What to Do When Doing Right by the Business Feels Like Failing Your Team

Leaders who value empowerment and development can struggle when circumstances demand tighter direction. How can they meet immediate business needs while protecting their team’s ability to grow?

“I am doing what’s right for the business, but I feel like I’m failing my team.” 

Variations of this concern are regularly shared with Frances Kelly, Managing Partner of Signium in Dusseldorf, which captures a tension that leadership advice often overlooks. A leader may understand what the business needs and still feel uncomfortable providing it. 

During sustained crisis management or significant transformation, there may be less room for experimentation, stretch assignments, or learning through mistakes. Decisions need to move quickly. Work that would ordinarily be delegated may require closer supervision. 

“For leaders who have built their reputation on developing talent, this can feel like a retreat from good leadership,” says Kelly. “Yet continuing to offer the same freedom under very different conditions may leave employees carrying responsibilities they’re not equipped to handle.” 

Today’s leaders must decide what needs to change, how far that change should extend, and what the team still needs from leadership. 

Why do familiar leadership habits escape scrutiny? 

Kelly asks why a tried-and-tested leadership approach is often the last thing leaders question: “Past success gives leaders good reason to trust their methods,” she says. “When problems arise, they may look first at resources, business conditions, or the team’s performance before considering whether it’s their own approach that no longer fits.” 

Their confidence can also rest on widely promoted leadership ideals. Empowerment, empathy, and authenticity are qualities leaders are encouraged to develop. Yet, these principles don’t tell them how much freedom, guidance, or involvement a particular individual needs – especially when circumstances change. 

Kelly notes that personal preferences can reinforce this assumption. “A leader who values independence may believe they’re being supportive by stepping back,” she explains. “But the team may be looking for more guidance and wondering why their leader isn’t providing it.”  

As physicist Richard Feynman warned about self-deception, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool.” For leaders, that means being willing to question an approach they have every reason to trust. It begs the question, ‘What makes me so confident this is what my team needs?’  

The pressure is on. Where do leaders step in?  

The practical task for leaders is to be clear about which decisions require their closer involvement and why. A broad instruction to “take control” offers little guidance and can result in leaders restricting decisions their team is still capable of making. 

Three questions can help define those boundaries.  

1. Where can the business no longer afford trial and error? 

During a crisis or major transformation, some work becomes too urgent or consequential to leave people to learn as they go. Leaders may need to make key decisions themselves, set a clear sequence of actions, or introduce closer review – even when it feels like micro-management. 

“Be specific about where more hands-on involvement is necessary and explain why,” encourages Kelly. “People need to understand what makes their usual freedom inappropriate for a particular task, and what support they can expect instead.” 

2. Where does the team still need room to act? 

Taking too much responsibility away can create another problem: capable people waiting for instructions while an already stretched leader becomes a bottleneck. 

Leaders must identify what employees can still handle independently and clarify which decisions require consultation or escalation. When people understand where they have authority to act, they can keep work moving without waiting for approval at every turn. That responsibility also helps them remain involved and confident in their contribution during an uncertain period.  

3. How can people keep learning while the pressure is on? 

Postponing a stretch assignment may protect an immediate outcome, but repeatedly postponing development can leave the team no better prepared for the next challenge. 

Leaders can help keep learning and development active during urgent work by involving colleagues in weighing options, explaining decisions, and reviewing outcomes together. “Someone not yet ready to lead a critical assignment can work alongside the person who is,” suggests Kelly. “This gives them the chance to build the judgment needed to take greater responsibility next time.” 

Can closer oversight get in the way of independent performance?  

Feeling uncomfortable doesn’t mean a leader is failing, but believing they’re doing what the business needs doesn’t mean every restriction they introduce is necessary. Leaders need to understand whether their closer involvement is improving results and what it means for the team’s day-to-day work.  

In The Importance of Knowing Your Team, INSEAD emphasizes inquiry rather than assumptions about responses. A quiet team may seem comfortable with closer oversight, while a questioning team may seem resistant. Leaders need conversations with employees to understand what’s behind those behaviors.  

Useful questions include: 

• Has clearer direction reduced delays, errors, or confusion? 

• Can people understand and explain which decisions they still own? 

• Are employees becoming unnecessarily dependent on approval? 

• What concerns are people withholding because the situation feels urgent? 

• What would allow greater responsibility to return to the team, and do people understand those conditions?  

These questions help leaders understand where closer oversight is helping and where it’s getting in the way. Clearer direction may help people move forward during uncertainty, but if capable employees are waiting for approval on routine work, the leader may have taken too much control. 

That feedback gives leaders a basis for adjusting their involvement – keeping oversight where it’s needed and giving people more room where they can work independently. 

How to assess leadership judgment before the appointment 

Employers can explore this judgment when selecting leaders, whether through an internal promotion or an external appointment. 

Kelly recalls candidates who openly acknowledge difficult experiences, including one who admitted that a major promotion – which looked great on paper – demanded a directive leadership style for a team in transition far beyond his capabilities at that time. Such retrospective candor is unusual and raises an important point: when the writing is on the wall, as it turned out to be in this case, does more preemptive focus need to be placed on the question of leadership agility pre-appointment? 

“Confidence and clear evidence of leadership experience can make a strong impression,” says Kelly. “But concrete examples reveal more about how someone handles competing responsibilities.” 

Assessment questions could include: 

• When have you needed to step in with a directive approach to ensure critical targets were met, and why? 

• How did your team respond, and what was your reaction to that? 

• What ownership did you retain personally, and what remained with the team? 

• How did you know when your intervention was no longer needed? 

• Looking back, where did you provide too much control or too little support? 

For decision makers and candidates alike, the ensuing discussion can test readiness for unforeseen calls of judgement. It should also lead into exploration of leadership maturity in the context of the specific challenges facing the team and the business.  

Good leadership can feel unfamiliar 

Leaders often learn to trust the habits that helped them succeed. When circumstances call for a different approach, the discomfort can feel like evidence that they’re getting it wrong. Stepping in may feel controlling. Delaying a stretch assignment may feel like holding someone back. Making a decision without wider agreement may feel dismissive. 

Kelly acknowledges that those feelings matter, but they don’t tell the whole story:

“Good situational leadership can feel unfamiliar because it challenges a leader’s understanding of what it means to be doing things right. Adapting can be uncomfortable, especially when familiar methods have served well in the past. But being willing to make that adjustment is itself an expression of genuine commitment to the team.”