I was talking with a Head of Security who was drowning. Overwhelmed, reactive, constantly pulled in every direction. He’d become a bottleneck for his entire organization.
The problem wasn’t his work ethic or his competence. It was how he understood his value.
“I’m the person who ensures we’re protected,” he explained. “I can see risks others miss and make sure we’re covered. The stakes are so high, it wouldn’t be fair for me to put that on someone else.”
I appreciated his sense of responsibility, and he definitely had deep expertise and a sharp mind.
But notice what’s missing… Any capacity to develop his team. Any way to build security into the system. He’d defined his contribution so narrowly that it kept him doing much of his team’s work, even though his title suggested he should be leading.
How Your Sense of Contribution Creates Constraints
How we define our contribution doesn’t just describe what we do. It sets boundaries around what’s possible for us and for everyone who works with us.
The technical leader who says, “I contribute by making the best technical decisions.”
Result? The team waits for their input on everything. Bottleneck created. Team growth stunted.
The engineering manager who believes they need to know every detail of every project.
Result? The team can’t move without checking in. Autonomy destroyed. Scalability killed.
The developer who declares, “My value is creating elegant code. I don’t test—I’m a developer.”
Result? Quality becomes someone else’s problem. Handoffs multiply. Cycle time increases.
The tester who says, “My value is finding bugs.”
Result? The team builds buggy software by default, counting on the tester to catch problems rather than preventing them.
The product manager who prides themselves on detailed, precise requirements.
Result? There’s no space for discovery and emergence, and the team is relegated to order-taking.
In every case, someone’s identity around how they contribute imposes limitations on the entire system.
Beyond Activities & Artifacts
Most people define their contribution around activities they perform or artifacts they produce. “I write code.” “I find bugs.” “I make technical decisions.” “I address security risks.”
These definitions feel safe. Concrete. Easy to measure.
But they trap you in specific behaviors, even when those behaviors stop serving the larger outcome you’re trying to create.
That Head of Security couldn’t delegate or systematize because his identity was wrapped up in personally ensuring protection. The moment he stopped being the one evaluating every risk, he felt like he wasn’t doing his job.
That’s the trap: A sense of contribution defined so narrowly that it prevents you from creating more impact.
Especially for Leaders
This issue hits leaders especially hard. Individual contributors can sometimes get away with a narrow definition of their value. Leaders can’t.
A leader’s sense of their contribution ripples through the entire organization. When it’s too small—defined around activities they personally perform rather than outcomes they enable—they become the constraint on their organization’s growth.
The engineering manager who needs to know every detail? Their team can’t scale. The technical leader who makes all the decisions? Their organization can’t move faster than they can think. The head of quality who personally evaluates every compliance issue? They can’t build compliance into the system–they’re stuck inspecting it in, one rule or artifact at a time, at the speed the leader can assess them.
If you’re a leader and you’re overwhelmed, if you’re constantly reactive, if you’ve become a bottleneck, your personal sense of contribution might be too small for the role you’re in.
Opening Possibilities
What changes when you shift how you understand your value from activities to outcomes?
From “I ensure we’re protected from all security risks by evaluating every potential vulnerability” to “I create systems where we can collectively see risks and build security into everything we do.”
Notice the difference? The second version opens up new options. Now he can develop his team’s capability. Build processes. Create visibility. Scale his impact beyond what he could personally evaluate.
From “I find all the bugs so our users don’t have to” to “I help my team build bug-free software so our users don’t have to encounter bugs.”
Same outcome: users don’t encounter bugs. Completely different approach. One traps you in endless bug hunting. The other invites you to transform how your team works.
From “I make the best technical decisions for my team” to “I develop my team’s ability to make excellent technical decisions.”
One keeps you as the bottleneck. The other multiplies your impact.
Redefining Your Contribution
Take a few minutes with these questions. They might reveal whether your sense of contribution is constraining what’s possible.
What outcomes have been most gratifying to you to create in your work? Look past the tasks. What results mattered most?
What rare or unique capabilities do you bring to the table? Not just skills anyone could learn, but the particular combination of abilities, experiences, and perspectives that make you valuable.
What possibilities does your sense of how you contribute create for your team, peers, or the people you lead? Consider the space you create for other people to bring their contributions to multiply with yours.
How does your sense of how you contribute impose constraints or limitations for your team, peers, or the people you lead? Be honest here. Where does your identity around contribution create bottlenecks, dependencies, or reduced capacity in the system?
How might you shift your sense of personal contribution to still create meaningful outcomes and use your unique capabilities while also creating more possibilities for others around you?
Give it a try, and let us know what you discover or where you get stuck!
Last updated