Delegate, Trust, Evaluate

When layoffs came earlier this year, many companies were instructed to reduce headcount. The logic wasn’t hard to follow at first glance—cut costs to show investors and stakeholders that the company was being financially prudent. But as layoffs piled up across industries, a troubling realization emerged: the decision wasn’t always driven by actual business needs. In many cases, the conversation boiled down to: “Other companies are doing it, so if we don’t, it looks like we’re not managing our funding responsibly.”

This is herd mentality in action. Leadership, overwhelmed by the sheer complexity of modern organizations, often leans on simplistic heuristics and comparisons. When one company implements a return-to-office (RTO) policy, others follow, not necessarily because it’s the best decision for their workforce or their goals, but because it seems safer to conform than to stand out. The same logic applies to layoffs, RTO mandates, and countless other decisions.

The root of the issue is that leaders too often fail to trust their teams or delegate effectively. Instead, they wade into decisions best left to those closer to the problem. This not only undermines employee autonomy and morale but also slows the organization down by forcing decisions to bubble up to those least equipped to make them.

Focus on the Right Problems

The best leaders operate at the right level of abstraction. Their role isn’t to dictate day-to-day processes or micromanage tasks—it’s to set high-level objectives and trust their teams to execute. For example, if you have a team responsible for driving sales in the Midwest, your directive should sound like this: “Increase sales by 12% by next quarter and reduce the cost of acquisition by 25%.” You don’t need to tell the team leader how to allocate resources, whether to implement remote work, or which chairs to order. That’s their job. Yours is to trust them, evaluate their results, and provide guidance only when needed.

When leaders stray from this focus, they risk becoming a bottleneck. Decision-making slows, employee engagement drops, and the organization loses its agility. Worse, leaders often end up making poorly informed decisions because they lack the context that those closer to the problem naturally possess.

Micromanagement in Action

When I was in college, I worked a cafeteria job as part of a work-study program. My role was simple: take clean dishes from the dishwasher and load them onto carts. The process worked efficiently because I had a system—plates went on one cart, bowls on another, and trays in their designated place. I often found myself ahead of schedule, waiting on the dishwasher to finish its cycle.

Then my supervisor intervened. He insisted, for no reason other than his own preference, that the plates cart be here, the bowls cart there, and the trays elsewhere. Suddenly, I was waiting on the dishwasher, not the other way around. The additional step of evaluating where each dish belonged slowed me down considerably. As soon as he left, I reverted to my original system and returned to overperforming.

The supervisor’s goal should have been clear: ensure that I was keeping up with demand and maximizing output. Instead, his intervention focused on details that didn’t matter and, in fact, reduced efficiency. This is the danger of micromanagement—it focuses on what feels intuitive or familiar to the leader but often runs counter to the goals of the role or organization.

The Cost of Herd Mentality and Misaligned Leadership

The same dynamic plays out at scale when leaders fail to delegate or trust. Layoffs, RTO policies, and other bandwagon decisions are driven not by data or internal needs but by fear of being perceived as out of step with peers. This creates a vicious cycle: companies mimic each other, eroding trust with their employees, while also failing to achieve their strategic objectives.

Smaller, faster-moving companies often escape this trap—not because they inherently trust more, but because their size allows leaders to operate at a much lower level of abstraction. The closer alignment between leadership’s understanding, skillset, and day-to-day operations makes it easier to evaluate needs directly and delegate effectively. Leaders in these environments can oversee decisions that align tightly with their vision without the complexity that larger organizations face.

As companies grow, however, the landscape shifts. Problems become exponentially more numerous and nuanced, and leadership must operate at increasingly abstract and strategic levels. This widening gulf between familiarity and the demands of higher-level decision-making creates discomfort and leads many leaders to default to managing what they know—micromanaging the details. While this might have been effective in a smaller organization, at scale it results in poor decisions, diminished trust, and inefficiencies across the organization.

Large companies can’t replicate the speed of smaller organizations unless their leadership learns to embrace abstraction, develop the skills required at their level, and delegate decisions to those closer to the ground. Delegation and trust, supported by clear expectations and feedback loops, enable organizations to scale effectively without losing their edge.

A Simple Framework for Better Leadership

Great leadership is about knowing where to focus your energy. The most successful leaders follow a simple framework: delegate, trust, and evaluate.

1. Delegate: Assign tasks and decision-making authority to the right people. Trust that your subordinates, who are closer to the problem, have the expertise and context to make informed decisions.
2. Trust: Resist the urge to micromanage. Instead of getting involved in the details, focus on providing support and guidance. Trust your team to execute in the way that works best for them.
3. Evaluate: Hold your team accountable for results, not processes. Measure outcomes against clearly defined objectives and use feedback loops to refine strategies.

