The Team You Trained

"I just cannot rely on my team" is one of the most common sentences I hear from founders, and one of the most revealing. It is almost always offered as a statement about other people. It is almost always, on closer inspection, a description of something the founder has built without realising they were building it.

A team does not become reliable simply because the hiring was good. It becomes reliable because it has been given genuine ownership of real things, the context to exercise that ownership well, and the room to make decisions and sometimes get them wrong without the ground opening up. Reliability is an outcome of how a team is led far more than of who was hired into it.

Consider how the opposite forms, because it forms so easily and with such good intentions. A capable person joins and steps forward with a judgement. The founder, who has higher standards and more context, corrects it, reasonably. It happens again, and is corrected again. The person learns, sensibly, that stepping forward leads to being overruled, and that the safer move is to bring the question up rather than the answer. Multiply that across a team and a few years, and you have a group of able people who have been trained to wait, led by a founder who now complains that nobody on the team will take anything on.

I spent three decades in and around businesses, and the strongest teams I encountered were almost never the ones stacked with the most obviously brilliant individuals. They were ordinary, capable people who had been trusted deliberately and structurally, by a leader who understood that reliance is built rather than bought, and who had done the harder work on themselves to make that trust real rather than rhetorical.

Which leads to the uncomfortable reframing at the centre of this. The most useful question is usually not whether your team is good enough. It is whether the way you operate is producing the very dependence you are frustrated by. That is not a pleasant question to sit with, but it is a far more hopeful one, because it concerns the single variable you can actually change, which is yourself, rather than the one you keep wishing were different, which is everyone else.

Building reliance, in practice, is a deliberate transfer. It means handing someone an entire area rather than a series of tasks, giving them the context you carry in your head, agreeing what good looks like, and then holding back while they do it their way, including through the early period when their way is rougher than yours would have been. That holding back is the actual work, and it is hard precisely because it asks the founder to tolerate work being done less well than they could do it, in service of a team that can eventually do it without them at all.

And so, as with everything in a founder-led business, the team's reliability turns out to be inseparable from the operator. A leader who needs to be the most capable person in every room will, without ever intending to, keep producing rooms in which they are. Changing the team means changing how the leader shows up in it, because a business cannot outgrow the person running it.

The difficulty is that your own operating style is the hardest thing for you to observe, since it is simply how the world looks from where you stand. The Entrepreneur Gap scan gives you an outside read on it, mapping how you work across the eight roles a business depends on, the people role among them, and showing where your own defaults may be quietly capping the team you wish you could rely on. It is free and takes about five minutes.

Continue reading: The Win That Doesn't Move You →

Or find your blind spots: Take the free 5-minute Entrepreneur Gap scan →