WEBVTT
00:00:07.519 --> 00:00:12.640
When I sit down to write these episodes, I do so from a place of reflection and analysis.
00:00:12.880 --> 00:00:22.960
Some consultants and coaches will call it a postmortem when you sit back and you look at a project to examine what went right and what went, well, shall we say, less than right.
00:00:23.280 --> 00:00:34.479
As I was preparing for today's episode and really thinking about what went right and what went sideways with this particular leader, I genuinely smiled with this kind of bittersweet emotion.
00:00:34.719 --> 00:00:39.920
You see, today's episode isn't about me personally, but it could very easily have been.
00:00:40.159 --> 00:00:44.240
This could have been a reflection about my time as a leader early in my career.
00:00:44.399 --> 00:00:51.600
And I think most of us listening will be able to say the same thing or something very similar by the end of today's episode.
00:00:52.320 --> 00:00:57.039
Today's episode, I want to tell you about a leader that I really do have a lot of respect for.
00:00:57.200 --> 00:00:58.399
Her name is Naomi.
00:00:58.799 --> 00:01:08.640
And if you ask the people who worked for Naomi whether she was a good leader, the vast majority of them would tell you yes, absolutely, without hesitation.
00:01:08.959 --> 00:01:18.319
She was present, she was responsive, she knew her people by name, she knew their families, knew what they were working on and what they were struggling with.
00:01:18.560 --> 00:01:22.560
She genuinely cared, and that care was real.
00:01:22.799 --> 00:01:29.120
It wasn't performed, it wasn't a management strategy, it was just who Naomi was at the core of her being.
00:01:29.359 --> 00:01:33.519
Naomi was also the first person in the room when something went wrong.
00:01:33.760 --> 00:01:43.840
Before her team had a chance to fully engage with a problem, Naomi already had assessed it, she had already started solving it, already started mapping out the path forward.
00:01:44.079 --> 00:01:51.040
She didn't do this to show off, she did it because she cared about outcomes and she was really good at what she did.
00:01:51.200 --> 00:01:55.439
And frankly, it was just faster for her to do it herself.
00:01:55.760 --> 00:01:59.040
And for a long time, her results reflected that.
00:01:59.280 --> 00:02:11.919
Her team performed, projects got delivered, numbers came in, and Naomi was the kind of leader that senior management pointed to and said, that, right there, that's what we're looking for.
00:02:12.240 --> 00:02:18.639
But something was building underneath the surface of Naomi's organization that nobody was talking about.
00:02:18.800 --> 00:02:23.280
Not because it wasn't real, but because nobody had a name for it yet.
00:02:23.439 --> 00:02:31.280
And by the time it became visible, it had already cost Naomi and her team more than either of them realized.
00:02:31.680 --> 00:02:32.319
I'm Dr.
00:02:32.400 --> 00:02:38.000
Ashley Newcomb, founder of Inspired Coaching and Leadership, and this is the Resilient Organization.
00:02:38.159 --> 00:02:52.960
And today we're going to talk about one of the most common and most misunderstood ways that well-meaning leaders quietly dismantle the very engagement that they're trying to build, and with that, the resilience that they're trying to build.
00:02:53.120 --> 00:02:58.479
So over the past five episodes, we've been telling the story from the followers' perspective.
00:02:58.639 --> 00:03:03.039
We've heard about Dan, whose organization went quiet after the trust broke down.
00:03:03.199 --> 00:03:10.400
We heard about Jane, whose repeated experience of being passed over, taught her that speaking up just wasn't worth the risk.
00:03:10.639 --> 00:03:17.680
And about Shannon and Bryson's team who stopped contributing to the bigger picture when the system penalized their integrity.
00:03:17.919 --> 00:03:31.919
We also heard about Elena, who stopped trying not because she stopped caring, but because the environment had taught her that trying did not produce results and just wasn't worth the emotional energy that she was expending.
00:03:32.080 --> 00:03:41.199
And finally, last time we talked about Marcus, who was quietly conditioned out of his own autonomy by a leader who needed to be the one with all the answers.
00:03:41.520 --> 00:03:53.360
In every one of those stories, there was a system at work, a set of conditions, sometimes created by policy, sometimes by culture, sometimes by a single recurring interaction.
00:03:53.599 --> 00:04:03.280
And that policy or that interaction or that culture, well, it shaped followers to believe what was possible and safe inside of their organization.
00:04:03.439 --> 00:04:06.879
And we'll talk about psychological safety in future episodes.
00:04:07.120 --> 00:04:10.960
Today we're going to look at the leader's role in building that system.
00:04:11.280 --> 00:04:18.240
Not because the leaders are the villains of the story, they're not, but because leaders are the architects.
00:04:18.480 --> 00:04:25.199
And architects are responsible for what they build, whether they intend every feature or not.
00:04:25.680 --> 00:04:34.959
And let's be honest, we've all built something where we've looked at the instructions and at the end we were like, where do these extra screws come from?
00:04:35.199 --> 00:04:39.759
Well, organizational culture is often similar to that in nature.
00:04:39.920 --> 00:04:43.839
That we do end up with some nuts and bolts that we don't know where they came from.
00:04:44.000 --> 00:04:46.000
You know, maybe I should have stuck these in here.
00:04:46.240 --> 00:04:48.399
Maybe they're just extras from the factory.
00:04:48.720 --> 00:04:52.639
Or maybe when I try to sit in this chair, it's going to completely fall apart.
00:04:53.199 --> 00:04:56.079
So this episode is for the Naomi's in the room.
00:04:56.240 --> 00:05:14.959
The leaders who are hardworking, who genuinely care, and who may not yet realize that some of their most habitual, most well-intentioned behaviors are quietly teaching their followers to wait, to defer, and eventually to just stop trying.
00:05:15.120 --> 00:05:20.079
Let me define what I mean by overfunctioning leadership because I want to be really precise here.
00:05:20.319 --> 00:05:22.480
This is not about the leaders who work hard.
00:05:22.639 --> 00:05:28.160
It's not about leaders that are highly capable or deeply involved in their organization's work.
00:05:28.319 --> 00:05:30.160
Those things are not a problem.
00:05:30.480 --> 00:05:33.600
Overfunctioning leadership is a specific pattern.
00:05:33.759 --> 00:05:40.560
It's what happens when a leader consistently and habitually steps into spaces that belong to their followers.
00:05:40.800 --> 00:05:49.759
When they solve problems that their team is perfectly well capable of solving, but they step in before the team really gets their teeth into the problem.
00:05:50.160 --> 00:05:55.120
When they make decisions that their people have information and the judgment to make.
00:05:55.600 --> 00:06:14.319
When they rescue situations before their followers have the chance to engage with the situations, when they rework outputs that were already good enough, or sometimes even better than good enough, because doing it themselves feels faster, it feels safer, and it feels more certain.
00:06:14.560 --> 00:06:21.680
The catch is that it feels faster and safer and more certain to the leader and not the followers involved.
00:06:22.160 --> 00:06:25.279
Here's another hard truth about overfunctioning leadership.
00:06:25.519 --> 00:06:27.920
It almost always comes from a good place.
00:06:28.160 --> 00:06:30.000
It comes from caring about outcomes.
00:06:30.160 --> 00:06:37.120
It cares from wanting to protect your team from failure, from a genuine belief that your involvement makes things better.
00:06:37.360 --> 00:06:40.399
Most overfunctioning leaders are not control freaks.
00:06:40.560 --> 00:06:48.800
They're actually people who care so deeply and have learned through years of experience that they are good at solving problems.
00:06:48.959 --> 00:06:50.079
So they solve them.
00:06:50.240 --> 00:06:53.279
But here's what they're doing, whether they realize it or not.
