The manager who spent a holiday answering Slack messages isn’t describing a dependency problem. What they’re actually describing is an incentive problem they never solved.
The five-step fix — ask coaching questions, delegate outcomes, clarify ownership — is a behavioral patch on top of an intact/unchanged system. It changes how the manager act, and does nothing to change what the system itself makes rational.
The team didn’t learn to ask the manager because the manager answered quickly. They learned to ask because uncertainty in that system got cheaper to escalate than to absorb or deal with directly. Coaching questions don’t reprice that, nor do clearer ownership checklists. The first time that team is under real pressure, every one of those five steps evaporates.
A structural incentive problem cannot be fixed, alone, by altering only communication technique.
The “Independence KPI” measures whether behavior changed, and that has usefulness, to a point. But it doesn’t measure whether the system changed or not. These are two entirely separate questions, and changing behavior without changing the incentive geometry will always peter out.
Heather, I’ve come across yourself in starting my own substack and really enjoy your articles. How do you balance this in advisory based roles where businesses are naturally paying for partners or managing director’s input in respect to the independence KPI. Thank you.
Hey, I think the key distinction is what kind of dependency you're building. In advisory roles, clients should rely on your thinking to level up their own (not replace it).
The goal is still the same: leave them more capable than you found them. The best advisors work themselves out of the problem, even if the relationship continues
Totally agree. I also see building teams that run without me as my biggest accomplishment. And working myself out of the project also. Allowing my people to step in and step up, as I step out. Many leaders fear that, I embrace it.
Heather, I really like your "Independence KPI" because it shifts the measure of leadership away from personal productivity and toward organizational capability. I'd add one thought: the strongest teams aren't independent because the leader stepped away, they're independent because they've developed a shared commitment to the mission. When people understand the purpose behind their decisions and feel genuine ownership of the outcome, they stop looking upward for permission and start looking outward for ways to advance the team's goals. That's when leadership scales. Not because the leader becomes less important, but because the team's commitment to the mission becomes stronger than its dependence on the leader.
That’s the real goal isn’t it, not just a team that can function without you, but a team that understands the mission clearly enough to keep moving it forward without needing constant permission.
Such a brilliant addition, thank you for sharing it 🙌🏻
This resonated. Results matter, but the leaders I remember most are the ones who left me more capable, more confident, and better equipped than when I started. That's an impact that lasts long after the numbers are forgotten.
I agree that it's a major KPI, but not the only one.
All the steps you mentionned are right, but they need their KPIs. Otherwise, you won't be able to know if the team is ready to take charge of the tasks, if they have the right mindset...
This steps are not a one-time deal, but something you must work through time.
The manager who spent a holiday answering Slack messages isn’t describing a dependency problem. What they’re actually describing is an incentive problem they never solved.
The five-step fix — ask coaching questions, delegate outcomes, clarify ownership — is a behavioral patch on top of an intact/unchanged system. It changes how the manager act, and does nothing to change what the system itself makes rational.
The team didn’t learn to ask the manager because the manager answered quickly. They learned to ask because uncertainty in that system got cheaper to escalate than to absorb or deal with directly. Coaching questions don’t reprice that, nor do clearer ownership checklists. The first time that team is under real pressure, every one of those five steps evaporates.
A structural incentive problem cannot be fixed, alone, by altering only communication technique.
The “Independence KPI” measures whether behavior changed, and that has usefulness, to a point. But it doesn’t measure whether the system changed or not. These are two entirely separate questions, and changing behavior without changing the incentive geometry will always peter out.
Interesting take thanks for sharing. I would say “yes and” building trust is the non-negotiable KPI for me.
love that
Heather, I’ve come across yourself in starting my own substack and really enjoy your articles. How do you balance this in advisory based roles where businesses are naturally paying for partners or managing director’s input in respect to the independence KPI. Thank you.
Hey, I think the key distinction is what kind of dependency you're building. In advisory roles, clients should rely on your thinking to level up their own (not replace it).
The goal is still the same: leave them more capable than you found them. The best advisors work themselves out of the problem, even if the relationship continues
Thanks Heather - appreciate the response. Keen for more articles!
Every Tuesday 👀🙌
Love this! Thank you! See you at the masterclass!
Yay see you there!
This is so true!
🙌🙌
Totally agree. I also see building teams that run without me as my biggest accomplishment. And working myself out of the project also. Allowing my people to step in and step up, as I step out. Many leaders fear that, I embrace it.
Yep, agreed and I love that point 👏 it feels so so rewarding when we can step back and watch others shoot for the stard.
Heather, I really like your "Independence KPI" because it shifts the measure of leadership away from personal productivity and toward organizational capability. I'd add one thought: the strongest teams aren't independent because the leader stepped away, they're independent because they've developed a shared commitment to the mission. When people understand the purpose behind their decisions and feel genuine ownership of the outcome, they stop looking upward for permission and start looking outward for ways to advance the team's goals. That's when leadership scales. Not because the leader becomes less important, but because the team's commitment to the mission becomes stronger than its dependence on the leader.
I love this, and completely agree.
That’s the real goal isn’t it, not just a team that can function without you, but a team that understands the mission clearly enough to keep moving it forward without needing constant permission.
Such a brilliant addition, thank you for sharing it 🙌🏻
This resonated. Results matter, but the leaders I remember most are the ones who left me more capable, more confident, and better equipped than when I started. That's an impact that lasts long after the numbers are forgotten.
yep! agreed
I agree that it's a major KPI, but not the only one.
All the steps you mentionned are right, but they need their KPIs. Otherwise, you won't be able to know if the team is ready to take charge of the tasks, if they have the right mindset...
This steps are not a one-time deal, but something you must work through time.
True
🙌
So true!
🙌🙌
I agree wholeheartedly with this. I personally struggle with my own position if the team is progressing without me, then what value am I adding.
and that discomfort is actually the sign of great leadership 👏