The Hidden Cost of Relying on Your Strongest People
Capability gaps rarely arise from a lack of skill. They tend to manifest as resistance or "friction" in decision-making processes. This could look like decisions being slower than anticipated, the same people being pulled into both major and minor issues, or productivity slowing when direction isn’t explicitly provided by leadership or management.
On the surface, this appears to indicate high levels of work-related stress, overwork, or even a short-term downturn in employee performance. However, more often than not, the cause is that expectations have outpaced current capabilities.
One of the most common, if not the most common, trends we’ve seen while working closely with leaders in our leadership workshops is how long it takes for them to recognise and act on their team’s capability gaps. Typically, leaders often work reactively; the gaps don’t become visible until performance starts to decline, or they are expected to perform above what they have previously performed.
At which time, they respond quickly. The leader steps in directly, direction becomes clearer, and the work is directed toward those employees whose capabilities can be trusted to meet expectations.
While the stabilisation of performance may occur immediately, the reactive approach will only reinforce the gap in capability because capability isn’t being developed. It’s being worked around.
So, how do leaders actually discover capability gaps before they become performance issues?
Usually, by looking to see where the pressure falls. To do this effectively, it requires a clear understanding of the important distinction between capability vs. capacity.
Capacity is the obvious issue. There is too much work. There isn't enough time. It's clear your team is stretched.
Capability, however, is an entirely different issue. You have enough work to do and there is enough time to complete it. However, the work isn't being completed to the level it should be. Decisions about the work are made by a small team or individual(s) as they don't believe other team members are capable of making those decisions. Work is completed, but no learning took place from completing the task.
These indicators are easy to miss because performance is still being delivered. However, these are all indications of how tenuous the current state of performance is.
At this point, most leaders begin to ask if they need to add more people, create additional structure or provide more oversight.
From our experience, the response is almost always different than anticipated.
Rather than simply adding more resources into the existing system, it's necessary for leaders to be intentional regarding how/where capability needs to exist within their systems, how decisions should be made, and support provided to allow leaders to function at the level they expect from them.
When executed correctly, the expectation for performance does not rest on a few key individuals, rather it becomes something the entire system can maintain.
This is generally the distinction between a team that has demonstrated ability to perform currently, versus one that will be able to perform as expectations continually escalate.
Strong leadership doesn’t happen by accident. Evolve works with healthcare organisations to design leadership practices that are sustainable, practical and embedded into everyday operations. Get in touch if you want support building that foundation.