00:06:53.519 --> 00:07:01.120
Every single time a leader steps in to solve a problem that a follower was perfectly well capable of solving, they're sending a message.
00:07:01.279 --> 00:07:04.240
And that message is not, I'm here for you.
00:07:04.480 --> 00:07:08.240
Unfortunately, the message received by the follower is closer to this.
00:07:08.879 --> 00:07:11.519
I don't fully trust you to handle this.
00:07:11.920 --> 00:07:21.920
Whether you intend for that message to come across or not, that's actually what the recipient of the message, that's what your follower perceives.
00:07:22.240 --> 00:07:31.120
And over time, that message repeatedly, consistently, unintentionally begins to reshape how followers show up.
00:07:31.360 --> 00:07:37.120
And this is going to cause Cinderella syndrome and learned helplessness a lot of times.
00:07:37.759 --> 00:07:43.519
The more a leader does, the less the organization becomes.
00:07:43.839 --> 00:07:52.959
So the more that you do, you step in to intercept these problems, the less organizational resiliency you are fostering.
00:07:53.199 --> 00:07:56.560
So you're actually tearing down instead of building up.
00:07:56.800 --> 00:08:00.480
Because here's what followers learn from an overfunctioning leader.
00:08:00.720 --> 00:08:02.480
They learn to wait.
00:08:02.800 --> 00:08:09.199
Why should I engage with a problem fully when I know that my leader is going to step in before I finished?
00:08:09.360 --> 00:08:12.079
The follower learns to escalate the problem.
00:08:12.240 --> 00:08:16.720
Why should I own a decision when my leadership prefers to be involved anyway?
00:08:17.120 --> 00:08:23.759
They learn to produce a standard they believe will be reworked, which is often lower than what they're actually capable of.
00:08:24.000 --> 00:08:30.879
And eventually they learn that their judgment, their initiative, their ownership, these things aren't really needed here.
00:08:30.959 --> 00:08:42.720
The leader has it covered, which also tears down organizational citizenship behavior, loyalty, and it can cause things like an increase in absenteeism and decrease in morale.
00:08:42.879 --> 00:08:56.559
And now, added to what we've been building over the last few episodes, I want you to see exactly what that produces because again, this is where it connects directly to organizational Cinderella syndrome and organizational learned helplessness.
00:08:56.720 --> 00:09:08.879
Just as a quick refresher, OCS is the pattern where capable people develop quiet dependency, waiting to be recognized or rescued, as very commonly seated by overfunctioning leadership.
00:09:09.039 --> 00:09:15.440
When a leader consistently rescues the follower before that follower has a chance to succeed or fail on their own.
00:09:15.679 --> 00:09:20.240
And failure sometimes is just as good of a teacher, if not better, than success.
00:09:20.399 --> 00:09:28.639
They're teaching their follower that rescue is the system, that waiting is the appropriate response, that someone else will handle it.
00:09:28.879 --> 00:09:31.200
That is the Cinderella dynamic.
00:09:31.279 --> 00:09:34.960
And it is built by one well-intentioned intervention at a time.
00:09:35.120 --> 00:09:44.320
And a refresher on organizational learned helplessness, OLH, is the pattern where followers stop trying because effort no longer feels connected to outcome.
00:09:44.559 --> 00:09:48.960
It's also frequently a byproduct of overfunctioning leadership.
00:09:49.120 --> 00:10:05.200
When a follower solution gets reworked, when their ideas get absorbed without credit, when their attempts to own a problem get interrupted by a leader who moves faster, they learn that their effort doesn't reliably produce results, or at least the results desired by the organization.
00:10:05.360 --> 00:10:10.399
And the logical conclusion of that learning is to stop extending the effort.
00:10:10.720 --> 00:10:13.200
Naomi didn't know she was doing any of this.
00:10:13.360 --> 00:10:14.879
I want to be clear about that.
00:10:15.120 --> 00:10:20.399
She was not trying to create dependency, she was not trying to create helplessness on her team.
00:10:20.639 --> 00:10:22.639
She was trying to lead well.
00:10:22.879 --> 00:10:26.159
She actually thought that she was leading by example.
00:10:26.399 --> 00:10:32.720
But impact and intention are two entirely different things, and leaders are responsible for both of those.
00:10:32.960 --> 00:10:37.679
Okay, look, I want you to hang with me for a second because I want to take a quick detour right here.
00:10:37.759 --> 00:10:38.960
And I'll be up front.
00:10:39.120 --> 00:10:46.960
At the risk of stepping on some toes, I'm going to name something that I think is the elephant in the room whenever we talk about overfunctioning leadership.
00:10:47.200 --> 00:10:50.159
And I'm naming it because I think it matters.
00:10:50.399 --> 00:10:51.759
I believe it matters.
00:10:51.919 --> 00:10:53.039
I know it matters.
00:10:53.200 --> 00:11:04.080
And because I think that not naming this is doing a huge disservice to a lot of people who might be listening to this today and recognizing themselves in Naomi and wondering why.
00:11:04.399 --> 00:11:05.519
So here it is.
00:11:05.759 --> 00:11:13.759
A lot of women in leadership, and I do mean a lot, had to fight considerably harder than their male counterparts to get where they are.
00:11:13.919 --> 00:11:19.360
I'm not trying to be off-putting and I'm not trying to make it sound one-sided or slanted.
00:11:19.600 --> 00:11:29.039
But the fact is that a lot of women set across from a promotional panel that had the same qualifications as the man sitting next to them in the waiting room.
00:11:29.120 --> 00:11:40.960
And sometimes the man got the call first, and sometimes our Naomi had to do it two or three times, or had to be demonstrably better just to be considered equally qualified.
00:11:41.200 --> 00:11:46.000
So if you're a woman in leadership and you're nodding your head right now, I see you.
00:11:46.320 --> 00:11:47.679
That fight was real.
00:11:47.840 --> 00:11:49.360
I had to fight it myself.
00:11:49.600 --> 00:11:54.000
And here's what I've observed not as a judgment, but as a pattern.
00:11:54.240 --> 00:11:58.480
Sometimes that fight leaves a mark on us.
00:11:58.720 --> 00:12:00.639
It leaves something behind.
00:12:01.120 --> 00:12:19.120
It leaves an instinct or a drive or maybe even something unconscious, an unconscious need to prove over and over again that you do belong in the room, that you earned that title, that you are worthy of the position that it took so much of you to get.
00:12:19.279 --> 00:12:27.679
And sometimes, not always, but sometimes that need to prove yourself can show up as overfunctioning.
00:12:27.919 --> 00:12:44.879
And doing more, solving more, controlling more, not just because you're trying to undermine your team, but because somewhere deep inside, underneath it all, there's a little voice that hasn't fully accepted yet that you don't have to keep proving it.
00:12:45.039 --> 00:12:51.759
And sometimes there's an outside voice that keeps coming at you that says that you do need to keep proving it.
00:12:51.919 --> 00:12:54.639
So I want to say this gently but clearly.
00:12:54.960 --> 00:12:57.759
That is not a character flaw.
00:12:57.919 --> 00:13:02.559
That is a very human response to a very real set of experiences.
00:13:02.720 --> 00:13:09.600
But it's worth naming because the cost of it for your team and honestly for you is significant.
00:13:09.840 --> 00:13:11.679
Now I'm gonna also say this.
00:13:11.840 --> 00:13:19.519
I've seen that same pattern in younger leaders who were promoted quickly and are navigating imposter syndrome that can come with that.
00:13:19.600 --> 00:13:21.360
And that is imposter syndrome.
00:13:21.519 --> 00:13:34.720
That deep down feeling that, you know, hey, eventually somebody's gonna find out that I didn't earn this or somebody is gonna find out that I didn't deserve this or that I don't know what I'm talking about when you actually do know what you're talking about.
