.svg){kind=logo}
At 9:14 am, a team member asks, “What should I do about this client issue?” You answer in 30 seconds. At10:03 am, someone else asks how to handle a supplier delay. You answer again. By lunch, the work is moving - but only because every uncertain decision has travelled through you.
This can look like responsive leadership. Over time, it can make the manager the decision system. The team becomes skilled at escalating uncertainty, while the person with the most experience becomes the point through which everything must pass.
When a team always waits for your answer, the solution is not to stop helping or to tell people to “be more independent”. Change the pattern of help. Clarify the decision boundary, ask for the reasoning, require a recommendation and give feedback on how the person thought - not only whether their answer matched yours.
The Bottom Line
Do not stop helping. Change the pattern of help: clarify the decision boundary, ask for the reasoning, require a recommendation and give feedback on how the person thought.
The pattern usually starts for understandable reasons. You know the context. You can see the risk. You are accountable for the result. Giving the answer feels faster than unpacking the problem, especially when the day is already full.
But speed in one conversation can create dependence across many conversations. Each time a manager receives a raw problem and returns a finished answer, the team gets less practice in analysing information, testing assumptions, considering options and explaining a recommendation.
The issue is not that people ask questions. Good teams ask questions. The issue is the quality of the question and what happens next. “What should I do?” transfers the whole thinking task. “Here is the situation, the evidence, the options and my recommendation” keeps the decision conversation where it belongs.
One isolated question does not mean a team lacks judgement. Look for a repeated pattern:
Some leaders try to fix dependence by refusing to answer. That can create a different problem: people are still unclear about their authority, the standard of reasoning remains invisible and asking for help starts to feel unsafe.
A better approach is decision coaching. The manager keeps the necessary boundaries and remains accountable for decisions that genuinely sit with the role. At the same time, the team member is expected to make their thinking visible.
The following five-part loop can turn a routine escalation into a small practice opportunity. It is designed for workplace decisions where a team member can safely contribute analysis and a recommendation.
1. Boundary - Confirm who owns the decision, what is non-negotiable and when escalation is required.
2. Question - Name the decision or problem clearly before discussing solutions.
3. Evidence - Separate known facts from assumptions and identify what information is missing.
4. Recommendation - Compare options, consider risk and state a preferred action with a reason.
5. Feedback - Respond to the quality of the reasoning, identify what was strong and explain what to refine next time.
The next time a team member asks, “What should I do?”, try this response:
This is more useful than asking “What do you think?” without context. It gives the person a visible reasoning standard. It also tells them that support is available, while the thinking task still belongs to them.
A customer-service team has received several complaints about delayed responses. A team member proposes immediate refresher training and asks the manager to approve it.
The manager could say yes and move on. Instead, the manager uses the loop. The decision boundary is clarified: the team member can investigate and recommend an improvement, while any change to staffing or formal procedure requires approval. The manager then asks what evidence connects the delay to a training gap.
The team member reviews enquiry records and speaks with colleagues. The evidence shows several possible causes: inconsistent handovers, unclear ownership, workload peaks and some knowledge gaps. The team member compares options and recommends a short trial that clarifies enquiry ownership and records response times before deciding whether training is needed.
The manager has not abandoned the decision. The manager has created a safer, better-informed recommendation and given the team member meaningful practice in analysis, evaluation and explanation.
Not every decision should be pushed down. Organisational policy, role authority and the level of risk still matter. Safety, legal, financial, sensitive or high-impact matters may require immediate escalation to the appropriate person.
Begin with decisions that are lower risk, reversible and close to the team member’s work. State the boundary before the person begins. Review the reasoning afterwards. As judgement becomes more consistent, the scope of decision practice may be adjusted in line with organisational requirements.
A correct result can come from weak reasoning, and an imperfect result can come from a thoughtful process that needs one adjustment. Feedback should make that distinction visible.
Instead of saying only “good decision” or “that was wrong”, be specific:
Developing the judgement of others is part of broader leadership accountability. It requires more than delegating tasks. Leaders need to assess current capability, create conditions where people can question and contribute, provide opportunities to practise and use feedback to improve the quality of thinking over time.
Evolve Learning Institute (ELI)’s current BSB50420 Diploma of Leadership and Management includes the unit BSBCRT511 Develop critical thinking in others. The unit focuses on assessing individual and team critical and creative thinking skills, establishing an environment that encourages their application, and monitoring and improving thinking practices.
A qualification does not replace workplace responsibility or guarantee a particular outcome. It provides a structured training and assessment pathway for people whose current or intended responsibilities align with the qualification and its requirements.
Being the person with answers may have helped you earn trust. Leadership at a broader level often requires another form of value: making the team’s reasoning stronger, clearer and less dependent on your presence.
The next time a problem arrives, pause before solving it. Keep the right boundary. Ask for the evidence. Request a recommendation. Then coach the reasoning.
Check out ELI’s BSB50420 Diploma of Leadership and Management course information.