One of the quiet tensions in organisations rarely appears in strategy documents or leadership frameworks – It shows up in everyday work.
A junior colleague asks to take on more “special projects.” > A manager encourages them to try. Meanwhile, the operational workload continues to grow.
In that moment, a question naturally arises for those of us managing work on the ground:
Are we assigning work based on readiness… or development?
The answer, more often than not, is both, and that is where the complexity begins.
The Development vs Readiness Dilemma
Organisations must constantly balance two priorities:
- Delivering outcomes today
- Developing people for tomorrow
If every important task is given only to the most experienced person, the organisation may achieve short-term efficiency but fail to build future capability. But if responsibilities are given too quickly to people who are not ready, delivery risks increase.
Leaders often resolve this tension with a simple phrase:
“Let them try.”
On the surface, this decision can feel uncomfortable to those responsible for ensuring work gets done properly. Operational gaps may appear obvious. Planning may seem incomplete. Communication may require refinement. Yet development rarely happens in perfectly controlled environments. It happens in real situations, with real responsibility, and sometimes growth begins exactly where readiness feels uncertain.
The Middle Management Perspective
For those of us in middle management, this tension becomes especially visible.
We sit between leadership’s intention and operational reality. We understand why leaders want to create opportunities for emerging talent. At the same time, we see the practical implications on workload, timelines, and team coordination.
When a junior team member requests to focus on special projects while reducing their business-as-usual responsibilities, it can raise a difficult question:
Who carries the operational load while development happens?
This is not simply a matter of fairness. It is a matter of capacity management.
In many teams, operational work is where discipline, consistency, and accountability are built. It is the foundation that enables people to later handle complex projects. Without that foundation, projects risk becoming ideas without execution.
Leadership Styles and Expectations
Another dynamic often appears in these situations: differences in leadership style. Some leaders operate with a highly directive approach. They think through problems, prepare materials, and provide clear instructions for the team to execute.
This approach can be extremely effective for junior teams because it provides certainty and structure. Other leaders operate differently. Instead of providing answers, they expect team members to propose solutions, draft plans, and think through problems independently.
The intention is to build ownership and professional maturity.
However, when a team has been used to directive leadership, this shift can feel uncomfortable.
Questions such as:
- “What should we do?”
- “Can you tell us the steps?”
- “Can you prepare the structure first?”
begin to surface.
In these moments, the gap is not simply about competence. It is about expectations of leadership.
Ownership vs Direction
One of the most important transitions in professional growth is moving from waiting for instructions to owning outcomes. Yet this transition rarely happens automatically.
Junior professionals often equate supportive leadership with receiving clear answers and step-by-step guidance. When asked to think independently, they may feel uncertain or even unsupported.
This is where leadership must strike a careful balance.
- Providing no structure can feel like abandonment.
- Providing all the answers prevents growth.
A more effective approach is what some leaders call structured ownership, means instead of solving the problem for the team, the leader provides a framework for thinking.
For example: “Prepare a proposal with the objective, timeline, and key steps. Then we review together.”
This approach maintains support while keeping responsibility where it belongs.
The Quiet Role of Professional Restraint
In environments where development and readiness are being balanced, experienced professionals play an important stabilising role. Not every gap needs immediate correction. Not every disagreement requires escalation.
Sometimes the most valuable contribution is professional composure.
- Stepping back when appropriate.
- Providing structure without taking over.
- Allowing others to experience responsibility.
This does not mean lowering standards. It means recognising that growth often involves discomfort, and that organisations develop people not only through perfect execution, but through experience.
A Reflection from the Middle
Working in the middle of an organisation often means navigating tensions that are not immediately visible.
We see the operational realities. We understand leadership’s intentions, and we often feel responsible for ensuring both can coexist.
In these moments, the question is not simply who is right. The question is how organisations can continue delivering results while still creating space for people to grow. Because in the long run, strong organisations are not built only by those who are already ready.
They are built by leaders who know when to say: “Let them try”, and by professionals who understand how to support that process responsibly.
Leave a Reply