00:13:35.039 --> 00:13:41.759
That self-doubt that really doesn't belong in the conversation but lives inside us anyway, that is imposter syndrome.
00:13:41.840 --> 00:13:59.759
And I've seen it in leaders who have gotten their initial opportunity through a connection or a family name, but who genuinely earned every single promotion after that through their hard work and their dedication and who carry quiet pressure to prove that the subsequent success was theirs.
00:14:00.000 --> 00:14:01.600
That pressure is real too.
00:14:01.759 --> 00:14:05.840
And it can produce the same pattern and it can produce the same pain.
00:14:06.080 --> 00:14:10.240
So when I say this episode is for the Naomi, I mean all of you.
00:14:10.399 --> 00:14:16.879
Whatever brought you to the room, whatever it costs you to get there, this conversation is for you, my friend.
00:14:17.120 --> 00:14:18.960
Okay, let's get back to Naomi.
00:14:19.519 --> 00:14:23.200
So let me tell you about the moment that Naomi started to see it.
00:14:23.279 --> 00:14:25.120
And I mean to really see it.
00:14:25.360 --> 00:14:29.039
She is preparing for a major presentation to her organization's board.
00:14:29.200 --> 00:14:36.399
It was high stakes, and it was the kind of moment that required her team's best thinking, not just hers on her own.
00:14:36.559 --> 00:14:38.159
And Naomi did what she always did.
00:14:38.240 --> 00:14:46.639
She called her team together, she asked for their input, she listened carefully, and then she went back to her office and built the presentation by herself.
00:14:46.799 --> 00:14:51.919
She told herself she was synthesizing their ideas, pulling the best threads together into something coherent.
00:14:52.080 --> 00:14:54.399
And in a technical sense, that was true.
00:14:54.559 --> 00:14:57.840
Their fingerprints were in there somewhere, and they were very evident.
00:14:57.919 --> 00:15:02.720
But when the presentation was done and she shared it with her team, something happened that she didn't expect.
00:15:02.879 --> 00:15:08.559
She was so proud of it and she really thought she knocked it out of the park, but there was very little reaction from her team.
00:15:08.720 --> 00:15:13.679
There were a few polite comments, there was some nodding, and then the people, they just went back to their desks.
00:15:13.919 --> 00:15:15.679
Naomi had expected energy.
00:15:15.759 --> 00:15:19.679
She had expected her team to feel ownership over what they helped create.
00:15:19.759 --> 00:15:21.120
And that's how she saw it.
00:15:21.279 --> 00:15:23.600
She saw it as they helped her create it.
00:15:23.759 --> 00:15:28.240
Instead, what she got was something that looked a lot like indifference, and she didn't understand it.
00:15:28.320 --> 00:15:30.480
So she did something that took real courage.
00:15:30.720 --> 00:15:31.440
She asked.
00:15:31.679 --> 00:15:38.960
She pulled one of her most trusted team members aside, somebody that had been with her for several years, someone she knew would be honest with her.
00:15:39.120 --> 00:15:40.879
And she said, What did I miss?
00:15:41.039 --> 00:15:42.879
Why did that land the way that it did?
00:15:43.039 --> 00:15:51.039
And she had built the rapport with that team member to where the team member actually did tell her gently and carefully, but honestly.
00:15:51.200 --> 00:15:53.440
She said, Naomi, we've been through this before.
00:15:53.600 --> 00:15:57.120
We've shared our ideas with you, and then you go off and build something.
00:15:57.200 --> 00:15:59.440
And what comes back is yours, not ours.
00:15:59.600 --> 00:16:04.240
And after a while, people stopped feeling like their ideas were going to show up in that final product.
00:16:04.399 --> 00:16:06.559
So we stopped investing in the process.
00:16:06.720 --> 00:16:08.639
We stopped showing up because you asked us to.
00:16:08.799 --> 00:16:10.960
We stopped expecting our contribution to matter.
00:16:11.200 --> 00:16:21.519
Naomi told me that hearing that was one of the most difficult moments in her leadership career, not because it was said unkindly, because it wasn't, but because she recognized immediately that it was true.
00:16:21.679 --> 00:16:25.440
You see, at the core of Naomi, she wanted to empower others.
00:16:25.600 --> 00:16:30.320
She wanted to leave a legacy of caring for others and building other people up.
00:16:30.480 --> 00:16:37.600
But she realized in that moment that what she had been doing for years was the exact opposite and that she had genuinely not seen it.
00:16:37.759 --> 00:16:39.440
And then she told me something else.
00:16:39.600 --> 00:16:42.960
She said the hardest part of hearing it wasn't the feedback itself.
00:16:43.200 --> 00:16:52.320
It was realizing that part of why she had been doing it was because she never fully trusted that her team's work would be good enough and that that would be a poor reflection on her.
00:16:52.480 --> 00:17:09.200
Not because they weren't capable, but because she had spent so many years having her own work held to an impossible standard that somewhere along the way, that standard had become the lens through which she evaluated everything, including the people that worked for her, or at least the things that reflected back on her.
00:17:09.359 --> 00:17:11.839
That's the nature of overfunctioning leadership.
00:17:12.000 --> 00:17:18.720
It's almost always invisible to the person doing it because from the inside, it feels like caring.
00:17:18.960 --> 00:17:21.279
It feels like competence, it feels like leadership.
00:17:21.440 --> 00:17:25.039
The feedback that something is wrong doesn't come in a dramatic moment.
00:17:25.200 --> 00:17:37.599
It comes in a gradual withdrawal of ideas, of initiatives, of investments that is so slow and so quiet that most leaders never connect it to their own behavior until someone is honest enough to name it.
00:17:37.759 --> 00:17:40.559
The good news about Naomi is that she was willing to hear it.
00:17:40.720 --> 00:17:48.480
And that willingness, that moment of genuine openness to feedback that implicated her directly, is where her leadership actually began to deepen.
00:17:48.720 --> 00:17:50.319
So let's make this personal.
00:17:50.480 --> 00:17:54.559
This is your reality check, and I want to start by saying something I mean sincerely.
00:17:54.720 --> 00:17:59.200
If any of what I've described today sounds familiar, that's not an indictment of your character.
00:17:59.359 --> 00:18:04.880
The leaders most likely to recognize themselves in Naomi's story are often the leaders who care the most.
00:18:05.039 --> 00:18:09.200
They're the ones who are the most invested, the most capable, the most present.
00:18:09.519 --> 00:18:15.039
Overfunctioning leadership is frequently the shadow side of genuine dedication.
00:18:15.200 --> 00:18:21.279
But caring about your people and leading in a way that releases their potential are not automatically the same thing.
00:18:21.440 --> 00:18:24.319
And that gap is worth looking at honestly.
00:18:24.559 --> 00:18:27.039
So here are a few questions that I want you to sit with.
00:18:27.200 --> 00:18:31.119
When someone on your team brings you a problem, what's your default response?
00:18:31.279 --> 00:18:34.559
Do you ask them how they're thinking about it and then wait for an answer?
00:18:34.720 --> 00:18:40.000
Or do you find yourself automatically moving toward a solution before they finished even describing the situation?
00:18:40.160 --> 00:18:44.799
There is no judgment in either answer, but the pattern matters.
00:18:45.119 --> 00:18:48.640
Think about the last significant piece of work your team produced.
00:18:48.880 --> 00:18:53.359
How much of that final output reflects their thinking versus your thinking?
00:18:53.519 --> 00:19:02.799
If your fingerprints are on everything that leaves your team, it's worth asking whether your team has started producing what they think you'll rework rather than what they are actually capable of doing.
