When I played basketball in an amateur championship, our team did not agree when we needed a timeout, nor we agreed on what to change, then we did not do what we planned for. No surprise we got stuck.
In the bustling office of a mid-sized consultancy firm, Peter, a young and ambitious team leader, faced a challenge that would test his understanding of leadership and human behavior. It was a Thursday afternoon, and the team’s mood was unusually somber. The usually energetic group seemed stuck in a loop of complaints and frustration. Deadlines were looming, expectations were high, and the air was thick with tension.
Peter, sensing the negativity, believed it was his duty as a leader to intervene and “fix” the situation. “A good leader steps in, solves problems, and ensures the team can move forward,” he thought. He quickly came up with a plan to address what he perceived as inefficiencies and lack of motivation. He scheduled an emergency meeting, armed with a list of action points he believed would turn the situation around.
At the meeting, Peter shared his interpretation of the team’s struggles. He talked about better time management, clearer priorities, and ways to streamline communication. His tone was encouraging but directive. However, instead of gratitude or relief, his suggestions were met with lukewarm responses and even resistance.
One team member, Dean, finally spoke up:
“Peter, it’s not that we don’t know how to manage our time or prioritise. We’re just overwhelmed, and sometimes we need to vent to process everything. We’re not looking for solutions right now. We’re just trying to cope.”
Peter was taken aback. His good intentions had missed the mark because he had made a critical error: he hadn’t validated his assumptions with the team. He had interpreted their frustration as a sign of disorganization, rather than recognizing it for what it truly was—a natural response to stress.
Reflecting on Dean’s words, Peter decided to take a different approach. Instead of rushing to fix the situation, he created a safe space for the team to openly share their feelings without fear of judgment or immediate solutions. He started the next team meeting by simply asking, “How is everyone feeling?” Then he listened—really listened.
What he observed surprised him:
Some team members needed to express their fears about the upcoming project. Others found comfort in hearing they weren’t alone in their struggles. The act of sharing itself seemed to lighten the atmosphere in the room.
Peter realised that his initial instinct to intervene and “correct” the team’s behavior had been misguided. What the team needed wasn’t a solution but the space to process their challenges in their own way.
Peter’s misstep taught him an invaluable lesson about leadership: “If you want to change something, don’t rely solely on your interpretation—validate it with others first.” His earlier approach had been based on his perception of the problem, not the team’s lived reality. By failing to check in with his colleagues, his well-intended actions risked alienating the very people he sought to help.
From then on, Peter adopted a new practice. Whenever he sensed an issue within the team, he took a step back and asked three questions:
1. What do I think is happening?
2. How might others perceive this situation?
3. What feedback can I gather before acting?
And for Peter, this experience became a cornerstone of his leadership philosophy: Sometimes, the best way to lead is to pause, listen, and create space for others to process the noise before seeking the signal.
Okay, now that you understand what needs to change, keep in mind what Liz Wiseman says in her book, Multipliers.
Past results don’t predict future results; actually past behavior predicts future behavior, which then drives future results.
It’s those repeated actions that ultimately drive the outcomes you’ll see. If you want different results, the key lies in reshaping the behaviors and patterns that brought you here. And it starts with the leader to show good examples.
Let’s see some examples of that.
Anna was the CEO of a rapidly growing tech startup, but she was feeling the weight of her organisation’s dependence on her. Every decision, no matter how small, seemed to require her input. Deadlines slowed as employees waited for her approval, and her calendar was packed with meetings that left little room for strategic thinking. Realising this dynamic wasn’t sustainable, Anna decided to take intentional steps to change the behavior of her organisation.
Anna noticed that her employees were reluctant to make decisions on their own because they feared making mistakes. To shift this, she began to deliberately step back from smaller decisions. When her team brought her issues, she responded with: “What do you think we should do?”
At first, this approach surprised her employees, but over time, it encouraged them to take ownership of their work. Anna reinforced this shift by making it clear that she supported their decisions—even if they weren’t perfect.
In meetings, Anna changed her approach from giving directives to asking open-ended questions. For example:
Instead of saying, “We need to prioritise Project X,” she asked, “Which project do you think will have the biggest impact this quarter?”
Instead of stating, “Let’s handle this client issue like this,” she asked, “How do you think we should resolve this?”
This practice not only encouraged critical thinking but also gave her team a sense of ownership over their decisions.
Anna started by identifying tasks that didn’t require her expertise, such as operational details and routine approvals. She assigned these responsibilities to team leads and trusted them to manage their areas.
To ensure alignment, she introduced weekly check-ins to review progress, allowing her to focus on strategic initiatives without micromanaging.
Recognising that she needed strong leaders to support her vision, Anna invested in hiring and developing a competent team. She sought out individuals who were not only skilled but also shared her values and could drive decisions independently. For her existing team, she offered leadership training and coaching to help them grow into more autonomous roles.
Within a few months, Anna noticed significant changes:
By consciously breaking the cycle of dependence, Anna transformed her organisation into one where leadership was distributed, accountability was shared, and results improved without her having to be the bottleneck. This shift didn’t just make her life easier—it set the company up for long-term growth and success.
At a large manufacturing company, two departments—Product Development and Sales—were frequently at odds. Product Development wanted to focus on creating high-quality, innovative products, while Sales prioritised customer demands, often pushing for quick fixes or customisations. Their conflicts led to delays, frustration, and missed opportunities. The CEO, Maria, recognised the need to align the two teams and foster collaboration.
Maria brought both departments together for a workshop. She started by asking: “What do we all want to achieve?”
The answer was clear: both teams wanted the company to grow, satisfy customers, and deliver exceptional products. Maria framed this as their shared goal and emphasised how both teams played critical roles in achieving it.
“We’re all working for the same result: creating value for our customers and driving the company’s success,” she said. This common ground became the foundation for collaboration.
Maria realised that much of the conflict arose from overlapping responsibilities and unclear expectations. To address this, she worked with the teams to create a RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) matrix:
This clarity reduced misunderstandings and made it easier for each team to focus on their strengths.
Instead of playing referee or deciding who was “right,” Maria encouraged a mindset of mutual benefit. For example:
Within a few months, the tension between Product Development and Sales began to ease. By focusing on a shared goal, clarifying roles, and fostering win-win solutions, the teams started working together more effectively. They saw each other not as obstacles but as partners in achieving a common mission.
With improved collaboration, the company launched a new product line on time, meeting both quality standards and customer expectations—a success neither team could have achieved alone.
