Welcome to the Liberating Teams podcast. I'm Holly Breeding team psychology practitioner and org effectiveness consultant. Every week around here, we dismantle the outdated hierarchical leadership systems that keeps leaders like you stuck in the weeds and break down how to build a self-managed team that thrives without you at the center.
Because when your team has the clarity systems and ownership, they need to lead themselves. You finally get to lead strategically. It's time to liberate the way you lead.
hello and welcome back to the podcast. Today we are talking about a topic that I adore, nerding out on because it is not something that we talk about a lot, if at all, but it is incredibly common in today's corporate culture.
And the reason why this is so incredibly common in corporate culture is because it's not intentional. In fact, it often comes from a place of us as leaders wanting to help, wanting to move things along quicker, wanting to, maintain quality, but at the same time. We are fueling a little thing known as learned helplessness.
So what the heck is learned? Helplessness. So this is essentially when individuals stop taking initiative, stop, going after things, stop trying to solve problems, stop making decisions because their previous attempts were unsuccessful. So I'm going to go into my team psychology background on you.
We're gonna nerd out for a minute. And there was actually experiments done. Awful, horrible experiments. Do not condone these in any way.
So essentially what they did is they took dogs and they put them into a cage with a floor that shocked them and they had a wall up so the dog could not escape it. And over time they took that wall down and all the dog had to do was move to the other side and they could escape that negative consequence, but they didn't.
They learned that they were helpless to escaping it. So they stopped even trying. And like I said, a sad, awful experiment. But I wanted to share because I think it really demonstrates this exact thing is happening in corporate culture. And so I think it's so incredibly important as leaders to understand the concept of learned helplessness, how we unintentionally could be creating it, and how it might have built up in our teams over time to where we're not seeing them take initiative to, solve those problems to, make those decisions.
It doesn't mean they aren't capable. Those dogs were 1000% capable of just simply hopping to the other side. But we had blocked their desire, their confidence, their belief in themselves and it's so easy to write the team members off as the problem. I was having a conversation with someone in my dms, and they were talking about how they had inherited this team of a lot of tenured folks, and they had given them all these opportunities to, talk about what was going on in the team and to come up with solutions and we're challenging them, asking questions, asking for their opinion, but they were constantly met with crickets.
And they were like I just don't think they are capable. And , I could tell they were getting frustrated. I'm doing all the right things, but this team just isn't stepping up. This team is the problem. And we had a conversation around learned helplessness it's not just about you, it's about the past leaders they've had.
It's about the past companies they've worked for, and these small micro experiences that have built up over time. Every time they , they came to a leader and said, Hey, this is a problem I've been noticing, and it was met with indifference, or , it was met with, oh, that's not a problem.
Or worse, they got a, slap on the wrist for even bringing that up. It was developed over time and time again. They tried to bring up solutions, they tried to drive change in the team, and it always led to nowhere. It's learned helplessness and the reality is when it comes to empowering our team.
That threshold of learned helplessness has already been established. And so it's our job as leaders to create an environment that continuously tells them.
We value you taking initiative. We expect you to take initiative. When you do take initiative, there's going to be positive outcomes and exposing that to them over and over again . Okay, I went super nerdy on y'all. Let's get into the specific causes of learned helplessness
so the first thing is taking over every time there's a problem or decision. Now I feel like this one is very obvious, but it's also very challenging to break because we have been conditioned in corporate culture that it is our job as leaders to solve all the problems, to make all the decisions. If we're not doing that, what's our value as a leader?
That's a whole conversation for a different podcast, but that is what we've been told time and time again, so automatically, anytime, there's an issue on the team, a fire drill, something breaks down, a ball is dropped, we get involved. We step in, we save the day, we direct, we control. Anytime there is a decision that needs to be made, we feel like we have to be a part of it.
We have to have a say in it. We have to make it, or we have to sign off on it. But not only does this condition, our team that. They need to depend on us to solve problems and to make decisions, but it actually stops developing their personal judgment. So problem solving and decision making, those are skillsets.
And if we continuously put our team in an environment where they don't have to stretch those muscles, then those muscles will get weak. We can actually. Unintentionally lower our team skillset, we can actually lower their potential by continuously stepping in and taking away the opportunities for them to develop judgment.
It actually creates the conditioning that their default mode is to ask. Because if every single time you step in when there's a problem or a decision, you are conditioning them that
that is a requirement. If there's a problem or a decision, I need to be in on it. And a lot of the times they don't have a good sense of the guardrails of when problems or decisions are big enough for you to include versus not. They've just been conditioned, problem bring leader in, and so that's how we end up in these environments where they're bringing everything to you.