00:19:02.960 --> 00:19:13.119
When's the last time that someone on your team failed at something and you let them learn from their failure rather than stepping in to smooth it over or prevent it?
00:19:13.359 --> 00:19:25.519
Failure handled well is one of the most powerful tools available to a leader, and it can really have a moment of building psychological safety, but you have to be willing to let your people encounter it.
00:19:25.680 --> 00:19:31.279
And for many high-caring, high-capability leaders, that's genuinely difficult.
00:19:31.519 --> 00:19:37.279
It's hard, especially if we care about someone, to let them fail and let them learn from their failures.
00:19:37.440 --> 00:19:40.000
And here's the one that tends to land the hardest.
00:19:40.240 --> 00:19:49.440
If you step back, significantly, genuinely step back from the problem solving and the decision making and the rescuing, do you believe your team could handle it?
00:19:49.599 --> 00:19:55.680
If your honest answer is no or I'm not sure, that's not a reflection of your team's capability.
00:19:55.839 --> 00:20:01.440
It may be a reflection of what you've taught them to need and expect from you.
00:20:01.680 --> 00:20:04.799
Because OCS and OLH are not random.
00:20:04.960 --> 00:20:07.599
They're developed in response to conditions.
00:20:07.680 --> 00:20:14.559
And leaders, even the best ones, especially the best ones, are often the primary architects of those conditions.
00:20:14.720 --> 00:20:16.480
That is a hard thing to sit with.
00:20:16.640 --> 00:20:19.759
And trust me, I know I've sat with it on both sides.
00:20:19.920 --> 00:20:30.720
I've sat with it as a leader who was overperforming, and I've sat with it as a recipient developing organizational Cinderella syndrome and really had to take some time to recover from that relationship.
00:20:30.880 --> 00:20:34.400
But this is also one of the most hopeful things that I've said today.
00:20:34.559 --> 00:20:39.279
Because if you've built the conditions yourselves, then you can rebuild them.
00:20:39.519 --> 00:20:54.640
If you've joined me on previous podcasts, you know that I'm not going to bring you a problem without bringing some solutions or at least some temporary fixes that can get you to a point to where you can do some reflection and you can put some long-term corrective behaviors in place.
00:20:54.880 --> 00:20:58.240
So these won't undo years of overfunctioning overnight.
00:20:58.480 --> 00:21:02.559
Real change here is gradual and it requires sustained intention.
00:21:02.720 --> 00:21:05.359
Sometimes it requires rebuilding relationships.
00:21:05.440 --> 00:21:09.519
But if Naomi's story resonated with you, here are three places that you can start today.
00:21:09.680 --> 00:21:13.519
First, the next time someone brings you a problem, ask before you answer.
00:21:13.680 --> 00:21:18.559
Before you share your assessment, before you move toward a solution, before you do anything at all.
00:21:18.799 --> 00:21:21.599
Ask them, what are you thinking about this?
00:21:21.759 --> 00:21:24.079
And then be quiet, genuinely quiet.
00:21:24.240 --> 00:21:29.519
Put on our active listening ears long enough for them to actually answer.
00:21:30.160 --> 00:21:32.240
You are not withholding your expertise.
00:21:32.480 --> 00:21:34.640
You're creating space for theirs.
00:21:34.880 --> 00:21:39.440
Remember, as leaders, our job is to build up the next generation of leaders.
00:21:39.599 --> 00:21:45.440
It's not to gatekeep information and to secure our own personal place by hindering the growth of others.
00:21:45.680 --> 00:21:48.400
That space is where ownership begins to grow.
00:21:48.640 --> 00:21:53.039
Second, let the next piece of work go out with their fingerprints, not yours.
00:21:53.279 --> 00:21:59.440
Find something, one thing that your team produces in the next week or two and resist the urge to rework it.
00:21:59.680 --> 00:22:01.839
If it's good enough, let it be good enough.
00:22:02.000 --> 00:22:05.440
If it needs feedback, give the feedback and let them make the changes.
00:22:05.680 --> 00:22:10.640
What you're signaling is this your work has value as your work, not as raw material for mine.
00:22:10.799 --> 00:22:16.240
That signal delivered consistently begins to rebuild the belief that their contribution matters.
00:22:16.400 --> 00:22:17.920
And that's what we're trying to do.
00:22:18.079 --> 00:22:23.440
Third, create one moment this week where you are visibly a resource rather than a rescuer.
00:22:23.680 --> 00:22:27.680
When a problem arises, resist the instinct to lead with your solution.
00:22:27.839 --> 00:22:31.519
Instead, ask, what do you need from me to work through this?
00:22:31.680 --> 00:22:39.680
You're still present, you're still supportive, you're still the leader, but you're leading in a way that positions your people as the primary agents for their own work.
00:22:39.839 --> 00:22:47.359
And over time, that positioning is what builds the kind of team that doesn't need to be rescued because they never learn to wait for it.
00:22:47.440 --> 00:22:50.480
And that, my friends, is organizational resilience.
00:22:50.640 --> 00:23:02.000
And if you've listened to my segment on organizational Cinderella syndrome, those recommendations should sound pretty familiar because organizational Cinderella syndrome is often tied to overfunctioning leaders.
00:23:02.160 --> 00:23:08.160
So Naomi made changes, not perfectly, not all at once, but she started asking before she answered.
00:23:08.319 --> 00:23:10.640
She started letting work go out without reworking it.
00:23:10.720 --> 00:23:15.599
She started being more deliberate about when she stepped in and why she stepped in.
00:23:15.759 --> 00:23:29.279
Now her leadership style really was the type that she let her team take credit for the wins and she took the blame for losses, but she really started really sharing the ownership of the projects with her followers.
00:23:29.359 --> 00:23:34.480
And what came back over time was something that she hadn't seen from her team in years.
00:23:34.720 --> 00:23:38.480
Ideas started showing up in meetings that hadn't been run through her first.
00:23:38.799 --> 00:23:42.720
People started owning problems through completion without escalating them to her.
00:23:42.880 --> 00:23:46.720
So the presentation before the next board meeting, her team built it.
00:23:46.880 --> 00:23:54.400
She gave feedback, and when it was done, they were proud of it in a way that they hadn't been proud of anything in a long, long time.
00:23:54.720 --> 00:23:58.880
Naomi told me that the shift required something that she hadn't expected though.
00:23:59.039 --> 00:24:03.279
It required her to be willing to need her team more than they needed her.
00:24:03.440 --> 00:24:12.960
And for a leader who had spent years proving that she was capable of handling it all, she had built her entire identity around being competent and present and indispensable.
00:24:13.119 --> 00:24:14.720
Well, that's genuinely hard.
00:24:14.880 --> 00:24:19.920
But it was also, she said, one of the most freeing things that she had ever done as a leader.
00:24:20.079 --> 00:24:23.759
Because again, the goal of leadership is not to be needed.
00:24:23.920 --> 00:24:27.920
The goal is to build something that doesn't depend entirely on your presence to function.
00:24:28.079 --> 00:24:39.920
Something with roots deep enough to hold when the storm comes, something built on the full capacity of everybody in the organization, every single person in the organization, not just yours.
00:24:40.160 --> 00:24:54.000
So in the next episode, we're gonna look at how silence becomes structural, how it stops being a pattern of individual behavior and starts becoming embedded in the systems, the policies, the processes, the fabric of the organization itself.
00:24:54.160 --> 00:24:59.039
And that's where this is gonna get even more complex and even more important.
00:24:59.359 --> 00:25:08.640
As always, if today's episode is sitting with you and really kind of hitting you hard, remember that we have resources available to support you at inspiredcoaching.net.
00:25:08.799 --> 00:25:10.960
This has been the Resilient Organization.
00:25:11.200 --> 00:25:14.400
Thank you for being here with me, and I'll see you next time.
