Your Team Is Not the Problem - Your Leadership Approach Might Be

I have heard the complaints countless times from frustrated leaders: "My team lacks initiative." "They wait for me to solve every problem." "Communication is terrible." "I cannot get them to take ownership." "Good people keep leaving." "I do not know something is a problem until it is a crisis."

The diagnosis is always the same: the team is the problem. If only we could hire better people. If only they were more motivated. If only they communicated better. If only they took more responsibility. If only they brought up small problems before they became major issues.

Here is what 25 years of military leadership taught me: when teams consistently underperform, the problem is rarely the team. It is often the leadership approach.

This is not comfortable to hear. I know because I had to learn it myself, sometimes painfully. But if you are willing to examine your leadership honestly, you may discover that the systematic problems you attribute to your team are actually symptoms of gaps in your leadership methodology.

The Pattern I See Repeatedly

A leader contacts me frustrated with team performance. They describe capable people who somehow fail to deliver results. The leader works harder, gets more involved, tries to motivate better. Nothing changes. Turnover increases. The leader becomes convinced they have a team problem.

Then we examine their actual leadership approach. What I typically find:

No systematic process for identifying obstacles their team faces. Reactive problem-solving rather than proactive support. Vague "open door policies" that place all responsibility on team members to surface issues. Inconsistent communication that leaves people unclear about priorities and expectations. Focus on directing activity rather than removing barriers.

The team is not failing. The leadership system is failing the team.

What Military Leadership Taught Me About Team Performance

In military operations, when a unit underperforms, leaders do not blame the troops. They examine the leadership, the training, the resources, the systems. Because military leaders understand a fundamental truth: properly led and properly supported teams perform. When they do not perform, leadership failed them somewhere.

I learned this first as an enlisted service member watching my leaders. The best leaders created conditions for success. They identified obstacles before we encountered them. They ensured we had necessary resources. They communicated clearly. They removed systemic barriers we could not address ourselves. Under that leadership, we performed exceptionally.

Poor leaders blamed us for problems they created. They failed to provide clear guidance, then criticized us for not reading their minds. They ignored obstacles we faced, then demanded better results. They created systems that prevented success, then questioned our competence when we struggled.

When I became a leader myself, I carried those observations forward. My job was not to work harder than my team or solve every problem for them. My job was to create the conditions where they could succeed.

The Hidden Cost of Reactive Leadership

Most business leaders operate reactively. They respond to problems after those problems impact performance. They wait for team members to bring issues to them. They address crises but ignore the patterns that create those crises.

This reactive approach creates predictable symptoms:

Team members stop surfacing problems early. Why would they? Experience teaches them that bringing up obstacles leads nowhere until those obstacles become crises. So they struggle silently, hoping to work around issues, until problems become unavoidable.

Initiative disappears. Team members learn that trying new approaches without explicit approval creates risk. Better to wait for direction than to act independently and potentially face criticism. The leader complains about lack of initiative while their reactive leadership systematically discourages it.

Communication deteriorates. When leaders only engage during crises or when seeking status updates, team members provide minimal information. They learn that detailed communication is not valued until something goes wrong, at which point it becomes interrogation rather than dialogue.

Good people leave. Talented team members want to do excellent work. When leadership approaches prevent them from performing at their capability, when obstacles remain unaddressed, resources are unavailable, and support is inconsistent, they find organizations where they can succeed.

The leader attributes these symptoms to team deficiencies. The actual cause is the reactive leadership approach that created the conditions for these symptoms to emerge.

The Systematic Alternative

Purposeful Leadership represents a fundamentally different approach. Instead of reacting to team problems, it systematically prevents them. Instead of waiting for crises, it identifies and removes obstacles proactively. Instead of blaming teams for underperformance, it examines whether leadership is creating conditions for success.

The shift is straightforward but requires commitment:

From waiting for problems to systematically identifying obstacles. I do not wait for team members to tell me they are stuck. I create regular, structured processes to uncover challenges before they become performance issues. My check-ins are not status updates—they are obstacle identification sessions.

From directing activity to removing barriers. My role is not to tell people how to do their work. My role is to ensure nothing prevents them from doing their work excellently. When I ask "What do you need from me?" I am positioning myself as an obstacle remover, not an activity director.

