Imagine a seasoned captain navigating a ship through treacherous waters. Now, picture the same captain refusing to let the crew hoist the sails, chart a course, or steer in their absence. What happens if the captain falls ill or is forced to step away? The ship drifts aimlessly, caught in the currents because no one else was ever empowered to take control. This is the predicament many leaders find themselves in. They desire high-performing teams but struggle to relinquish control, resulting in dependency and stagnation. This maritime metaphor aptly describes a crisis quietly unfolding in boardrooms across India: leaders who cannot delegate are creating organisations that cannot function without them.
The problem stems from what management experts call the ‘fixer mentality’—an approach that transforms leaders from enablers into bottlenecks. Mukul Harish Chopra, chief human resources officer, Transaction Solutions, identifies its root causes: “Leaders often driven by job insecurity or perfectionism, hesitate to trust their teams. They operate under a ‘zero error’ syndrome, where any mistake is seen as unacceptable.” The result? Teams that slowly shift from proactive contributors to passive executors, waiting for instructions rather than taking initiative.
This leadership paralysis is particularly evident in India’s rapidly growing technology sector, where the pressure to maintain growth trajectories often leads to excessive centralisation of decision-making. Start-ups that began with flat hierarchies and autonomous teams frequently evolve into structures where founders become decision-making bottlenecks, stunting both innovation and execution speed.
“Leaders often driven by job insecurity or perfectionism, hesitate to trust their teams. They operate under a ‘zero error’ syndrome, where any mistake is seen as unacceptable.”
Mukul Harish Chopra, chief human resources officer, Transaction Solutions
The consequences of this leadership style are far-reaching. “People leave jobs for three primary reasons: toxicity, inadequate compensation, and a lack of growth opportunities,” Chopra notes. “Leaders who fail to nurture autonomy contribute to all three.” Talented individuals, finding themselves in environments that stifle initiative, inevitably seek greener pastures. This exodus creates a vicious cycle: as experienced team members depart, leaders feel even more compelled to maintain tight control over less experienced replacements.
“A senior vice president of a multinational bank would personally oversee every client negotiation, believing that his expertise was indispensable.”
Chandrasekhar Mukherjee, senior HR leader
At the heart of this reluctance to delegate often lies a peculiar paradox: the fear of becoming irrelevant. Chandrasekhar Mukherjee, a senior HR leader, recalls a telling example: “A senior vice president of a multinational bank would personally oversee every client negotiation, believing that his expertise was indispensable.” Despite having capable relationship managers, this executive chose to handle all major discussions himself, viewing delegation not as empowerment but as a threat to his position.
The issue is compounded by what Chopra identifies as a fundamental mistrust: “Some leaders believe that their knowledge, skills and experience cannot be matched by their subordinates, leading them to hold onto responsibilities rather than entrusting them to their teams.” This approach prioritises short-term efficiency over long-term organisational resilience, creating what management theorists call the ‘capability trap’—where immediate performance takes precedence over developing future capacity.
Yet solutions exist for those willing to embrace them. Mukherjee advocates for “skip-level meetings” where leaders engage with employees across multiple levels, providing guidance without undermining direct managers. He suggests a radical proposition: making promotion contingent on a leader’s ability to prepare their successor. “Assign ownership gradually,” he advises, “starting with tasks that allow for guided decision-making, then progressively increasing complexity.”
Consider the case of Riya, a project manager facing a high-stakes product launch. Rather than micromanaging every detail, she systematically delegated responsibilities to her team, beginning with well-defined tasks and gradually increasing their autonomy. The result was not just a successful launch but a more capable, confident team. This approach, sometimes called ‘scaffolded delegation’, allows teams to build competence while maintaining appropriate oversight.
Modern leadership development must evolve beyond celebrating individual problem-solving prowess to emphasising team empowerment. This requires a fundamental shift in how organisations evaluate leadership success. Rather than measuring personal achievements, metrics should focus on a leader’s ability to nurture talent and build self-sufficient teams. Some progressive Indian firms have begun incorporating team development metrics into their performance evaluations, measuring leaders not just on what they achieve, but on how well their teams function in their absence.
The approach demands a new toolkit. Instead of immediately offering solutions, leaders should adopt the Socratic method, asking guiding questions like “What options have you considered?” or “What would be the best course of action?” This approach develops critical thinking skills and builds confidence among team members. It also creates what organisational psychologists call ‘psychological safety’—an environment where team members feel secure enough to take calculated risks and learn from failures.
Organisations must also rethink their training programmes. Rather than focusing solely on technical mastery, leadership development should emphasise coaching skills, active listening, and conflict resolution. Rotational leadership opportunities can provide practical experience, allowing employees to develop leadership capabilities organically. Some companies have found success with ‘reverse mentoring’ programmes, where junior employees share their expertise with senior leaders, helping break down hierarchical barriers and fostering mutual respect.
The mark of truly successful leadership, paradoxically, is becoming unnecessary. When teams can operate independently, leaders are freed to focus on strategic vision rather than daily firefighting. In an era where corporate agility is paramount, the most valuable leaders are those who make themselves dispensable by creating robust, self-sufficient teams.
The challenge for Corporate India is clear: shift from a control-based leadership model to one based on empowerment. Those who master this transition will not just build stronger organisations—they will create legacies that outlast their tenure. After all, the best captains are those who ensure their ships can sail smoothly, even in their absence.