00:00:07.519 --> 00:00:12.640
When I sit down to write these episodes, I do so from a place of reflection and analysis.
00:00:12.880 --> 00:00:22.960
Some consultants and coaches will call it a postmortem when you sit back and you look at a project to examine what went right and what went, well, shall we say, less than right.
00:00:23.280 --> 00:00:34.479
As I was preparing for today's episode and really thinking about what went right and what went sideways with this particular leader, I genuinely smiled with this kind of bittersweet emotion.
00:00:34.719 --> 00:00:39.920
You see, today's episode isn't about me personally, but it could very easily have been.
00:00:40.159 --> 00:00:44.240
This could have been a reflection about my time as a leader early in my career.
00:00:44.399 --> 00:00:51.600
And I think most of us listening will be able to say the same thing or something very similar by the end of today's episode.
00:00:52.320 --> 00:00:57.039
Today's episode, I want to tell you about a leader that I really do have a lot of respect for.
00:00:57.200 --> 00:00:58.399
Her name is Naomi.
00:00:58.799 --> 00:01:08.640
And if you ask the people who worked for Naomi whether she was a good leader, the vast majority of them would tell you yes, absolutely, without hesitation.
00:01:08.959 --> 00:01:18.319
She was present, she was responsive, she knew her people by name, she knew their families, knew what they were working on and what they were struggling with.
00:01:18.560 --> 00:01:22.560
She genuinely cared, and that care was real.
00:01:22.799 --> 00:01:29.120
It wasn't performed, it wasn't a management strategy, it was just who Naomi was at the core of her being.
00:01:29.359 --> 00:01:33.519
Naomi was also the first person in the room when something went wrong.
00:01:33.760 --> 00:01:43.840
Before her team had a chance to fully engage with a problem, Naomi already had assessed it, she had already started solving it, already started mapping out the path forward.
00:01:44.079 --> 00:01:51.040
She didn't do this to show off, she did it because she cared about outcomes and she was really good at what she did.
00:01:51.200 --> 00:01:55.439
And frankly, it was just faster for her to do it herself.
00:01:55.760 --> 00:01:59.040
And for a long time, her results reflected that.
00:01:59.280 --> 00:02:11.919
Her team performed, projects got delivered, numbers came in, and Naomi was the kind of leader that senior management pointed to and said, that, right there, that's what we're looking for.
00:02:12.240 --> 00:02:18.639
But something was building underneath the surface of Naomi's organization that nobody was talking about.
00:02:18.800 --> 00:02:23.280
Not because it wasn't real, but because nobody had a name for it yet.
00:02:23.439 --> 00:02:31.280
And by the time it became visible, it had already cost Naomi and her team more than either of them realized.
00:02:31.680 --> 00:02:32.319
I'm Dr.
00:02:32.400 --> 00:02:38.000
Ashley Newcomb, founder of Inspired Coaching and Leadership, and this is the Resilient Organization.
00:02:38.159 --> 00:02:52.960
And today we're going to talk about one of the most common and most misunderstood ways that well-meaning leaders quietly dismantle the very engagement that they're trying to build, and with that, the resilience that they're trying to build.
00:02:53.120 --> 00:02:58.479
So over the past five episodes, we've been telling the story from the followers' perspective.
00:02:58.639 --> 00:03:03.039
We've heard about Dan, whose organization went quiet after the trust broke down.
00:03:03.199 --> 00:03:10.400
We heard about Jane, whose repeated experience of being passed over, taught her that speaking up just wasn't worth the risk.
00:03:10.639 --> 00:03:17.680
And about Shannon and Bryson's team who stopped contributing to the bigger picture when the system penalized their integrity.
00:03:17.919 --> 00:03:31.919
We also heard about Elena, who stopped trying not because she stopped caring, but because the environment had taught her that trying did not produce results and just wasn't worth the emotional energy that she was expending.
00:03:32.080 --> 00:03:41.199
And finally, last time we talked about Marcus, who was quietly conditioned out of his own autonomy by a leader who needed to be the one with all the answers.
00:03:41.520 --> 00:03:53.360
In every one of those stories, there was a system at work, a set of conditions, sometimes created by policy, sometimes by culture, sometimes by a single recurring interaction.
00:03:53.599 --> 00:04:03.280
And that policy or that interaction or that culture, well, it shaped followers to believe what was possible and safe inside of their organization.
00:04:03.439 --> 00:04:06.879
And we'll talk about psychological safety in future episodes.
00:04:07.120 --> 00:04:10.960
Today we're going to look at the leader's role in building that system.
00:04:11.280 --> 00:04:18.240
Not because the leaders are the villains of the story, they're not, but because leaders are the architects.
00:04:18.480 --> 00:04:25.199
And architects are responsible for what they build, whether they intend every feature or not.
00:04:25.680 --> 00:04:34.959
And let's be honest, we've all built something where we've looked at the instructions and at the end we were like, where do these extra screws come from?
00:04:35.199 --> 00:04:39.759
Well, organizational culture is often similar to that in nature.
00:04:39.920 --> 00:04:43.839
That we do end up with some nuts and bolts that we don't know where they came from.
00:04:44.000 --> 00:04:46.000
You know, maybe I should have stuck these in here.
00:04:46.240 --> 00:04:48.399
Maybe they're just extras from the factory.
00:04:48.720 --> 00:04:52.639
Or maybe when I try to sit in this chair, it's going to completely fall apart.
00:04:53.199 --> 00:04:56.079
So this episode is for the Naomi's in the room.
00:04:56.240 --> 00:05:14.959
The leaders who are hardworking, who genuinely care, and who may not yet realize that some of their most habitual, most well-intentioned behaviors are quietly teaching their followers to wait, to defer, and eventually to just stop trying.
00:05:15.120 --> 00:05:20.079
Let me define what I mean by overfunctioning leadership because I want to be really precise here.
00:05:20.319 --> 00:05:22.480
This is not about the leaders who work hard.
00:05:22.639 --> 00:05:28.160
It's not about leaders that are highly capable or deeply involved in their organization's work.
00:05:28.319 --> 00:05:30.160
Those things are not a problem.
00:05:30.480 --> 00:05:33.600
Overfunctioning leadership is a specific pattern.
00:05:33.759 --> 00:05:40.560
It's what happens when a leader consistently and habitually steps into spaces that belong to their followers.
00:05:40.800 --> 00:05:49.759
When they solve problems that their team is perfectly well capable of solving, but they step in before the team really gets their teeth into the problem.
00:05:50.160 --> 00:05:55.120
When they make decisions that their people have information and the judgment to make.
00:05:55.600 --> 00:06:14.319
When they rescue situations before their followers have the chance to engage with the situations, when they rework outputs that were already good enough, or sometimes even better than good enough, because doing it themselves feels faster, it feels safer, and it feels more certain.
00:06:14.560 --> 00:06:21.680
The catch is that it feels faster and safer and more certain to the leader and not the followers involved.
00:06:22.160 --> 00:06:25.279
Here's another hard truth about overfunctioning leadership.
00:06:25.519 --> 00:06:27.920
It almost always comes from a good place.
00:06:28.160 --> 00:06:30.000
It comes from caring about outcomes.
00:06:30.160 --> 00:06:37.120
It cares from wanting to protect your team from failure, from a genuine belief that your involvement makes things better.
00:06:37.360 --> 00:06:40.399
Most overfunctioning leaders are not control freaks.
00:06:40.560 --> 00:06:48.800
They're actually people who care so deeply and have learned through years of experience that they are good at solving problems.
00:06:48.959 --> 00:06:50.079
So they solve them.
00:06:50.240 --> 00:06:53.279
But here's what they're doing, whether they realize it or not.
