When I first stepped into leadership, I thought the best way to help was to be involved in everything. I wanted to support every decision, remove every blocker, and make sure no one felt stuck. It came from a genuine place of empathy, care, and a strong commitment to the team’s success.

But over time, that approach started creating a new problem. People began running every question and decision through me – not because they weren’t capable, but because I had made myself the default for everything. Without meaning to, I had created a culture where the team waited on me to move things forward.

This made it harder for others to take ownership and grow. I realised I was slowing down the team, even though I was trying to help. If I wanted to build a stronger, more resilient team – one that could thrive and outgrow my involvement in every decision – I needed to change how I led.

From Unspoken Expectations to Shared Ownership

Letting go of being the go-to person wasn’t just about handing off tasks; it meant reshaping a culture I had built. I had to shift from being the person with all the answers to someone who made space for others to work with high autonomy.

To kick off this new cultural shift, I started delegating more deliberately, but I noticed how differently my requests were interpreted. I’d ask someone to “look into” or “take care of” something, and depending on who it was, the task would either be completed fully or I’d receive a summary of research, awaiting further instructions.

To begin with I’d help the latter move forward by asking things like “What do you think should happen next?”, intending to encourage forward thinking, but the problem was still me.
I hadn’t made made my new expectations clear to everyone and, at the same time, my requests also left too much room for individual interpretation. People weren’t hesitant or lazy, they were following the pattern I’d established, where decisions still flowed through me, so even as I started delegating more, the way we worked still looked the same from their side.

So! If I wanted things to change, I needed to bring that vision out of my head and into the room. The most direct way to achieve that shift and get everyone aligned at once – or at least make it clear that I wanted to try something new – was to gather everyone and say it outright:

“I’m bottlenecking us. I trust you all deeply, and I want that trust to show up in how we work.”

I explained that I wanted us to try an experiment where the people closest to the problem should take real ownership. They didn’t need to wait for me to make the first move – not just with my blessing, but with my full support.
It turned my quiet intent into something shared and visible. A moment the whole team could rally around. From there, it wasn’t just my vision anymore – it was ours.

Calling It What It Is: The Informed Captain

Eventually, I came across a concept from Netflix called the Informed Captain.
I’ve never worked at Netflix, so I don’t want to make any definitive statements but, the way I read it, being the informed captain doesn’t mean working alone. It means getting the right context, listening to input, and making thoughtful, informed decisions. Captains don’t just follow instructions – they take ownership of the outcome.

For us, most things were defined as initiatives with a Directly Responsible Individual (DRI), so we already had the concept of creating groups steered by an individual.
On paper that already sounds great, but to summarise how it was before our cultural experiment started, then I would either be the DRI or I would, unintentionally, end up being heavily involved when I had assigned someone else to be the DRI because initiatives waited for my input and approval before moving forward.
(There were lots of situations that fall outside of scoped initiatives but including everything will break the rhythm of the post.)

By the time I discovered the term “informed captain”, DRIs had already started working more autonomously but, besides providing us with a very helpful shorthand, it also invited us to reflect on how our cultural experiment was going. To me, I kept coming back to this phrase:

… After a decision is made, we expect everyone, including the people who argued for a different approach, to disagree then commit.

Even as DRIs took on more autonomy, some tension remained – especially around how much authority one person should have. Looking back I almost want to refer to it as “the battle of making the opinionated engineers accept directions and write down their concerns until we do retrospectives after initiatives” 😅

How I Stay Engaged Without Micromanaging

Changing gears a bit, then the best way I’ve come to explain my style of leadership is based in Douglas McGregor’s Theory X & Theory Y.

What I ultimately want to achieve is to foster a group full of highly capable captains who works in an environment where initiative, creativity, and accountability emerges naturally.
To convert this to Theory X&Y, then my style of leadership can be summarised in my belief that people are naturally motivated to work, want to take responsibility, and thrive when given autonomy – especially when they’re trusted (as to the opposite – Theory X – which assumes people inherently avoid work and need to be closely supervised).

Leading with the idea of everyone being engaged and motivated doesn’t mean that everyone should just be left to their own. I still believe in what I describe as: trust, but verify.

I haven’t found a one-fits-all-scenarios-in-the-world method, but I had good success staying in the loop, without micromanaging, by thinking about it as two different categories: team operation habits and individual attention.

Team operation habits: everyone should be able to see how things are going without relying on backchannels or hallway updates.
I.e. work can be seen moving forward in <insert your favourite work-tracking tool> or, for larger initiatives, a weekly update that covers what has happened, what’s in progress, and what’s next.
The goal being to help everyone stay aligned without chasing context.

