The Most Hopeful Investment a Leader Can Make
When I was first promoted into leadership, my manager invested heavily in my development. I attended courses built around books like Crucial Conversations, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, and The Anatomy of Peace. Those frameworks gave me language for conflict, trust, and accountability that I did not previously possess, and they shaped the foundation of how I still think about leadership.
What I did not receive, however, was much guidance on what leadership looked like inside our company. No one explained how to move from doer to leader in a way that fit our culture. Expectations for one-on-ones, delegation, and performance standards were largely implied, so I filled in the gaps through observation, imitation, and trial and error.
That approach sustained me while my scope remained manageable. It became insufficient when my responsibility expanded.
I moved from leading a small group of leaders and individual contributors to overseeing twelve leaders directly. The altitude of the role changed quickly. My identity as a leader did not expand at the same pace, and that lag created friction I did not initially recognize.
Training Is Necessary, But Stewardship Multiplies
When I began leading managers, I repeated what had helped me. I ensured they received strong book-based training and exposure to shared leadership language. I assumed that common frameworks would naturally produce alignment.
From Crucial Conversations:
“The key to real change lies not in implementing a new process, but in helping people understand why.”
At the time, I interpreted that as a call to explain principles well. I later realized it required something deeper: contextual translation.
One leader I brought from another department into Software Engineering exposed that gap. I’d hired him because he had been highly successful in his previous department, respected by his team, and strong in execution. On paper, the move made sense. In practice, the engineering culture demanded different credibility signals and different decision rhythms, and he began to struggle in ways neither of us could adequately put words to.
I assumed the solution was additional exposure to our leadership philosophy and cultural materials. What he needed instead was intentional stewardship from me. He needed clearer articulation of what excellence looked like in that specific environment, more direct feedback about how he was doing, and greater relational proximity so tension could be surfaced before it hardened into misalignment.
Most of our interaction remained confined to formal one-on-ones. I was overstretched and did not invest the time required to build depth beyond scheduled meetings. Eventually, he chose to leave.
I felt relief because the tension had grown exhausting. I also felt sadness and responsibility. I believed I’d failed him by not doing more to support his transition. A leader’s role, as I see it, includes working for the long-term success of the people entrusted to you, regardless of where that success ultimately unfolds.
In that situation, I’d provided training, but had not provided enough stewardship.
The Identity Shift Behind Leadership Multiplication
As responsibility expands, leadership identity must expand with it. The move from functional expert to organizational steward requires more than delegation. It requires assuming responsibility for the developmental environment surrounding other leaders.
From The Five Dysfunctions of a Team:
“Trust is the foundation of real teamwork.”
Trust does not grow through content distribution, it grows through sustained relational investment. The leaders who later became Directors and Vice Presidents did not thrive because I gave them better books. They thrived because I had built deeper relationships with them over time. With those core leaders, I had proximity. I could address tension informally and early. They understood my expectations because we had developed shared context through repeated interaction.
When my scope increased to twelve leaders, I did not scale that relational depth. I maintained structural discipline but allowed proximity to thin. That imbalance limited my ability to guide effectively.
Leadership multiplication requires three posture shifts:
First, leaders must move from content provider to context interpreter. Principles are necessary, but senior leaders must translate those principles into the realities of their specific system so others understand how they apply in practice.
Second, leaders must shift from performance evaluator to development advocate. Evaluation looks backward at output. Advocacy looks forward at trajectory. At higher altitudes, you are shaping leaders for future responsibility, not merely assessing present performance.
Third, leaders must move from meeting manager to relationship builder. Formal meetings align calendars and priorities. Informal interaction builds trust and shared understanding. Without that foundation, feedback feels corrective rather than developmental.
From Leadership and Self-Deception:
“When I see others as people, my behavior toward them changes.”
The multiplier begins when leaders see the people under their care not simply as role holders, but as stewards in formation.
Why Development Is the Most Hopeful Investment
Replacing a struggling leader consumes time, money, and cultural stability. Developing a leader compounds over years and strengthens the system beyond any single initiative.
The experience with that one leader forced me to confront how overstretch had shaped my behavior. I had accepted expanded scope without recalibrating how I invested my attention. That realization was uncomfortable but instructive because it reframed my understanding of leverage. At higher levels, value no longer comes primarily from personal execution. It comes from the quality of leaders you shape.
I did not become flawless in developing leaders after that experience, but I did become more intentional. I clarified expectations earlier and invested more time outside formal meetings. I paid closer attention to how each leader experienced their role and what support would accelerate their growth.
Several of those leaders went on to become Directors and Vice Presidents. Their success created far greater long-term value than any short-term result I could have produced personally. Helping them thrive where they were proved more effective and more sustainable than replacing them would have been.
If you’re stepping into broader organizational responsibility and feel stretched or uncertain, that tension may be more identity expansion under complexity than inadequacy. In those moments, deliberate coaching and outside perspective help leaders recalibrate how they invest attention, clarify expectations, and build the relational foundation that enables multiplication.
Leadership that multiplies does not happen accidentally. It emerges when development becomes a central responsibility rather than an occasional activity.
Reflection: Are You Building Results or Leaders?
As your scope changes, consider:
Where have you relied on training without translating context?
Which leaders under your care lack sufficient relational proximity with you?
What would change if you treated their long-term trajectory as part of your formal accountability?
Expanded responsibility calls for expanded stewardship. When you intentionally invest in developing leaders, you create impact that outlasts any individual result and strengthens the organization beyond your direct reach.