00:06:53.519 --> 00:07:01.120
Every single time a leader steps in to solve a problem that a follower was perfectly well capable of solving, they're sending a message.
00:07:01.279 --> 00:07:04.240
And that message is not, I'm here for you.
00:07:04.480 --> 00:07:08.240
Unfortunately, the message received by the follower is closer to this.
00:07:08.879 --> 00:07:11.519
I don't fully trust you to handle this.
00:07:11.920 --> 00:07:21.920
Whether you intend for that message to come across or not, that's actually what the recipient of the message, that's what your follower perceives.
00:07:22.240 --> 00:07:31.120
And over time, that message repeatedly, consistently, unintentionally begins to reshape how followers show up.
00:07:31.360 --> 00:07:37.120
And this is going to cause Cinderella syndrome and learned helplessness a lot of times.
00:07:37.759 --> 00:07:43.519
The more a leader does, the less the organization becomes.
00:07:43.839 --> 00:07:52.959
So the more that you do, you step in to intercept these problems, the less organizational resiliency you are fostering.
00:07:53.199 --> 00:07:56.560
So you're actually tearing down instead of building up.
00:07:56.800 --> 00:08:00.480
Because here's what followers learn from an overfunctioning leader.
00:08:00.720 --> 00:08:02.480
They learn to wait.
00:08:02.800 --> 00:08:09.199
Why should I engage with a problem fully when I know that my leader is going to step in before I finished?
00:08:09.360 --> 00:08:12.079
The follower learns to escalate the problem.
00:08:12.240 --> 00:08:16.720
Why should I own a decision when my leadership prefers to be involved anyway?
00:08:17.120 --> 00:08:23.759
They learn to produce a standard they believe will be reworked, which is often lower than what they're actually capable of.
00:08:24.000 --> 00:08:30.879
And eventually they learn that their judgment, their initiative, their ownership, these things aren't really needed here.
00:08:30.959 --> 00:08:42.720
The leader has it covered, which also tears down organizational citizenship behavior, loyalty, and it can cause things like an increase in absenteeism and decrease in morale.
00:08:42.879 --> 00:08:56.559
And now, added to what we've been building over the last few episodes, I want you to see exactly what that produces because again, this is where it connects directly to organizational Cinderella syndrome and organizational learned helplessness.
00:08:56.720 --> 00:09:08.879
Just as a quick refresher, OCS is the pattern where capable people develop quiet dependency, waiting to be recognized or rescued, as very commonly seated by overfunctioning leadership.
00:09:09.039 --> 00:09:15.440
When a leader consistently rescues the follower before that follower has a chance to succeed or fail on their own.
00:09:15.679 --> 00:09:20.240
And failure sometimes is just as good of a teacher, if not better, than success.
00:09:20.399 --> 00:09:28.639
They're teaching their follower that rescue is the system, that waiting is the appropriate response, that someone else will handle it.
00:09:28.879 --> 00:09:31.200
That is the Cinderella dynamic.
00:09:31.279 --> 00:09:34.960
And it is built by one well-intentioned intervention at a time.
00:09:35.120 --> 00:09:44.320
And a refresher on organizational learned helplessness, OLH, is the pattern where followers stop trying because effort no longer feels connected to outcome.
00:09:44.559 --> 00:09:48.960
It's also frequently a byproduct of overfunctioning leadership.
00:09:49.120 --> 00:10:05.200
When a follower solution gets reworked, when their ideas get absorbed without credit, when their attempts to own a problem get interrupted by a leader who moves faster, they learn that their effort doesn't reliably produce results, or at least the results desired by the organization.
00:10:05.360 --> 00:10:10.399
And the logical conclusion of that learning is to stop extending the effort.
00:10:10.720 --> 00:10:13.200
Naomi didn't know she was doing any of this.
00:10:13.360 --> 00:10:14.879
I want to be clear about that.
00:10:15.120 --> 00:10:20.399
She was not trying to create dependency, she was not trying to create helplessness on her team.
00:10:20.639 --> 00:10:22.639
She was trying to lead well.
00:10:22.879 --> 00:10:26.159
She actually thought that she was leading by example.
00:10:26.399 --> 00:10:32.720
But impact and intention are two entirely different things, and leaders are responsible for both of those.
00:10:32.960 --> 00:10:37.679
Okay, look, I want you to hang with me for a second because I want to take a quick detour right here.
00:10:37.759 --> 00:10:38.960
And I'll be up front.
00:10:39.120 --> 00:10:46.960
At the risk of stepping on some toes, I'm going to name something that I think is the elephant in the room whenever we talk about overfunctioning leadership.
00:10:47.200 --> 00:10:50.159
And I'm naming it because I think it matters.
00:10:50.399 --> 00:10:51.759
I believe it matters.
00:10:51.919 --> 00:10:53.039
I know it matters.
00:10:53.200 --> 00:11:04.080
And because I think that not naming this is doing a huge disservice to a lot of people who might be listening to this today and recognizing themselves in Naomi and wondering why.
00:11:04.399 --> 00:11:05.519
So here it is.
00:11:05.759 --> 00:11:13.759
A lot of women in leadership, and I do mean a lot, had to fight considerably harder than their male counterparts to get where they are.
00:11:13.919 --> 00:11:19.360
I'm not trying to be off-putting and I'm not trying to make it sound one-sided or slanted.
00:11:19.600 --> 00:11:29.039
But the fact is that a lot of women set across from a promotional panel that had the same qualifications as the man sitting next to them in the waiting room.
00:11:29.120 --> 00:11:40.960
And sometimes the man got the call first, and sometimes our Naomi had to do it two or three times, or had to be demonstrably better just to be considered equally qualified.
00:11:41.200 --> 00:11:46.000
So if you're a woman in leadership and you're nodding your head right now, I see you.
00:11:46.320 --> 00:11:47.679
That fight was real.
00:11:47.840 --> 00:11:49.360
I had to fight it myself.
00:11:49.600 --> 00:11:54.000
And here's what I've observed not as a judgment, but as a pattern.
00:11:54.240 --> 00:11:58.480
Sometimes that fight leaves a mark on us.
00:11:58.720 --> 00:12:00.639
It leaves something behind.
00:12:01.120 --> 00:12:19.120
It leaves an instinct or a drive or maybe even something unconscious, an unconscious need to prove over and over again that you do belong in the room, that you earned that title, that you are worthy of the position that it took so much of you to get.
00:12:19.279 --> 00:12:27.679
And sometimes, not always, but sometimes that need to prove yourself can show up as overfunctioning.
00:12:27.919 --> 00:12:44.879
And doing more, solving more, controlling more, not just because you're trying to undermine your team, but because somewhere deep inside, underneath it all, there's a little voice that hasn't fully accepted yet that you don't have to keep proving it.
00:12:45.039 --> 00:12:51.759
And sometimes there's an outside voice that keeps coming at you that says that you do need to keep proving it.
00:12:51.919 --> 00:12:54.639
So I want to say this gently but clearly.
00:12:54.960 --> 00:12:57.759
That is not a character flaw.
00:12:57.919 --> 00:13:02.559
That is a very human response to a very real set of experiences.
00:13:02.720 --> 00:13:09.600
But it's worth naming because the cost of it for your team and honestly for you is significant.
00:13:09.840 --> 00:13:11.679
Now I'm gonna also say this.
00:13:11.840 --> 00:13:19.519
I've seen that same pattern in younger leaders who were promoted quickly and are navigating imposter syndrome that can come with that.
00:13:19.600 --> 00:13:21.360
And that is imposter syndrome.
00:13:21.519 --> 00:13:34.720
That deep down feeling that, you know, hey, eventually somebody's gonna find out that I didn't earn this or somebody is gonna find out that I didn't deserve this or that I don't know what I'm talking about when you actually do know what you're talking about.
