Why ‘Doing It All’ Undermines Team Performance, According to Leanne Bridges

In a recent LinkedIn post, Leanne Bridges discusses the common leadership pitfall of a high-performing individual taking on too much, to the detriment of their team and overall productivity. Bridges highlights a scenario where a capable employee, often promoted for their individual contribution, inadvertently becomes a bottleneck by attempting to manage every aspect of a situation.

According to Bridges, this individual was “doing everyone’s job except her own.” The post elaborates on how this pattern emerges when leaders feel it’s quicker or more efficient to solve problems themselves rather than delegate or guide their team. This approach, while seemingly productive in the short term, creates a ripple effect of negative consequences.

The Cost of ‘Heroic’ Leadership

Bridges points out that when one person becomes the primary problem-solver, the team’s focus shifts from their core responsibilities to reacting to the leader’s actions. This creates stress and hinders proactive work. “The team stopped focusing on what they should be doing and started reacting to whatever she was reacting to,” Bridges writes. This dynamic can also stifle communication and decision-making, as the leader may postpone necessary conversations or find themselves inundated with requests for decisions, further delaying tasks.

The Underlying Cause: An Inability to Stop

While the behavior might seem like a lack of delegation skills, Bridges suggests a deeper issue: an inability to work out what to do instead. The individual in her example was promoted for being excellent at the core job, but this excellence didn’t automatically translate into effective management or delegation. “She knew she was doing too much. She just didn’t know how to stop,” Bridges explains. This highlights a common challenge where strong individual contributors struggle to transition into leadership roles that require empowering others.

Shifting the Conversation for Change

Crucially, Bridges reveals that the solution wasn’t solely focused on coaching the employee. Instead, she worked with the Managing Director (MD) to alter his approach to conversations with the underperforming leader. This involved changing “what he was asking for. How he was following up. How he had these conversations.” This strategic intervention, focused on empowering the manager to guide his employee differently, eventually led to a significant shift.

The Result: A Transformed Team Dynamic

After a few months, the MD reported a marked improvement. Bridges quotes the MD as saying, “She’s actually managing now. More’s getting done. People are more focused. Everyone’s happier.” This outcome underscores Bridges’ central argument: the same person in the same role can achieve different results through different conversations and a reframed approach to leadership challenges. The transformation wasn’t about the individual’s capabilities but about the supportive and directive environment created by their manager.

Bridges concludes by posing a question to her audience: “Any of that ring true for you?” prompting reflection on similar dynamics within their own organizations.