You’ve just finished another one-on-one with your top performer. You covered the project status, reviewed next week’s deliverables, and confirmed the timeline in response to that client’s request. The meeting was efficient—twenty minutes, clear outcomes, and everyone knows what to do next.
Your team member leaves. You check it off your list. Another productive one-on-one complete.
But here’s what didn’t happen: You didn’t ask what they’re learning. You didn’t ask what’s frustrating them. You didn’t ask what they’re proud of this week or what keeps them up at night about their role. You managed the work. You didn’t develop the person.
And six months from now, when they give notice, you’ll be genuinely surprised. Sound familiar?
What happened here?
You are confusing managing with coaching. And most leaders do, because the difference isn’t obvious until it’s too late.
Managing is about the work: status updates, obstacle removal, resource allocation, and deadline tracking. It’s necessary. It’s important. And it’s completely insufficient for keeping talented people engaged and growing.
Coaching is about the person: their development, their thinking, their capacity, their next level of contribution. It requires different questions, different conversations, and a different mindset about your role.
The high-performer trap
“The problem with being good at everything is that nobody knows what to help you with.” – Unknown
I worked with a director—let’s call him Marcus—who managed a team of high performers. They delivered excellent work, hit every deadline, and required minimal oversight. From the outside, he had the dream team.
From the inside, he had a retention problem he didn’t see coming.
His best team member—someone who’d been with him three years—started pulling back. Less engaged in meetings. Fewer ideas volunteered. Marcus noticed but told himself it was temporary, probably personal stress.
Then came the resignation. Two weeks’ notice. New role at a competitor. Better title, more money, but also this line from the exit interview that landed like a punch: “I stopped learning here about six months ago. I kept waiting for someone to notice, but nobody asked.”
Marcus was devastated. “I gave her autonomy, trusted her completely, and never micromanaged. What more could she want?”
The answer: someone who cared about her growth, not just her output.
When expertise becomes your excuse
Here’s the pattern Marcus had fallen into—and maybe you recognize it. His team members were experts in their domains. They knew their technologies better than he did. So he told himself that coaching them wasn’t his role. They didn’t need his technical input. What could he possibly teach them?
This is exactly backward.
Coaching isn’t about teaching your team what you know. It’s about helping them discover what they don’t yet know they’re capable of. And that requires questions, not answers.
After that resignation, Marcus and I rebuilt his entire approach to one-on-ones. Instead of “What’s the status on Project X?” he started asking:
“What are you learning right now that’s stretching you?”
“What part of this project are you most proud of and why?”
“If you could change one thing about how we’re approaching this, what would it be?”
“What skill do you want to develop that you’re not getting to use enough?”
Notice what’s different. These questions can’t be answered with a status update. They require reflection. They signal that the conversation is about the person’s growth, not just task completion.
The think-write-share technique
One challenge Marcus faced: his team stayed quiet when asked for opinions in meetings, only speaking up after he’d already proposed solutions. They had thoughts—but something was preventing them from sharing proactively.
We introduced a simple practice called “think-write-share.” Before discussing any decision, he’d give the team two minutes to write down their perspective individually. Then each person shared what they’d written. No interruptions, no immediate reactions, just listening.
The shift was immediate. People who’d been silent for months suddenly had detailed opinions. The introverts contributed as much as the extroverts. And Marcus realized the problem wasn’t that his team lacked ideas—it was that his process hadn’t created space for their thinking.
This is what coaching creates: structures that develop people’s capacity to think strategically, contribute confidently, and own their growth.
From expert to developer
Marcus spent his first three years as a director proving his technical credibility. He could dive deep into any problem, debug any issue, and architect any solution. His team respected his expertise.
But as his team grew, that approach broke. He couldn’t know every detail anymore. His action item backlog became impossible. And he faced a choice: keep trying to be the expert on everything or become the leader who develops other experts.
He chose development. And it required him to get comfortable asking questions he didn’t know the answers to:
“What am I missing about this problem that you see clearly?”
“What questions should I keep top of mind as we work through this?”
“What would you do if this decision were entirely yours to make?”
These questions did something powerful—they positioned his team members as the experts and him as the person helping them think through complexity. His role shifted from having answers to asking questions that revealed gaps, surfaced assumptions, and built confidence.
Six months later, his team was making decisions he used to make. They were mentoring each other. And when he asked for feedback, one person said: “You used to tell us what to do. Now you help us figure out what we think. That’s made all the difference.”
What coaching actually requires
Coaching your team doesn’t mean you need certification or training in formal coaching methodology. It means you need curiosity about their development and discipline to ask about it consistently.
It means treating one-on-ones as development conversations, not just status updates. It means asking “What are you proud of this week?” before diving into problems. It means creating space for people to think out loud, even when you could solve it faster yourself.
And it means accepting that your job isn’t to be the smartest person in every conversation—it’s to help your people become smarter than you in their domains.
What’s one question you could add to your next one-on-one that’s about the person, not the project? And what becomes possible when your team knows you’re as invested in their growth as you are in their output?
Recent Comments