00:13:35.039 --> 00:13:41.759
That self-doubt that really doesn't belong in the conversation but lives inside us anyway, that is imposter syndrome.
00:13:41.840 --> 00:13:59.759
And I've seen it in leaders who have gotten their initial opportunity through a connection or a family name, but who genuinely earned every single promotion after that through their hard work and their dedication and who carry quiet pressure to prove that the subsequent success was theirs.
00:14:00.000 --> 00:14:01.600
That pressure is real too.
00:14:01.759 --> 00:14:05.840
And it can produce the same pattern and it can produce the same pain.
00:14:06.080 --> 00:14:10.240
So when I say this episode is for the Naomi, I mean all of you.
00:14:10.399 --> 00:14:16.879
Whatever brought you to the room, whatever it costs you to get there, this conversation is for you, my friend.
00:14:17.120 --> 00:14:18.960
Okay, let's get back to Naomi.
00:14:19.519 --> 00:14:23.200
So let me tell you about the moment that Naomi started to see it.
00:14:23.279 --> 00:14:25.120
And I mean to really see it.
00:14:25.360 --> 00:14:29.039
She is preparing for a major presentation to her organization's board.
00:14:29.200 --> 00:14:36.399
It was high stakes, and it was the kind of moment that required her team's best thinking, not just hers on her own.
00:14:36.559 --> 00:14:38.159
And Naomi did what she always did.
00:14:38.240 --> 00:14:46.639
She called her team together, she asked for their input, she listened carefully, and then she went back to her office and built the presentation by herself.
00:14:46.799 --> 00:14:51.919
She told herself she was synthesizing their ideas, pulling the best threads together into something coherent.
00:14:52.080 --> 00:14:54.399
And in a technical sense, that was true.
00:14:54.559 --> 00:14:57.840
Their fingerprints were in there somewhere, and they were very evident.
00:14:57.919 --> 00:15:02.720
But when the presentation was done and she shared it with her team, something happened that she didn't expect.
00:15:02.879 --> 00:15:08.559
She was so proud of it and she really thought she knocked it out of the park, but there was very little reaction from her team.
00:15:08.720 --> 00:15:13.679
There were a few polite comments, there was some nodding, and then the people, they just went back to their desks.
00:15:13.919 --> 00:15:15.679
Naomi had expected energy.
00:15:15.759 --> 00:15:19.679
She had expected her team to feel ownership over what they helped create.
00:15:19.759 --> 00:15:21.120
And that's how she saw it.
00:15:21.279 --> 00:15:23.600
She saw it as they helped her create it.
00:15:23.759 --> 00:15:28.240
Instead, what she got was something that looked a lot like indifference, and she didn't understand it.
00:15:28.320 --> 00:15:30.480
So she did something that took real courage.
00:15:30.720 --> 00:15:31.440
She asked.
00:15:31.679 --> 00:15:38.960
She pulled one of her most trusted team members aside, somebody that had been with her for several years, someone she knew would be honest with her.
00:15:39.120 --> 00:15:40.879
And she said, What did I miss?
00:15:41.039 --> 00:15:42.879
Why did that land the way that it did?
00:15:43.039 --> 00:15:51.039
And she had built the rapport with that team member to where the team member actually did tell her gently and carefully, but honestly.
00:15:51.200 --> 00:15:53.440
She said, Naomi, we've been through this before.
00:15:53.600 --> 00:15:57.120
We've shared our ideas with you, and then you go off and build something.
00:15:57.200 --> 00:15:59.440
And what comes back is yours, not ours.
00:15:59.600 --> 00:16:04.240
And after a while, people stopped feeling like their ideas were going to show up in that final product.
00:16:04.399 --> 00:16:06.559
So we stopped investing in the process.
00:16:06.720 --> 00:16:08.639
We stopped showing up because you asked us to.
00:16:08.799 --> 00:16:10.960
We stopped expecting our contribution to matter.
00:16:11.200 --> 00:16:21.519
Naomi told me that hearing that was one of the most difficult moments in her leadership career, not because it was said unkindly, because it wasn't, but because she recognized immediately that it was true.
00:16:21.679 --> 00:16:25.440
You see, at the core of Naomi, she wanted to empower others.
00:16:25.600 --> 00:16:30.320
She wanted to leave a legacy of caring for others and building other people up.
00:16:30.480 --> 00:16:37.600
But she realized in that moment that what she had been doing for years was the exact opposite and that she had genuinely not seen it.
00:16:37.759 --> 00:16:39.440
And then she told me something else.
00:16:39.600 --> 00:16:42.960
She said the hardest part of hearing it wasn't the feedback itself.
00:16:43.200 --> 00:16:52.320
It was realizing that part of why she had been doing it was because she never fully trusted that her team's work would be good enough and that that would be a poor reflection on her.
00:16:52.480 --> 00:17:09.200
Not because they weren't capable, but because she had spent so many years having her own work held to an impossible standard that somewhere along the way, that standard had become the lens through which she evaluated everything, including the people that worked for her, or at least the things that reflected back on her.
00:17:09.359 --> 00:17:11.839
That's the nature of overfunctioning leadership.
00:17:12.000 --> 00:17:18.720
It's almost always invisible to the person doing it because from the inside, it feels like caring.
00:17:18.960 --> 00:17:21.279
It feels like competence, it feels like leadership.
00:17:21.440 --> 00:17:25.039
The feedback that something is wrong doesn't come in a dramatic moment.
00:17:25.200 --> 00:17:37.599
It comes in a gradual withdrawal of ideas, of initiatives, of investments that is so slow and so quiet that most leaders never connect it to their own behavior until someone is honest enough to name it.
00:17:37.759 --> 00:17:40.559
The good news about Naomi is that she was willing to hear it.
00:17:40.720 --> 00:17:48.480
And that willingness, that moment of genuine openness to feedback that implicated her directly, is where her leadership actually began to deepen.
00:17:48.720 --> 00:17:50.319
So let's make this personal.
00:17:50.480 --> 00:17:54.559
This is your reality check, and I want to start by saying something I mean sincerely.
00:17:54.720 --> 00:17:59.200
If any of what I've described today sounds familiar, that's not an indictment of your character.
00:17:59.359 --> 00:18:04.880
The leaders most likely to recognize themselves in Naomi's story are often the leaders who care the most.
00:18:05.039 --> 00:18:09.200
They're the ones who are the most invested, the most capable, the most present.
00:18:09.519 --> 00:18:15.039
Overfunctioning leadership is frequently the shadow side of genuine dedication.
00:18:15.200 --> 00:18:21.279
But caring about your people and leading in a way that releases their potential are not automatically the same thing.
00:18:21.440 --> 00:18:24.319
And that gap is worth looking at honestly.
00:18:24.559 --> 00:18:27.039
So here are a few questions that I want you to sit with.
00:18:27.200 --> 00:18:31.119
When someone on your team brings you a problem, what's your default response?
00:18:31.279 --> 00:18:34.559
Do you ask them how they're thinking about it and then wait for an answer?
00:18:34.720 --> 00:18:40.000
Or do you find yourself automatically moving toward a solution before they finished even describing the situation?
00:18:40.160 --> 00:18:44.799
There is no judgment in either answer, but the pattern matters.
00:18:45.119 --> 00:18:48.640
Think about the last significant piece of work your team produced.
00:18:48.880 --> 00:18:53.359
How much of that final output reflects their thinking versus your thinking?
00:18:53.519 --> 00:19:02.799
If your fingerprints are on everything that leaves your team, it's worth asking whether your team has started producing what they think you'll rework rather than what they are actually capable of doing.
00:19:02.960 --> 00:19:13.119
When's the last time that someone on your team failed at something and you let them learn from their failure rather than stepping in to smooth it over or prevent it?
