One of the most dangerous sentences a founder can say is:
“It’s faster if I just do it myself.”
The frustrating part?
Most of the time, it’s true.
At least in the beginning.
You can probably write the proposal faster.
Handle the client better.
Fix the campaign faster.
Make the decision faster.
Explain the product better.
Solve the problem with less back-and-forth.
You’ve spent years accumulating context.
Your employee has spent months.
So naturally, doing it yourself feels more efficient.
But there’s a problem.
If you’re always the fastest person to solve every problem, nobody else ever becomes fast.
And your company never really grows beyond you.
Delegation Sounds Easier Than It Is
Before running a team, delegation sounds straightforward.
Give someone a task.
They complete it.
Done.
In reality, delegation exposes all kinds of problems.
Sometimes the instructions weren’t clear.
Sometimes the expected standard only existed inside your head.
Sometimes the employee misunderstood.
Sometimes you assumed something was obvious when it wasn’t.
Sometimes they genuinely made a mistake.
And sometimes you delegated the task but never actually delegated the authority needed to complete it.
Then comes the temptation.
Take the work back.
Fix everything yourself.
Tell yourself you’ll delegate again when the company is less busy.
But the company never becomes less busy.
So the cycle continues.
The 70% Problem
One of the things I’ve had to become more comfortable with is watching someone do something differently from how I would have done it.
That’s harder than it sounds.
Especially when you built the original process.
You know exactly how you would structure the document.
How you would speak to the client.
How you would approach the campaign.
Where you would place something.
Which details you would notice.
Then someone else does it.
And maybe it’s only 70% of what you would have produced.
The instinct is to take over.
But I’ve realised something.
If I continuously take work away from someone whenever they perform at 70%, they never get the opportunity to reach 80%, 90% or eventually become better than me.
That remaining 30% is sometimes the price of building capability.
Of course, there are situations where mistakes are unacceptable.
Standards still matter.
Clients still deserve good work.
But there’s a difference between maintaining standards and demanding that everybody thinks exactly like you.
That distinction matters.
Delegating Tasks Is Not Enough
Another mistake I’ve made is believing that delegation means distributing tasks.
It doesn’t.
At least not if you’re trying to build leaders.
If I tell someone:
Do this.
Then this.
Then send this.
Then wait for my approval.
Then do this.
I haven’t really delegated responsibility.
I’ve created another pair of hands attached to my brain.
Real delegation requires giving someone an outcome.
Then allowing them to think.
That comes with risk.
They might choose a different route.
They might make a decision you wouldn’t make.
They might fail.
But if nobody besides the founder is allowed to make meaningful decisions, the company eventually reaches a ceiling.
You can’t scale approvals indefinitely.
Trust Has to Be Built Both Ways
Founders often say:
“I need people I can trust.”
That’s true.
But I’ve started thinking about the opposite question too.
Have I created an environment where people know I trust them?
Because if someone believes every decision they make will immediately be corrected, eventually they stop making decisions.
They ask.
They wait.
They escalate.
Not because they’re incapable.
Because the organisation has trained them not to take risks.
Trust doesn’t mean ignoring mistakes.
It means giving people enough room to develop judgement.
That takes time.
And it requires accepting that leadership development is not always efficient in the short term.
Sometimes the Problem Is the Founder
This has probably been one of the more uncomfortable lessons.
When something repeatedly goes wrong in a team, it’s easy to blame the team.
But sometimes the real problem is upstream.
Maybe the objective keeps changing.
Maybe priorities aren’t clear.
Maybe the founder is giving instructions to people outside the reporting structure.
Maybe expectations change depending on mood.
Maybe nobody actually knows who owns the decision.
Maybe the company is growing but the way we communicate hasn’t evolved.
I’ve become more aware that leadership problems often disguise themselves as employee problems.
And the higher you are in an organisation, the harder it becomes to see your own contribution to the chaos.
I’m Trying to Build People, Not Followers
The goal isn’t to build a company full of people who constantly ask:
“What does Naveen want me to do?”
The goal is for them to understand the mission, the standards and the outcome well enough to ask:
“What is the best decision for the company?”
That shift is enormous.
And I’m nowhere near finished making it.
There are still moments where it’s easier for me to jump into execution.
There are still times where I probably interfere too much.
There are still things I’m learning about communication, hiring and management.
But I know where I want to get.
I don’t want to be the person holding everything together.
I want to help build something that holds itself together.
And strangely, building that requires learning one of the hardest things for any founder.
Letting go.