessarily.

It means recognizing the difference between a situation that requires immediate leadership intervention and one that presents an opportunity for development.

Consider an employee who approaches you with a routine operational challenge.

You probably know the answer.

You could provide it in thirty seconds and move on.

But what if you asked a few questions first?

What have you considered?

What options do you think are available?

What would you recommend?

What support do you need from me?

Those questions may take a little more time initially.

But they also create opportunities for employees to develop judgment, confidence, and problem-solving skills.

And over time, those capabilities can benefit the entire team.

The goal isn't to make ourselves unavailable. It's to make our employees increasingly capable.

Coaching Requires Us to Be Comfortable With Different Approaches

Here's another lesson that took me time to learn.

Just because someone approaches a situation differently doesn't automatically mean they're approaching it incorrectly.

Earlier in my career, I sometimes struggled with this distinction.

I had developed processes and habits that worked for me. When someone approached a task differently, my instinct was to redirect them toward the method I preferred.

But leadership requires us to distinguish between expectations that must remain consistent and approaches that can reasonably vary.

In healthcare, certain procedures, safety requirements, compliance expectations, and organizational standards are not optional.

Those boundaries must remain clear.

But within appropriate boundaries, employees may discover more effective ways to organize their work, communicate, solve problems, or accomplish an objective.

If we insist that everyone work exactly as we would, we risk overlooking those contributions.

And we may unintentionally communicate that independent thinking isn't particularly welcome.

Developing people requires us to become comfortable with the possibility that someone else's approach might be just as effective as ours.

Sometimes it might even be better.

Mentoring Is More Than Sharing Our Experience

This philosophy also influences how I think about leadership mentoring.

When someone seeks guidance from an experienced leader, it's tempting to immediately share what we would do.

After all, experience is valuable.

We've encountered difficult situations, made mistakes, developed judgment, and learned lessons that can help others.

But effective mentoring isn't simply transferring our preferred solutions to someone else.

It's helping another person develop the ability to evaluate situations, consider alternatives, recognize risks, and make informed decisions.

Sometimes that involves sharing our experiences.

Other times, it involves asking questions, challenging assumptions, or helping someone recognize something they hadn't considered.

And occasionally, it means allowing someone to approach a situation differently than we would have.

That's an important distinction.

Our experience should expand another leader's thinking, not become the template they're expected to follow.

This is particularly relevant when developing new frontline managers.

They need access to experienced leaders who can help them navigate operational challenges while developing their own leadership judgment.

They also need clarity about organizational expectations, appropriate decision-making authority, and situations that require additional expertise.

Mentoring should develop independence without creating unnecessary risk.

Creating Capability Requires an Intentional Development Process

This is one reason I believe leadership development shouldn't end when formal training concludes.

We can teach managers about coaching, delegation, empowerment, and employee development.

But applying those concepts consistently requires practice.

A new manager might understand the importance of delegation but struggle to release control.

Another might recognize the value of coaching but find it difficult to resist providing immediate answers.

An experienced manager may have developed habits that were effective earlier in their career but no longer serve the needs of their team.

These are opportunities for continued leadership development.

Through The Culture Prescription™, I'm building a development approach that connects education with workplace application, mentoring, reflection, and ongoing reinforcement.

The objective is to help leaders recognize their existing habits, understand how those habits influence others, and intentionally develop more effective approaches.

Because leadership development isn't simply about acquiring additional knowledge.

Sometimes it's about recognizing which behaviors we need to change.

The Culture Prescription Connection

The five pillars of The Culture Prescription™ offer a practical way to think about developing employee capability.

CONNECT: Build relationships that allow employees to approach you with questions, challenges, and ideas.

VALUE: Recognize that employees bring different strengths, experiences, perspectives, and approaches to their work.

CLARIFY: Establish expectations, decision-making authority, and the boundaries within which employees can exercise independence.

IGNITE: Create opportunities for employees to develop judgment, confidence, and capability through coaching and meaningful responsibility.

LEAVE BETTER: Develop people who become increasingly capable of succeeding, contributing, and growing beyond their dependence on you.

For me, IGNITE and LEAVE BETTER are particularly important in this conversation.

They remind me that developing people isn't about demonstrating my own expertise.

It's about helping others develop theirs.

A Question Worth Asking

Think about the people you lead.

Are there decisions they routinely bring to you that they're capable of making themselves?

Are there situations where you provide an answer before giving someone an opportunity to think?

Are there employees who could benefit from additional responsibility, coaching, or opportunities to demonstrate their capabilities?

And perhaps the most uncomfortable question:

Are there areas where your own leadership habits may be limiting someone else's development?

I still ask myself these questions.

Because even after more than two decades in leadership, it's easy to return to familiar habits, especially when the demands of the day make providing the answer seem like the simplest option.

But the simplest option isn't always the one that creates the greatest long-term value.

Our responsibility isn't to become the person everyone depends on.

It's to help develop people who become increasingly capable of succeeding without our constant direction.

That's the kind of leadership I want to continue practicing.

And it's the kind of leadership development I want The Culture Prescription™ to help organizations create.

Visit The Culture Prescription™

Sharra Schewee-Blair https://www.cultureprescription.com