Because we've inadvertently conditioned them that is what you desire, that is what is required. And then we've slowly taken away those opportunities to flex that judgment, that critical thinking, that decision making, and they actually lose confidence in their ability to do so we actually make them dependent on us.
And now I know this isn't intentional, but I do think that there is in some situations
a feeling of, being needed. That this elicits. So it almost gives a, positive association to us as leaders, like I am needed. They need me to solve these problems, they need me to make these decisions without me. This team couldn't run. And so it gives us that positive feeling that we deeply desire as humans of being needed, of being valued.
And it creates this cycle, this self perpetuating cycle of, they came to me because they needed help solving a problem or making a decision. So I stepped in, I helped do it, the thing moved forward. I felt good. I felt needed. They were conditioned that, hey, problem, decision, come to leader. So then the next time they go to the leader and it reinforces that pattern in your mind as the leader, they need me.
I'm valued. I need to be in more. They aren't capable of doing this. So then you see the cycle that it creates itself, perpetuates itself, feeds itself. And the more that cycle runs, the more they stop developing that judgment, that critical thinking, and it creates that self-fulfilling prophecy. Okay, so number two is micromanaging under the guise of quality control.
And this is another one that I think is really hard to. Stop as leaders, especially as we're just moving up the leadership, career path. And we've gone from those roles where we were responsible as, individual contributors, as lower level managers. Everything was, our problem to solve.
We had control over quality, over, what we put out. But as we move up the pipeline and we don't have as much direct hands-on in the weeds, I'm able to touch the things that we do, that we create, the problems we solve, the service we provide. But I'm still responsible for the results, so I'm not physically doing it.
Or providing it, but I'm responsible for if ish hits the fan. And that's a really hard thing to balance as leaders. And so what do we do? We quality control. We become the one who looks over every deck, every deliverable, who wants to be CC'd on every email? Who wants to be in the meetings? Who wants to have sign off final say on things who's maybe even, redoing or overriding things to make it more in alignment with the way that they would do it.
Because again, we are on the line for those results. But the thing is that every single time that we do that, that we tell our people that we need to have eyes on everything that we need to sign off on everything. It's diminishing that confidence, that empowerment, and creating that learned helplessness.
I can't execute without this leader.
And they become dependent on your final review, and it again, creates this cycle of learned helplessness. I don't need to be as critical or try as hard because my leader's just gonna review it, find something wrong with it anyways, or worse, redo it all. So why even try? And so then you get it and you're like, oh, look at everything was wrong with it.
Had I not caught this, this would've been disastrous. I need to be more involved. Which again, creates that cycle. They're getting more involved. I can stop caring and bing bang, boom. Here we are. So that's why in Liberated Leader, when we're talking about empowering your team, we talk a lot about the concept of how can we give as much control, as much autonomy to your team, meaning that.
Really two things. One, creating guardrails around autonomy where you have room to absolutely run. You need no sign offs. You can do things as you see fit versus those high risk situations where they absolutely need your approval because. If something went wrong, it could be disastrous, it could cause irreversible harm.
So we use the concept of guardrails to free up and open up autonomy. While also understanding that there are high risk situations where you need to be involved. I think the other thing that's really important that we talk about in Liberated Leader is the concept of understanding when something's safe to try, when something is high risk versus when.
There are scenarios where we want to give the freedom. To not only establish, the empowerment, but also again, give those opportunities to develop judgment and critical thinking and problem solving and these skill sets that allow them to be empowered. And so it's understanding that
in those situations there's more than one right way. And that our way isn't the only way and. Being okay with that. I think that was one of the hardest lessons I had to learn very early on in leadership. I am a type A perfectionist. I want everything to be perfect, and I will drive myself into the ground, making it perfect.
And so it was very hard for me to see things. And done in ways that maybe I wouldn't have done it or to the standard that I wouldn't have done it. But I really had to differentiate between what is a stylistic, a personal choice versus what is actually potentially detrimental, lowers, the impact of the deliverable or the service being provided.
Then I actually need to address, and that was a balance that really took time when I was in early levels of leadership. Figuring out. Okay, so now let's get into some that are a little less obvious, and that is one, you being the primary face of the team. So again, I think this is another one that corporate conditions us is the requirement of leadership.
You are the one in all the meetings. You are the one building relationships. You are the one presenting the final output. Your team is simply executing, but this is also the one that, you know, through my years of consulting and working with many teams across many different functions, when I was, a lot of the times when leaders came to me with issues like my teams lacking empowerment.
The first thing I'm doing is holding focus groups, interviews with the teams, and understanding what's going on here. And these next two particularly were two that I saw come up a lot, that the leaders had no idea that was contributing to this learned helplessness. And so the one being that they were the primary face of the team.