This isn’t a call for flat hierarchies or a hands-off approach. Leadership still has a critical role in setting direction, aligning incentives, and ensuring that decisions are consistent with the organization’s overarching goals. But it’s a reminder that your value as a leader comes from focusing on the problems only you can solve—not from meddling in issues better left to others.

Why Leaders Struggle

Operating at the right level of abstraction is a deceptively difficult skill to master. For many leaders, particularly those who’ve climbed the ranks through technical or operational roles, it can feel disquieting to step away from the details they once excelled at managing. The shift from doing to delegating introduces new challenges, many of which are psychological rather than technical.

1. Imposter Syndrome: Many leaders experience self-doubt, especially in senior roles where the stakes are higher, and decisions carry significant weight. Being responsible for outcomes without direct involvement in every step of the process can feel like surrendering control, amplifying fears of inadequacy.
2. Discomfort with Uncertainty: Leadership at a high level often means making decisions based on incomplete information. Unlike technical or operational tasks, where mastery is built on direct experience and expertise, strategic decision-making requires abstract thinking, intuition, and the ability to weigh competing priorities. This uncertainty can be deeply uncomfortable.
3. The Seduction of Familiarity: It’s natural for leaders to gravitate toward what they know. If you were promoted for being an exceptional engineer, marketer, or salesperson, your instinct may be to dive back into those areas when things get tough. But effective leadership means letting go of the work you’re comfortable with to focus on the work only you can do.
4. The Challenge of Incentive Alignment: Creating systems where incentives align with organizational goals requires understanding game theory, behavioral economics, and human psychology. These are not skills most people learn on their way up the corporate ladder, yet they’re essential for effective leadership. Without them, the temptation to micromanage can feel like the only way to ensure accountability.

Lessons from Great Leaders

Great leaders recognize that their value lies not only in enabling others but also in knowing when and where to apply their expertise effectively. Steve Jobs is often remembered for his high expectations and intense involvement in Apple’s products, but his leadership style was more nuanced than simple micromanagement. Jobs learned to focus his domain expertise where it mattered most while trusting others to execute in areas where they were better suited.

Jobs famously involved himself deeply in design and user experience, areas where his vision was unparalleled. He would painstakingly review prototypes, challenge his team with seemingly impossible standards, and iterate until the results matched his vision. Yet, in other areas, he delegated fully, empowering his executives and engineers to make decisions. Jobs understood that his time and energy were finite and that his greatest contributions would come from focusing on what he did best—setting a clear vision and relentlessly driving innovation.

For example, Jobs worked closely with the design team on the iPod, obsessing over details like the scroll wheel and interface. But he didn’t micromanage every aspect of manufacturing or distribution. He trusted his operational leaders to handle those challenges while ensuring the end product aligned with his vision. Jobs learned when to lean in and when to step back, striking a balance that allowed Apple to thrive.

Similarly, General George S. Patton demonstrated the importance of delegation during World War II. Known for his bold strategies, Patton didn’t dictate every maneuver. Instead, he conveyed overarching goals and trusted his subordinates to execute. He famously said, “Don’t tell people how to do things, tell them what to do and let them surprise you with their results.” This approach empowered his officers to think critically, adapt to challenges, and innovate in the moment, often achieving results far beyond what tight control could deliver.

The Path Forward: From Micromanagement to Mastery

Recognizing these challenges is the first step toward overcoming them. Leaders don’t need to be perfect strategists or psychologists overnight, but they do need to acknowledge where their instincts may lead them astray. Trust, delegation, and evaluation aren’t just principles—they’re the tools that allow leaders to navigate the complexity of modern organizations without getting bogged down in the details.

By operating at the right level of abstraction, leaders can focus on the high-level decisions that drive growth, engagement, and innovation. Letting go of the small stuff isn’t about abdicating responsibility; it’s about creating the space to lead effectively. As Jobs and Patton demonstrated, when leaders trust their teams to rise to the occasion, the results can be nothing short of extraordinary.

Leadership for a Better Future

As an employee, it’s easy to feel frustrated when leadership seems out of touch. But understanding the pressures and blind spots leaders face can provide valuable context. As a leader, it’s easy to get pulled into familiar territory, focusing on the details of execution rather than the broader strategy. But effective leadership requires discipline, trust, and a willingness to operate at the right level of abstraction.

By avoiding herd mentality and empowering your teams, you can build an organization that is not only more agile and efficient but also more resilient. Delegate effectively, trust your team, and focus on what matters most. The result is a company where employees are engaged, decisions are well-informed, and success is sustainable.