From vague availability to systematic support. "My door is always open" is meaningless if team members do not know when or how to walk through it. Systematic check-ins, documented follow-through, and consistent engagement create actual accessibility rather than theoretical availability.

From reactive problem-solving to proactive pattern recognition. When the same types of problems recur, I do not solve each instance individually. I identify the systemic cause and address it at the source. This prevents problems rather than perpetually reacting to them.

What Changes When Leadership Changes

When leaders shift from reactive to purposeful approaches, team performance transforms predictably:

Problems surface earlier. Team members learn that identifying obstacles early leads to rapid resolution. They stop struggling silently and start communicating challenges when those challenges are still manageable. This prevents small issues from becoming crises.

Initiative returns. When leaders consistently remove systemic barriers rather than criticizing attempts and errors, team members regain confidence to act independently. They know their leader will support their success rather than punish imperfect execution.

Communication improves organically. Systematic engagement creates communication rhythms. Team members know when they will connect with their leader, what topics matter, and that their input creates action rather than falling into a void. Communication becomes natural rather than forced.

Retention improves. Talented people stay where they can do their best work. When leadership creates those conditions through systematic support and obstacle removal, retention problems diminish. People leave bad leadership, not difficult work.

The team has not changed. The leadership approach changed, which changed what the team could accomplish.

The Military Intelligence Perspective

My years in military intelligence reinforced this understanding from a different angle. Intelligence work taught me to look at systems rather than symptoms. When operations failed, we did not simply note the failure. We analyzed what created the conditions for failure.

Predictive analysis, the work I did assessing what adversaries would likely do next, required understanding capabilities, constraints, and environmental factors. The same analytical approach applies to team performance. When teams underperform, examine their capabilities, identify their constraints, and assess the environmental factors affecting them.

Usually, the analysis reveals that capable people are operating in systems that constrain their performance. They lack resources they need. They face obstacles outside their control. They receive unclear or conflicting guidance. They operate in environments where taking initiative creates risk.

These are leadership problems, not team problems. Capable teams in supportive environments perform. The same teams in unsupportive environments struggle. Change the environment, which means changing the leadership approach, and performance changes.

The Questions That Reveal Leadership Gaps

If you suspect your leadership approach might be contributing to team performance issues, ask yourself these questions honestly:

Do you have a systematic process for identifying obstacles your team faces, or do you wait for them to tell you? Most leaders wait. Waiting ensures you only hear about obstacles after they have already impacted performance.

When team members bring you problems, do you help them solve those problems or remove barriers preventing them from solving problems themselves? The former creates dependency. The latter builds capability.

Can you describe the specific obstacles each team member currently faces? If not, you lack the systematic knowledge required to provide effective support.

Do you document commitments you make to team members and consistently follow through? Inconsistent follow-through teaches people that surfacing needs is pointless.

Have you asked team members directly what obstacles prevent them from doing their best work? Many leaders assume they know without asking. They are usually wrong.

Your answers to these questions reveal whether you are operating reactively or systematically, whether you are creating conditions for success or inadvertently creating barriers to performance.

The Path Forward

Recognizing that your leadership approach might be the problem is uncomfortable. It was uncomfortable for me when I first confronted this reality. But recognition creates opportunity for change.

You do not need to replace your team. You need to examine whether your leadership approach is enabling their success or preventing it. You do not need more talented people. You need systematic processes for supporting the talented people you already have.

Purposeful Leadership provides those systematic processes. Regular obstacle identification. Proactive barrier removal. Documented follow-through. Professional boundaries with genuine care. Focus on creating conditions for success rather than directing every activity.

This is not theory. This is what I learned leading crisis response teams where lives depended on effective performance. This is what I refined through 25 years of military service, first as enlisted, then as commissioned officer, then in civilian leadership roles. This is what transforms team performance when implemented systematically.

Your team is not the problem. They are capable people operating in systems that may not enable their capability. Change those systems through purposeful leadership, and you will discover what your team can actually accomplish when leadership creates the conditions for success rather than inadvertently preventing it.

The question is not whether your team can perform better. The question is whether you are willing to examine your leadership approach honestly and make the systematic changes that enable better performance. That examination begins with a simple acknowledgment: if team performance consistently falls short, leadership is the most likely cause.

And leadership is something you can change, starting today.