What if we stopped trying to «save» our teams?

In many organisations, I hear phrases like: «I'm protecting my teams», «I'm taking it upon myself», «I'm going to sort it out for them». It's all well and good. But by dint of save, we dispossesses We make others dependent on us, we wear ourselves out, and the system learns that the solution comes from above. And if, instead of «saving», we support How can we help our teams to regain their power to act, their clarity and their responsibility?

The «rescue» trap»

Wanting to save often means deciding instead, absorbing conflicts, taking on all the burdens and speaking for others. This is reassuring in the short term, but in the medium term :

• the team wait instead of acting ;

• the manager becomes neck ;

• the quality of decision-making drop (field signals are lost) ;

• exhaustion monte (both for the manager and the team).

We slip into the Karpman's dramatic triangle the manager in Sauveur sometimes ends up Persecutor (when he breaks down) and the team stays Victim.
The way out? Moving on to a relationship adult-adult : Creator-Challenger-Coach (David Emerald's TED* model).

From «saving» to «supporting»: three approaches

• Creator (team side) I clarify what I want to produce and choose a possible first action.

• Challenger (reality/manager side) I name the facts, the gaps, the constraints; I honour the consequences.

• Coach (manager side) I ask questions, give pointers and open up options, I don't do things for you.

Key question : «What do you need to get ahead on your own?»

The foundations of empowering support

1. Clarity of direction What we want, what we don't want, and the criteria for success.

2. Decision-making rights who decides of what (empowerment scale: inform / consult / co-decide / decide).

3. Rituals and rules Regular opportunities to look at reality (priorities, workload, bottlenecks) and decide together.

4. Psychological safety You can say «I don't know» / «I made a mistake» / «I need help».

5. Capacity vs. demand We're watching what you can actually absorb and we assume non-choice.

Practical tools for moving from saviour to supporter

1) The support contract (manager ↔ team)

• Our course : …

• What I expect from you This means making decisions as close to the ground as possible, giving me early warning and proposing options.

• What you can expect from me to arbitrate, protect against abuses and remove structural obstacles.

• Our limits what I do will do not for you (no planning, no micro-management, no note-taking at team meetings).

2) The “1:1” approach to empowerment (simple framework)

• A - Appreciation What worked well?

• I - Inquiry What's blocking you / costing you / worrying you?

• R - Resolution What do you need from me? When Will you come back and tell me what you tried?

3) Weekly team meeting in 30 minutes

• Priorities of the week (max 3)

• Load & capacity (Limited WIP: stop «everything in parallel»)

• Blockages owner + date + next small action

• Arbitrage to be taken to the next level (format options + impacts)

4) Clarify decisions (RACI/DRI + decision log)

• A DRI (Directly Responsible Individual) per subject.

• Journal decision / date / why / who carries it out / planned review.

• We're getting away from the «benevolent vagueness» that ends up in latent conflict.

5) Language that changes everything (manager scripts)

• « What options do you see? Pick one and tell me what you're testing by Friday.»

• « What do you decide, And what do you need to make your decision more secure?»

• « I can hear the overload, I'll take my share of the arbitration: what do we put on the table? on break ? »

• « No is not a refusal from you, it's a yes to our course and our health.»

Looking after the load before looking after the people

Saving teams by asking them to absorb more is a contradiction in terms. A supportive leader manages the load :

• WIP limits (work in progress): on ends before start something else.

• Kill list monthly: what subjects do we stop at?

• Realistic capacity No continuous 120 % plan; we reserve 10-15 % for the unexpected and continuous improvement.

• Stop-fix-learn rituals We slow down to repair and learn, otherwise the debt comes back.

Managing conflict without saving lives

Saving often means absorb the conflict on behalf of those concerned. The supporting role :

1. Frame discussion rules (listening, equal time, facts vs. interpretations).

2. Process each side reformulates the other before arguing.

3. Decision If disagreement persists, the decision is made at the right level and we explain why.

Healthy indicators (to be monitored for 10 minutes a week)

• Clarity % of decisions recorded; number of subjects without an owner.

• Load Average WIP / person; average time to complete a subject.

• Climate Psychological safety score (pulse 3 questions); number of escalations treated in less than a week.

• Learning Number of «small bet» experiments carried out per month.

30-day training plan

Week 1 - Announcement of support contract + 1:1 screen.
Week 2 - Setting up the weekly ritual (priorities/loads/blocks) + DRI by subject.
Week 3 — WIP limit + kill list + decision log.
Week 4 - Shared assessment: what has changed (workload, decisions, climate) + one habit we're keeping, one we're stopping, one we're starting.

What you can say tomorrow

• «I'm not going to solve things for you any more. I can help you decide. »

• «We put 3 priorities and leave the rest for later».»

• «If there is a conflict, I provide the frame and help to slice, not to be avoided».»

• «I prefer a small true decision today than a major rescue tomorrow.»

Conclusion

When you stop «saving» your teams, you're not disengaging; you're committing yourself. otherwise Creating clarity, regulating workloads, keeping managers on track, developing autonomy. Supportive leadership enables others. It's slower in the first week, and much faster in the following weeks - because the teams create, decide and learn by themselves.