A concrete way to detect it is to observe who occupies the spotlight in most interactions.
That role is not only who speaks the most, but also who defines, responds and closes the topics. When that place is concentrated in the manager, the rest of the team tends to accompany more than to elaborate. Quick answers, long explanations or definitions without validating understanding end up reducing the space for others to analyze and make decisions. Over time, this translates into collaborators who comply, but do not anticipate or propose.
Initiative is expected, autonomy and a higher level of analysis are requested, but in practice, these capacities were not exercised.
Modifying this logic requires concrete interventions sustained over time. For example, when a collaborator brings up a problem, instead of responding automatically, ask them: “How would you solve it?”, “What alternatives do you see?”, “Have we faced this before? What did we do?” This movement forces the employee to think, evaluate options and decide.
With processes, instead of detailing them from beginning to end, it is more effective for the collaborator to explain them. From there, the manager fills in and reinforces critical omissions. The focus shifts from transmitting information to ensuring real understanding.
Along these lines, validating what the team is understanding is a central part of management. If there is silence or little participation, it is advisable to stop and ask for specific feedback: “Tell me what you are listening to.” This instance allows us to detect what was understood and what was not. Many times, the most important thing does not appear, and if it does not appear, it is not incorporated.
The meetings also reflect this dynamic. When they are focused on the manager, the team disperses and participates little. Rotating the leadership changes the scenario: whoever leads has to prepare and guide the conversation. It also adds to challenging the team: asking for opinions, maintaining silence until someone intervenes, inviting people to react to what someone else raised or raising a problem and giving a few minutes to think about alternatives. Thus, participation is no longer passive and a positive pressure appears that increases involvement.
Sustained over time, these interventions generate a cumulative effect: the team develops judgment, improves its decisions and becomes involved in another way. That dynamic is also transmitted to those who join.
Many problems that managers try to solve—lack of initiative, low autonomy, teams that don’t contribute—are directly related to how work dynamics are structured.
Jimena Gallastegui
Leadership and team management consultant
[email protected]
Instagram @jimenagallastegui
References: www.linkedin.com/in/jimena-gallastegui
You may also be interested
by CONTENT NEWS