There’s a lot more to say about how to make work visible in ways that help everyone stay in the loop. Done well, these practices remove what can quietly turn into micromanagement over time and make it easy for anyone to follow along without needing to ask for updates. There’s a whole layer of systems, habits, and updates worth exploring – but that’s a topic I’ll reflect on at a later time. Instead, do consider this an invitation to reflect on how visible your work is and how to improve it even further.

Individual attention: I use 1:1s and simple, frequent, questions to create opportunities for reflection and surfacing friction/concerns. It can be as simple as asking “How’s it going?” or “What’s your confidence level, 1 to 10?”.
I especially like to create a tradition of asking confidence level type questions since all the response has to be is a number and it’s easily comparable to previous days; i.e. a negative decline, several days of “fine”, or constant high ratings should be considered an opportunity to ask follow-up questions.
The negative signs are natural to react on but I often find the positive signs overlooked and underrated. If someone is pumping out 8-10’s, then identifying why can be important to help make it a repeatable habit; always strive for great!

If team operation habits and individual attention is done well, then odds are you’re on the path of creating an environment rooted in psychological safety where everyone feels safe for interpersonal risk-taking, can speak up, share early thinking, and raise concerns without fear of embarrassment or blame (I recommend reading more about team psychological safety in Amy Edmondson’s research if you want to dive deeper).

Disclaimer to my approach: it doesn’t work for everyone. Some people thrive in highly structured, directive environments, and that’s okay.
Still, I’ve found I don’t lead well in environments built on Theory X assumptions. If someone consistently avoids ownership or needs constant direction, it usually creates tension – not just for them, but for me as well. My leadership style is based on trust and shared responsibility, and when that trust can’t take root, it’s a sign we need to talk about work styles – or, reconsider whether the match works long-term.

Leading Beyond Yourself

Letting go wasn’t about stepping back – it was about showing up in a different way. It gave me the chance to focus my energy where it mattered most and scaled the best: helping the team grow, coaching individuals through new challenges, and staying close to the bigger picture. It also meant trusting that things would move forward even when I wasn’t in the room – and learning to be okay with that.

Shifting away from, unintentional, subtle micromanagement and toward shared ownership didn’t just make the team stronger – it made leadership feel more meaningful. With the time I gained by not being in the middle of every decision, I began joining others’ initiatives with a clearer, more intentional role.
Instead of directing the work, I contributed to it; writing code, offering architectural input, and helping others stretch into ownership. What I enjoyed most about stepping back was seeing new angles to how others operate and having the excess energy to act on it close to, or in the moment – sharing valuable and timely feedback.

Looking back, then this was also the beginning of two takeaways that I’ve frequently thought about afterwards: experimentation and what my personal goal is as a lead.

Experimentation: I’ve started to experiment, frequently. It honestly spans across everything I do (code, product strategy, tools, learning, coaching, meetings, personal habits…). In a team context, I’ve often found that calling something an experiment is received well because it doesn’t insist on a sudden change that is permanent. It’s purposefully phrased as temporary which allows people to judge the results instead of the concept (read: it can be easier to get buy-in from others; and is a side-effect that should not be taken lightly!).

Leadership goal: there are so many advices about leadership (go to LinkedIn and your wall will be filled with it), but how do you actually gauge if it makes sense to you?
To me, I always listen to my gut. My gut, despite being my least scientific argument, has always steered me in the right direction; which doesn’t mean successful, but the direction I need to travel with the information I have available.
Now, I cannot swap guts with you to give a sense of how/what I feel, but I have come to describe it as a question to myself: “What do I need to do, to make myself obsolete?”.

It’s quite a question, so let me clarify a bit: being in a leadership position doesn’t mean that I’m smarter than anyone else, nor does it mean that I want to convert everyone into a lead – some truly want to work with things, not people. What I’m actually asking myself is: what do I spend the most time on? What should I be doing, and why? What value do I provide and how can I enforce it as part of the culture?

My final invitation, if you’re in a leadership position, consider this: Are there places where you might be the bottleneck? And what would it look like if you changed it?

Further Reading

If you’re interested in how trust shows up in the everyday work of teams, you might enjoy Every Pull Request is an Act of Trust, where I explore how daily technical interactions reflect larger cultural values.

Or, you might be interested in reading more about Netflix’s work culture, which is where I got Informed Captain from: Netflix Culture — The Best Work of Our Lives & Netflix: A Culture of Learning.