For a long time, responsibility was closely associated with getting things done. I did not think of it as leadership at the time.
The instinct was not necessarily to do more, but to stay with a problem long enough to understand what was really happening and find a solution that addressed the root cause. Once a responsibility was taken on, delivering it well mattered. Being someone others could rely on became part of the value brought to a team.
One former manager once put it simply:
“Making other people feel at ease is a capability too. It is not that simple.”
That kind of reliability became particularly important in lean teams, where one person could be responsible for an entire function — from planning and execution to reporting and problem solving.
Over time, working this way built a broad understanding of how things connected. Processes were developed, frameworks were put in place, and repetitive work was gradually reduced. Not simply to become more efficient, but to create more room to think about the problems behind the work.
The challenge came when the scope became larger.
Managing a team of nearly twenty people was the first experience that made this particularly clear. An approach that worked with a small team — staying close to individuals, understanding their needs, and providing support directly — could no longer scale.
There were too many people, different levels of responsibility, and not everyone was a direct report. Contributing through execution was no longer the answer either. At that scale, being involved in every detail created more complexity rather than more value.
The role had grown, but the way of creating value had not grown with it.
A similar tension appeared later as the scope of the business expanded. Growth expectations increased, the business model evolved, and administrative and executional responsibilities accumulated. Being able to handle more work had once been an advantage. At a larger scale, however, that approach became increasingly difficult to sustain.
That led to an important distinction: Being able to handle everything is not the same as being able to handle something bigger.
The transition became more tangible when additional people joined the team.
Delegation was only part of the change. The more difficult shift was recognising that responsibility could no longer mean personally ensuring every task was completed.
It had to mean creating the conditions for others to do the work well.
That required clearer direction, processes that did not depend on one person, and enough room for others to develop. It also meant gradually stepping away from execution that no longer required direct involvement.
Perhaps that is also where leadership begins.
Leadership does not begin when people start reporting to you. It begins with how well you can lead yourself.
Before asking how to lead a larger team, there is a more fundamental question: can you manage your own scope, recognise your own limits, and make room to grow beyond what you already know how to do?
In that sense, the years spent in execution were not something to outgrow.
They built an understanding of the work from the ground up.
Knowing what execution actually involves makes it easier to recognise where a process creates unnecessary friction, where a team needs support, and where a problem requires a better system rather than simply more effort.
But there is a subtle cost to becoming the person who can always be relied on to get things done.
It can become difficult to recognise when stepping in is no longer the most valuable contribution.
As scope grows, responsibility has to evolve — from doing the work yourself to creating the conditions for others to do it well.
And that is still a lesson in progress.
Sometimes, taking greater responsibility means carrying less of the work yourself.