So they were the ones who were going to all the meetings. They were the ones who were on all the email threads. They were the ones developing all the relationships. They were the ones presenting all the deliverables. And this has a negative impact on teams from a variety of angles.
One, it's preventing them from building those key relationships. I saw this particularly, I was working with a digital team and they had product managers who the product manager. Was not the one going to the meetings with the, clients, with the stakeholders, AK the other departments, and it was a lower level manager who would go, who would have those relationships, who would sit in all the meetings.
They would come back, relay what was happening to the product manager, what everyone said. Then the product manager. Say they owned, they were the product manager for an app, they would use all of the feedback and the requirements and the requests and the things coming down the pipeline, and they would develop and prioritize the plan.
And the thing is they were like, I have no ownership. I have zero ownership because. I am not actually able to be in those meetings. I don't have the relationship with my client, with my customer, with my stakeholder. It's simply just me hearing information secondhand, and then me having to go back to my leader, provide them like, you should have asked this question.
You should have asked that question. Do you know this? And they're like nope. Don't know that. So now they have to go back and ask. It's a giant game of telephone that is incredibly inhibiting. And while teams have the tenacity to put up with things like that. For only so long to where they just start shutting down.
The other issue that was happening with this team was that not only did they not have exposure to all of those building of the relationships, being in the meetings and hearing the things firsthand, but they also were never able. To present up, and I think a lot of people can relate to this, but there was, everyone knew the story like it, there was one defining moment where a lower level individual contributor had presented to the more senior leaders, and it was disastrous.
And ever since that moment, they put this elaborate process into place where, you know, the individual contributors. Presented the thing to the managers, developed the deck, took all this time to get them up to all the information in the details in the weeds so they could then take that and present it up the pipeline.
And then they got the feedback, which then they presented down the pipeline again, a giant game of telephone and just absolutely cutting off our team members at the knees because. They're not even having the opportunity to see things through to fruition. Your only job is to prepare me. They essentially were glorified like administrative assistants.
I. For these managers who were the ones going to the meetings, building the relationships, presenting the work, and then I was just coming back and dropping everything on you. Of course, they're not going to feel empowered, of course, they're not gonna step up and take initiative to solve problems, to make decisions because we've conditioned them time and time again that they don't have any power.
And now of course this is a more extreme case. I say that, but honestly, it's so incredibly prevalent. I see it at some capacity or another in many teams. And a lot of the times it comes up in the you have to have this certain title to present or to be able to meet because.
Otherwise they won't take you seriously, and I totally call BS on that. I've seen it time and time again. I was able to influence leaders at the C-suite level as with a manager title I brought, as I developed my skillset. And then as I grew up in my leadership career, I was taking, even one time I took an analyst to a presentation with a C-Suite member and let them present the output because they were the one who did all the work.
It's not the title that gives power. It's not the title that. Really is what is required to sit at the table. It's everything that often is only provided to leaders. It's the opportunity to sit at the table. It's the building of relationships. It's the, what we're about to talk about here in the minute, which is the information, the context that leaders are often the only ones privy to.
So it's not really the director title that gets you a seat at the table. It's all of the things that come with that director title that give you the ability to be effective and add value at that table. But I don't need to give, this is where most people having spent a lot of time doing org design. A lot of people would come to me and say, everyone on my team needs a director title.
So they could go influence at these tables? No, they don't need a director title. They just simply need the, context, the information they need to build those relationships in order to sit at the table. They need the decision making authority. They need full ownership and autonomy. Over, how we solve problems and the decisions we make to sit at that table.
It's not the director title, it's just what we typically associate with that title. I can empower anyone at any level with the ability with those things. Okay. I am going off on a tangent, but the whole point here is that. If you've become the primary face of your team, if you've become the one who's, in all the meetings, on all the email threads presenting all the outputs, then that also creates that culture of learned helplessness.
Again, I'm putting in all the effort, but I'm not actually being able to see it through to fruition. So why even try? And this directly feeds into. The last one that we're going to talk about, which is hoarding information in context. This one is probably the one that I see incredibly common, but most people don't even think about because again, it just comes with the status, with the title of being in higher levels of leadership.
So when you step into leadership, you get access to things. You get access to meetings you get access to email chains, you get access to networking opportunities. You get access to. People that you may not have had access to before, and all of these, provide more information, more context.
What is happening, at the broader scale. What is happening in the company? Who's feeling what? Power playing dynamics, relationships. The nuances that are happening underneath the surface, you get so much more that many times we're not privy to, or maybe that we're even protected from at lower levels
this also helps you make better decisions, solve problems better because you have this information in context. And another thing that I heard a lot when doing these focus groups with these teams that were labeled, not empowered, not strategic, was that they felt like they were operating from one chapter in a broader book.
