“I don’t have time to develop people.”
If you’re a middle manager, you probably say this regularly. And you probably have your reasons for doing so: the calendar is full, the pressure of results is real, and accountability works both ways – goals from the top, expectations from the bottom.
The problem is that this sentence has consequences. And they are costly.
People development is not an add-on to management. It is not an HR project. It is not something you deal with “when things are looser.”
Jest the primary mechanism for increasing the band’s throughput.
If it is not there, you remain the bottleneck. Decisions accumulate with you. The team does not grow in autonomy. Operational pressure grows, and with it the number of topics you have to personally approve, check and correct. And then you say, “I don’t have time.”
It’s a closed loop that you sustain yourself.
Research Gallup shows that teams with high levels of engagement achieve 21-23% higher profitability and 18% higher productivity. At the same time, they record significantly lower turnover. And engagement is strongly associated with a sense of growth and learning opportunities.
Report LinkedIn (Workplace Learning Report) indicates that more than 90% of employees say they would stay longer in an organization that invests in their development. Lack of development opportunities is one of the most common reasons for leaving.
And turnover costs money. According to an analysis by the Society for Human Resource Management replacing an employee can cost the equivalent of six to nine months’ wages, and even more for specialists and leaders.
This is not a “soft topic.” It’s hard economics. Lack of development lowers results, increases costs and perpetuates the team’s dependence on one person – you.
Because for many managers, development means something extra: training, special talks, development projects, formal plans. Something beyond the operation.
And the truth is less convenient: development does not require additional time. It requires a different way of management.
Requires delegating decisions, not just tasks. Requires asking questions instead of immediately giving answers. Requires accepting that someone will make a mistake that you would have missed.
It’s not a matter of time resource. It’s a matter of giving up centrality.
If everything goes through you, it is not the team that is immature – the system is centralized. And the system was designed that way.
Developing people means that you stop being the only source of answers. That some decisions are made without you. That your operational indispensability diminishes.
For many managers, this is a real discomfort. Losing control can sometimes be more difficult than overwork.
Then “we don’t have time” becomes a safe justification. It sounds rational. It sounds professional. It does not reveal the real problem.
You don’t need a new development program. You don’t need time . You need a change in the way you view your role.
When someone presents a solution, you have a natural urge to improve it.
Micro-change: before you improve, ask:
“Are you sure this is a good solution?”
“What else would you change if you had an hour more?”
You allow you to see the gaps on your own.
This builds the capacity for self-reflection – crucial in development.
A common habit: you express an opinion in a way that sounds like a final decision. The team stops discussing.
Micro-change: say directly “This is my hypothesis, not a decision” or “Convince me if you see a better option.”
That’s 10 seconds more precision.
In return you get thinking, not conformity.
Status is information.
Recommendation is responsibility.
You don’t need more time – you need a change in reporting format.
If every update includes a recommendation, the team learns to think like an owner, not a contractor.
Standard: you control the deadline.
Effect: people report status.
Change: you ask about the obstacles and decisions they need.
The result: you teach to identify risks and think systemically.
It’s the same conversation, the same meeting. A different focus.
This is a micro-change that is hardly talked about.
In many teams, the boss becomes the default tension regulator.
Someone is frustrated – they come to you.
Someone has a conflict with someone – you ask them to “do something about it.”
Someone is unsure about a decision – they want confirmation that “they sure do.”
And it’s very easy to get into it. Because it’s faster. Because calmer. Because less friction. But, then the team doesn’t learn self-reliance in the most important area – dealing with tension.
He is not learning:
talk to each other directly,
endure disagreement,
Take responsibility for difficult conversations.
Micro-change is about something very simple: don’t reflexively take on the role of mediator.
Instead of saying: “Okay, I’ll talk to him.”
Say:
“Have you talked to him directly?”
“What exactly do you want to tell him?”
“What do you need to have this conversation yourself?”
The point is not to leave people alone with the problem. It’s about not taking away their opportunity to grow up. It can be uncomfortable at first. Tension may even rise. But over time, the team begins to solve more issues without your involvement. And you get your time back. Because if every more difficult emotion has to go through you, you’re not just an operations manager. You are a filter for everything. And that’s one of the most underestimated bottlenecks in management.
Many employees, when they hear “development,” think: a course, a certificate, a workshop or a higher position. Something tangible. Visible. Formal. Many managers hear the same thing and respond in thought: “We don’t have a budget” or “There is no vacancy.” And the conversation ends.
Meanwhile, the fastest development rarely happens in the training room. It happens when someone gets the opportunity to make a decision they previously came to you with. When he has a difficult conversation that he previously avoided. When he is in charge of a project that really weighs something. Development is not a change in position. It’s a change in the level of responsibility.
It’s a boundary shift:
from “I execute” to “I decide,”
from “I report” to “I recommend,”
from “I ask my boss” to “I take it upon myself.”
Training can help with this. Promotion can formalize it. But neither creates development by itself. Because development is not about the organization giving you more. It’s about you starting to lift more. And this is the point at which the topic comes back to the manager. If we understand development only as training or promotion, it will always depend on budget and structure. If we understand it as expanding responsibility, it starts in everyday decisions.
And then the question ceases to be:
“Do we have time to develop?”
It begins to sound:
“Are we ready to give up some control?”
And that’s why we so often say we don’t have time. Because the development of others almost always begins with a change in us.
The approach described is not just an individual practitioner’s opinion or intuition. In the management literature, it fits into the trend of Transformational Leadership, in which the role of the leader is to develop the autonomy and competence of the team, rather than to maintain operational control.
In turn, research on motivation, includingSelf-Determination Theory, shows that autonomy and a sense of competence are key to sustained commitment. Delegating responsibility is therefore not a “soft add-on” – is a mechanism for building long-term effectiveness. Lack of development time is rarely a systemic constraint – more often it is a decision about what role we want to play as leaders.
