"Yes, sure. I can answer that for you."
Sounds exactly like what a leader does for their team. You are there for them. You are supporting them when they need you. And the fact that they come to you with their questions and challenges shows how much they need you.
Except that may be exactly the problem.
I work with leaders every day who are really good at what they do. They have the answers, quickly grasp what to prioritize, and see the risks in potential solutions faster than others. That is exactly why many of them were promoted.
Now they are expected to think more strategically, find ways to innovate, and drive growth and productivity, while delivering more with tight resources.
Yet important decisions still find their way back to them.
“Each conversation feels reasonable. Together, they fill the week.”
So here they are in one of my workshops, discussing how to build high-performing, resilient teams working toward a common goal connected to the vision of the business.
They are attentive. They want to be the best leaders they can be.
But how can they give more? They are already stretched. They know they need time for strategic work and for developing their leaders. They cannot squeeze more hours into the day.
I can almost hear the thought: "Yes, Jenny, sounds great. But you don't know what my week looks like."
This is where we start: looking at the conversations already happening in that week.
Who is doing the thinking? Who leaves with responsibility? And what happens when the same kind of decision comes up again?
A different response in the same conversation
Consider a conversation between a CEO and a commercial director. The exchanges below are illustrative, but the situations will be familiar to many senior leaders.
"The client is pushing for a discount. We could lose the renewal. What do you think we should offer?"
The CEO knows the account and sees a way forward. It would be easy to say, "Offer five percent, provided they commit to another year."
The immediate problem is resolved. The thinking has also moved back to the CEO.
Instead, the response could be: "What do you recommend? Walk me through how you got there."
The director proposes holding the price and changing the scope. Now there is something to examine together: the assumptions about the client, the margin implications, the alternatives, and the risks.
The CEO still contributes experience. They may challenge the recommendation or make a decision that belongs to them. But they have first given the director room to exercise judgment.
Or take the executive who says:
"We cannot deliver both priorities with the team we have. Which one should we push?"
"They both need to happen" may express the pressure you are under. It does very little to resolve the choice.
A different response might be: "Which outcome has the greatest consequence if we delay it? What would you protect, and what would you stop?"
You may still need to make the final call. You will make it with a recommendation and an explicit trade-off, rather than leaving the conflict for someone else to absorb.
Then there is the familiar cross-functional disagreement.
"Operations won't commit to the dates we need."
Before saying, "I'll speak to them," try: "What have you agreed together? Where is the actual conflict, and what decision needs to be made at this level?"
Sometimes your intervention is necessary. Sometimes you are about to take over a conversation two capable executives need to have themselves.
Small moments, practiced consistently
These changes do not require a new meeting in the calendar. They require attention to what happens inside the conversations you already have.
An executive meeting can make room for recommendations and trade-offs before you offer your view. A one-to-one can explore how someone reached a decision, alongside reviewing the result. A missed commitment can become a direct conversation about the gap and the next agreement, rather than another problem you quietly take on.
Sometimes it is as simple as: "Interesting question. How would you address it?" And then waiting.
The waiting matters. If you answer your own question a few seconds later, people learn that your answer is still coming.
Of course, there are moments when people need information, a clear instruction, or a decision from you. Give it to them. Asking questions should help the work move forward.
The judgment is recognizing when your help is useful and when it is taking the thinking away from someone capable of doing it.
These moments add up. They influence whether people bring you problems or considered recommendations. Whether they wait for your signal or act within their authority. Whether disagreement becomes something to work through or something to pass upward.
Greater ownership also needs agreed outcomes, appropriate authority, skills, and follow-through. A better question cannot compensate for a structure that requires your approval for everything.
“But changing how you respond is something you can begin today.”
It takes practical, consistent ways of communicating that build trust, judgment, ownership, and accountability. There is effort in that. There is also real joy in seeing people grow into responsibilities they once brought straight back to you.
So the next time someone brings you a question and you hear yourself saying, "Yes, sure. I can answer that for you," pause.
“Ask what they think first. Listen to how they got there.”
That small shift gives the team you want a chance to develop.