They were like, I want to step up. I want to solve problems. I want to make decisions, but my only source of information, of context of having this broader understanding is my leader. And not all the time are they doing a great job of sharing that information. Remembering to share it because as leaders we are taking in so much and sometimes it's easy to forget or to maybe not see that piece of information or context actually would be beneficial for team members to know, or it's simply getting miscommunicated down the game of telephone.
And so they don't have the context, the information they need. They are on those email threads that they aren't on those important meetings, and so it inhibits them to be empowered. I think the important thing to notice is that this isn't just about information and context coming into your team from other sources.
It's also the information that you hold in your head as a leader, and this is really common when it comes to things like strategy and priorities. A lot of us struggle in communicating clear direction, clear priorities, and so we are unintentionally hoarding that. Our team doesn't understand what's the number one priority, what they should go after, which problems they should solve versus which ones they can't.
Because the strategy, the direction, the what's important is in your head. And we struggle to communicate or more often. I heard a lot about we struggle to communicate when those things shift, when priorities shift, why things are shifting. So if we stop and look back over these four things, the biggest thing that I think is important to know is that.
When it comes to empowering your team, creating that team of problem solvers of strategic thinkers, it's not necessarily about raw talent because in any one of these situations, you could have had, and I've seen this time and time again, the most strategic. Problem solving innovative team. But when you put them in this system, this environment, it actually locks down that potential.
It inhibits that skillset and bringing that back out, unlocking their full potential isn't about, the motivational speeches and we gotta step up. I wanna see you do more. Or even, putting them on, performance plans or anything like that. It's a systemic issue. It's about creating the environment that actually expects, that strengthens, that enables.
Their ability to step up and be empowered. And a big piece of this is going to be us recognizing learned helplessness in our team that either we have inadvertently created or that they came to us with from years and years of exposure and understanding that has been built up over years, over many micro exposures, telling them don't step up, don't solve that problem.
Don't make that decision because it does not matter. It will get overridden anyways. The leader's going to step in anyways. You'll actually get like a slap on the wrist for doing that. So just stay in your lane, play small, get your ish done, fly under the radar, and in order to counteract that, in order to, counter condition what they've been exposed to over years and years, it takes just as much, if not more positive experiences.
To override that. So us just simply, once or twice encouraging them to, solve the problem. Giving them the space to make the decision, sitting in the meeting and instead of us speaking up, giving them the space to.
To raise concerns like that, that one individual who dmd me, I repeatedly have been asking, you need to do it 20 million times more because we are trying to counter condition years of exposure and is the easier option just going out and hiring new talent. That, hasn't, doesn't have that, learned helplessness.
Sure, yeah. It would be easier. But anyone can do that. Anyone can go out and hire great, perfect talent and get results. That's not what leadership's about. Leadership is about having that skillset, having that mastery. To take that group of individuals with any type of experience, any type of skillset, any type of learned helplessness, and understand how to unlock their full potential and lead them to make a significant impact in the organization.
So if we don't have the talent, if we haven't. Taking the time to understand learned helplessness and how to create the system, the environment that
decondition that and empowers our team to step up and thrive. Then I'd argue that's less of a talent problem and more of a leadership problem and a gap and an opportunity that we can fill in our toolkit. And by filling that gap, it is going to help you time and time again in your career. Because if your only.
Solution in this situation, which I have just shared, is incredibly prevalent on every single team, is to just hire different talent. Then we've got a long road ahead of us, especially with the amount of hiring freezes that I feel like happen pretty much in every company at least once a year. You having this skillset of being able to unlock a team's ability to step up, to think strategically, to problem solve, to be empowered is an incredible tool to have in your toolkit.
And of course, this is exactly what we talk about in Liberated Leader, not only in the section about empowering your team and how to, create roles and conditions that allow them to step up. But in every single part of Liberated Leader, we're teaching you how to create a team, a culture, a system that the team owns.
So they have ownership and say in the strategy, they have ownership and say in, what we go after, how we improve our team, how we make decisions. Every little piece of how your teams run, they have input into it. And that is the power of liberated leader and that creation of a self-managed team.
Is, it's not just over their work. We've empowered them in every little piece of how this team runs. And like I just said, learned helplessness is a systemic issue. So when we create team systems, environments where every single thing signals you to step up from not just your work to every little part of how this team runs, that's how you build insanely talented, insanely empowered, insanely strategic.
High performing teams, let's go do the work.
Thank you for listening to the Liberating Teams podcast. If this episode hit home for you, don't forget to share it with another leader. Or if you've got 10 seconds, drop a five star review and it would mean the world to me so we can liberate more teams together. And if you try something for today's episode, come tell me how it went.
DM me on Instagram over at Liberating Teams, and I'd love to chat more about it. Now. Let's go change the world of work. One liberated team at a time.
