“We have a problem with low performers on the team,” the engineering manager reporting to me told me during our coaching session.
“Tell me about your performance management approach,” I replied.
“That’s not the issue,” he insisted. “We just hired the wrong people.”
After twenty minutes of discussion, a pattern emerged: unclear expectations, inconsistent feedback, and a culture that avoided difficult conversations. The “low performer problem” was actually a leadership problem in disguise.
I’ve seen this scenario repeat countless times across organizations. Leaders identify team issues while remaining blind to their own role in creating them.
Here’s the uncomfortable truth: Every team problem is ultimately a leadership problem.
The Leadership Reflection
This principle initially feels unfair. Surely, some problems exist independently of leadership? Some team members are just difficult, unmotivated, or incompetent, right?
While individual factors certainly exist, persistent team problems always trace back to leadership decisions:
- “Toxic team members” → Leaders who permit harmful behaviors
- “Communication breakdowns” → Leaders who haven’t built communication systems
- “Missed deadlines” → Leaders who accept unrealistic commitments
- “Quality issues” → Leaders who prioritize speed over excellence
- “Unmotivated team” → Leaders who haven’t connected work to purpose
The longer I lead, the more I see my teams as perfect mirrors reflecting my own leadership choices—both good and bad.
Beyond Blame
The leadership reflection principle isn’t about blame. It’s about agency.
When I view team problems as leadership problems, I shift from frustration to action. Instead of asking “Why won’t they…?” I ask “What have I…?”
- “Why won’t they collaborate?” becomes “What have I done to reward or prevent collaboration?”
- “Why won’t they speak up?” becomes “What have I done when people raised concerns?”
- “Why won’t they take ownership?” becomes “What have I done that signals I don’t trust them?”
This reframing transforms helplessness into opportunity. I can’t control individual personalities, but I can control the conditions, incentives, and culture that shape behavior.
The System You Built
I made a painful discovery early in my leadership career: My team’s behavior wasn’t random—it was the predictable outcome of the system I had created.
When my engineers avoided addressing technical debt, it wasn’t because they didn’t care about code quality. It was because I had:
- Celebrated only on-time feature delivery
- Failed to allocate time for maintenance
- Created a promotion system that rewarded visible features over invisible stability
The team was rationally responding to the environment I had built. Their behavior perfectly reflected my true (not stated) priorities.
The Ownership Principle
Taking ownership for team problems doesn’t mean taking all the action. Paradoxically, it often means stepping back.
When facing team challenges, I follow a three-step process:
- Own the problem: “This situation exists partly because of my choices.”
- Identify leadership actions: “Here’s what I’ll change about my approach.”
- Enable team ownership: “How can I support you in addressing this together?”
This approach models the accountability I want to see while creating space for team members to exercise their own agency.
The Practical Applications
Let’s apply this principle to common team challenges:
“We have interpersonal conflicts”
- Leadership reflection: Have I created clear behavioral expectations? Have I modeled constructive disagreement? Have I addressed previous conflicts promptly?
- Leadership action: Establish team norms, mediate current conflicts, create channels for early feedback
“The team misses deadlines”
- Leadership reflection: Have I taught estimation skills? Have I created realistic expectations? Have I provided focus or allowed too many priorities?
- Leadership action: Improve planning processes, limit work in progress, create better feedback loops
“People don’t take initiative”
- Leadership reflection: What happens when people try new approaches? How have I responded to failure? Am I providing clear direction while allowing autonomy?
- Leadership action: Celebrate appropriate risk-taking, create lower-stakes opportunities, clarify decision authority
The Exceptions Test
You might be thinking: “But what about when a team member is just genuinely problematic regardless of leadership?”
Even these situations reflect leadership choices:
- Hiring decisions (Who did we bring onto the team?)
- Performance management (How are we addressing issues?)
- Cultural reinforcement (What behaviors do we tolerate?)
If someone truly cannot succeed despite your best leadership efforts, the accountability still lies with you: to make the tough decision to move them to a role where they can succeed or out of the organization entirely.
The Final Mirror
The ultimate test of this principle comes when you’re ready to blame external factors entirely beyond your control.
Even here, leadership accountability remains:
- “We don’t have enough resources” → How am I utilizing available resources? How effectively am I advocating for what we need?
- “Company politics block us” → How am I navigating relationships and building necessary alliances?
- “The market changed suddenly” → How prepared was I for potential shifts? How quickly am I helping the team adapt?
The most effective leaders I know share this trait: they instinctively look inward before looking outward when facing challenges.
They understand that while not every circumstance is within their control, their response always is. And that response shapes everything about how their team performs.
If you want to understand your leadership, look at your team. They’re the most honest mirror you’ll ever have.