00:19:13.359 --> 00:19:25.519
Failure handled well is one of the most powerful tools available to a leader, and it can really have a moment of building psychological safety, but you have to be willing to let your people encounter it.
00:19:25.680 --> 00:19:31.279
And for many high-caring, high-capability leaders, that's genuinely difficult.
00:19:31.519 --> 00:19:37.279
It's hard, especially if we care about someone, to let them fail and let them learn from their failures.
00:19:37.440 --> 00:19:40.000
And here's the one that tends to land the hardest.
00:19:40.240 --> 00:19:49.440
If you step back, significantly, genuinely step back from the problem solving and the decision making and the rescuing, do you believe your team could handle it?
00:19:49.599 --> 00:19:55.680
If your honest answer is no or I'm not sure, that's not a reflection of your team's capability.
00:19:55.839 --> 00:20:01.440
It may be a reflection of what you've taught them to need and expect from you.
00:20:01.680 --> 00:20:04.799
Because OCS and OLH are not random.
00:20:04.960 --> 00:20:07.599
They're developed in response to conditions.
00:20:07.680 --> 00:20:14.559
And leaders, even the best ones, especially the best ones, are often the primary architects of those conditions.
00:20:14.720 --> 00:20:16.480
That is a hard thing to sit with.
00:20:16.640 --> 00:20:19.759
And trust me, I know I've sat with it on both sides.
00:20:19.920 --> 00:20:30.720
I've sat with it as a leader who was overperforming, and I've sat with it as a recipient developing organizational Cinderella syndrome and really had to take some time to recover from that relationship.
00:20:30.880 --> 00:20:34.400
But this is also one of the most hopeful things that I've said today.
00:20:34.559 --> 00:20:39.279
Because if you've built the conditions yourselves, then you can rebuild them.
00:20:39.519 --> 00:20:54.640
If you've joined me on previous podcasts, you know that I'm not going to bring you a problem without bringing some solutions or at least some temporary fixes that can get you to a point to where you can do some reflection and you can put some long-term corrective behaviors in place.
00:20:54.880 --> 00:20:58.240
So these won't undo years of overfunctioning overnight.
00:20:58.480 --> 00:21:02.559
Real change here is gradual and it requires sustained intention.
00:21:02.720 --> 00:21:05.359
Sometimes it requires rebuilding relationships.
00:21:05.440 --> 00:21:09.519
But if Naomi's story resonated with you, here are three places that you can start today.
00:21:09.680 --> 00:21:13.519
First, the next time someone brings you a problem, ask before you answer.
00:21:13.680 --> 00:21:18.559
Before you share your assessment, before you move toward a solution, before you do anything at all.
00:21:18.799 --> 00:21:21.599
Ask them, what are you thinking about this?
00:21:21.759 --> 00:21:24.079
And then be quiet, genuinely quiet.
00:21:24.240 --> 00:21:29.519
Put on our active listening ears long enough for them to actually answer.
00:21:30.160 --> 00:21:32.240
You are not withholding your expertise.
00:21:32.480 --> 00:21:34.640
You're creating space for theirs.
00:21:34.880 --> 00:21:39.440
Remember, as leaders, our job is to build up the next generation of leaders.
00:21:39.599 --> 00:21:45.440
It's not to gatekeep information and to secure our own personal place by hindering the growth of others.
00:21:45.680 --> 00:21:48.400
That space is where ownership begins to grow.
00:21:48.640 --> 00:21:53.039
Second, let the next piece of work go out with their fingerprints, not yours.
00:21:53.279 --> 00:21:59.440
Find something, one thing that your team produces in the next week or two and resist the urge to rework it.
00:21:59.680 --> 00:22:01.839
If it's good enough, let it be good enough.
00:22:02.000 --> 00:22:05.440
If it needs feedback, give the feedback and let them make the changes.
00:22:05.680 --> 00:22:10.640
What you're signaling is this your work has value as your work, not as raw material for mine.
00:22:10.799 --> 00:22:16.240
That signal delivered consistently begins to rebuild the belief that their contribution matters.
00:22:16.400 --> 00:22:17.920
And that's what we're trying to do.
00:22:18.079 --> 00:22:23.440
Third, create one moment this week where you are visibly a resource rather than a rescuer.
00:22:23.680 --> 00:22:27.680
When a problem arises, resist the instinct to lead with your solution.
00:22:27.839 --> 00:22:31.519
Instead, ask, what do you need from me to work through this?
00:22:31.680 --> 00:22:39.680
You're still present, you're still supportive, you're still the leader, but you're leading in a way that positions your people as the primary agents for their own work.
00:22:39.839 --> 00:22:47.359
And over time, that positioning is what builds the kind of team that doesn't need to be rescued because they never learn to wait for it.
00:22:47.440 --> 00:22:50.480
And that, my friends, is organizational resilience.
00:22:50.640 --> 00:23:02.000
And if you've listened to my segment on organizational Cinderella syndrome, those recommendations should sound pretty familiar because organizational Cinderella syndrome is often tied to overfunctioning leaders.
00:23:02.160 --> 00:23:08.160
So Naomi made changes, not perfectly, not all at once, but she started asking before she answered.
00:23:08.319 --> 00:23:10.640
She started letting work go out without reworking it.
00:23:10.720 --> 00:23:15.599
She started being more deliberate about when she stepped in and why she stepped in.
00:23:15.759 --> 00:23:29.279
Now her leadership style really was the type that she let her team take credit for the wins and she took the blame for losses, but she really started really sharing the ownership of the projects with her followers.
00:23:29.359 --> 00:23:34.480
And what came back over time was something that she hadn't seen from her team in years.
00:23:34.720 --> 00:23:38.480
Ideas started showing up in meetings that hadn't been run through her first.
00:23:38.799 --> 00:23:42.720
People started owning problems through completion without escalating them to her.
00:23:42.880 --> 00:23:46.720
So the presentation before the next board meeting, her team built it.
00:23:46.880 --> 00:23:54.400
She gave feedback, and when it was done, they were proud of it in a way that they hadn't been proud of anything in a long, long time.
00:23:54.720 --> 00:23:58.880
Naomi told me that the shift required something that she hadn't expected though.
00:23:59.039 --> 00:24:03.279
It required her to be willing to need her team more than they needed her.
00:24:03.440 --> 00:24:12.960
And for a leader who had spent years proving that she was capable of handling it all, she had built her entire identity around being competent and present and indispensable.
00:24:13.119 --> 00:24:14.720
Well, that's genuinely hard.
00:24:14.880 --> 00:24:19.920
But it was also, she said, one of the most freeing things that she had ever done as a leader.
00:24:20.079 --> 00:24:23.759
Because again, the goal of leadership is not to be needed.
00:24:23.920 --> 00:24:27.920
The goal is to build something that doesn't depend entirely on your presence to function.
00:24:28.079 --> 00:24:39.920
Something with roots deep enough to hold when the storm comes, something built on the full capacity of everybody in the organization, every single person in the organization, not just yours.
00:24:40.160 --> 00:24:54.000
So in the next episode, we're gonna look at how silence becomes structural, how it stops being a pattern of individual behavior and starts becoming embedded in the systems, the policies, the processes, the fabric of the organization itself.
00:24:54.160 --> 00:24:59.039
And that's where this is gonna get even more complex and even more important.
00:24:59.359 --> 00:25:08.640
As always, if today's episode is sitting with you and really kind of hitting you hard, remember that we have resources available to support you at inspiredcoaching.net.
00:25:08.799 --> 00:25:10.960
This has been the Resilient Organization.
00:25:11.200 --> 00:25:14.400
Thank you for being here with me, and I'll see you next time.
