Why it’s important to stop creating a culture of dependency

Jane, a vice president of Human Resources at a growing tech company, often found herself overwhelmed by her team’s reliance on her. Because her job required her to manage a flat, decentralized organization with a mix of senior managers, rising leaders, and embedded HR personnel within the product business units, she was frequently the go-to person for problem-solving.

One particularly hectic week, she skipped lunch for three days. Despite her exhaustion, she agreed to a last-minute meeting late in the day before heading out to her daughter’s soccer match. When her direct report, Jesse, presented a complex issue, Jane, feeling pressed for time, interrupted: “I do not have time for this. Come back tomorrow with your recommendations.” Her response was understandable, but it inadvertently reinforced a culture of dependency, which leaves her team reliant on her and stalling their growth in the process.

Jane’s experience highlights a common challenge for leaders in flat organizations—balancing immediate demands while fostering team independence. Overcoming this requires intentional strategies to build autonomy, resilience, and self-reliance within teams.

Below are some of the common reasons that explain why organizations create dependency.

The need to control outcomes

Leaders often hesitate to delegate because they’re worried that their team will make mistakes or can’t handle complex challenges. While this need for control is understandable, it can hinder team growth and create a bottleneck. This leaves leaders overwhelmed and can leave their teams feeling disempowered. Gallup’s State of the Global Workplace 2024 Report shows that 70% of variance in team engagement depends on managers, underscoring the importance of empowering leadership behaviors.

Lack of trust in the team

A lack of trust in team members’ skills or judgment can lead to micromanagement. While the leader might take this approach to reduce risks, this deprives the team of learning opportunities, and reinforces reliance on the leader.

Inadequate training or clarity on roles

According to Gallup’s 2025 US Engagement research, only 46% of employees clearly understand what is expected of them at work—a significant drop from 56% in March 2020. This uncertainty fosters disengagement and diminishes accountability. When team members lack the necessary training or clearly defined responsibilities, they’re less likely to be proactive and act independently.

Without a structured decision-making framework, even skilled employees avoid taking risks. They perceive mistakes as failures, rather than growth opportunities.

Strategies for addressing dependency

Deloitte’s 2024 Global Human Capital Trends report highlights a significant disconnect: 89% of executives believe they are promoting human sustainability, but only 41% of employees share this view. This underscores the importance of investing in workforce development to build trust, enhance engagement, and align with organizational goals. Managers need to foster independence by training direct reports to be self-sufficient problem-solvers. Leaders should also drive growth by cultivating critical thinking and self-reliance, empowering teams and ensuring long-term success.

1. Adopt a coaching mindset

Leaders should shift from solving problems to guiding their teams to find solutions. Thus, encouraging greater accountability. One effective technique is the Socratic Method, which uses open-ended questions to explore perspectives, clarify concepts, and challenge assumptions. This approach encourages a discovery process and an experimentation mindset, countering the rigidity of a fixed mindset that views mistakes as failures rather than opportunities for growth. For example, managers ask questions like, “What steps have you already taken?” or “What options are you considering?”

The GROW model also offers a structured approach to fostering critical thinking and self-reliance. It stands for the following:

• Goal setting: “What do you want to achieve?”
• Reality assessment: “What is the current situation?”
• Options generation: “What possible strategies can you pursue?”
• Way forward: “What specific actions will you take?”

By utilizing these methods, team members gain on-the-job experience and develop confidence and skills over time.

2. Clarify roles and decision protocols

Ambiguity in roles often leads to unnecessary escalation. Establishing clear expectations about when and how to escalate issues can address this challenge. For example, leaders might require team members to conduct stakeholder analyses or gather key insights before seeking guidance.

McKinsey’s DARE decision-making model offers a structured approach to clarify roles and responsibilities, enhancing team efficiency and accountability. DARE categorizes roles as:

• Deciders: The individuals with final decision-making authority.
• Advisors: Experts who provide insights to inform decisions but do not have the authority to make them.
• Recommenders: Team members responsible for conducting analyses and presenting options.
• Execution Stakeholders: Those responsible for implementing decisions and ensuring desired outcomes.

In Jane’s case, applying the DARE model brought much-needed clarity and structure to her team’s decision-making process. As the Decider, Jane retained ultimate authority, ensuring accountability for outcomes and alignment with organizational goals. Senior HR and Labor Law experts acted as Advisors, providing critical insights and guidance. Jesse stepped into the Recommender role, conducting analyses, exploring options, and presenting well-researched recommendations. Finally, the Execution Stakeholders, who were the other team members, took responsibility for implementing the decisions, asking clarifying questions, and addressing challenges to ensure success.

With these clearly defined roles, managers can effectively distribute decision-making responsibilities, reduce bottlenecks, and empower their teams to operate independently and efficiently.

3. Conduct reflection check-ins and after-action reviews

Structured reflection promotes continuous learning and growth. Using the ORID model, leaders engage with employees in brief but meaningful reflection sessions to analyze their actions and decisions with questions like:

• Objective: “What facts or events were relevant to this situation?”
• Reflective: “How did this situation make you feel?”
• Interpretive: “What does this experience reveal about our processes?”
• Decisional: “What actions will you take?”

The After-Action Review (AAR) framework complements reflective practices by guiding teams through a structured evaluation of outcomes. Key questions such as, “What was supposed to happen?”, “What worked well?”, and “What will you do differently next time?” helps ensure a thorough comparison of expectations and actual results, highlighting both successes and areas for growth.

These reflective practices play a crucial role in helping team members internalize lessons and apply them in future scenarios, fostering greater independence and resilience.

Leaders in flat organizations need to shift from being problem-solvers to enablers of growth and autonomy. By adopting coaching techniques, clarifying roles, and embedding reflection into their team’s workflow, leaders like Jane can reduce reliance on themselves while building a more confident, capable, and self-sufficient team. Over time, these strategies cultivate a culture of continuous improvement and proactive decision-making, empowering everyone to thrive.