I Used to Think Every Leader Wanted to Develop Their People

For most of my career I worked in operations, a world of throughput, service levels, and tight deadlines. In every role, I made time to develop the people on my teams. I coached, I asked about their goals, and I gave people stretch assignments and stayed close while they grew into them. Developing people felt as natural to me as checking the numbers.

Because it felt so natural, I assumed every leader did the same. I believed that anyone who had been trusted with a team wanted to watch that team grow. I held on to that belief for longer than I'd like to admit.

Then one day I was talking with a leader about his team, and he told me plainly that he didn't like developing people. He wanted them to come to him already developed. I remember how dismayed I felt, and honestly a little heartbroken, because I couldn't picture leading people without wanting to help them grow. That conversation showed me that my nurturing nature is not shared by every leader, and that many capable, well-meaning people see development as a distraction from the "real" work of hitting operational targets.

I understand where he was coming from. When you're under pressure to deliver, hiring someone who is ready to go sounds efficient. But I kept coming back to a question. If nobody develops people after they arrive, where does "already developed" come from, and what happens to the team while everyone waits for it?

What the research says

I went looking for evidence, because I wanted to know whether my instinct was just a personality trait or whether it shows up in results. It shows up in results.

Gallup's ongoing meta-analysis covers 183,806 business units around the world and finds that management quality explains 70% of the variance in team engagement. The leader, more than anything else, sets the conditions for whether people are engaged or checked out. In the most recent version of that study, top-quartile business units earned 23% more profit than bottom-quartile units, along with 78% less absenteeism and higher productivity. Gallup also found that highly engaged organizations tend to have comprehensive development programs for leaders and managers, and to focus on the development of individuals and teams.

The most direct comparison I found looks at what happens when teams receive development and when they don't. Gallup studied 49,495 business units and compared workgroups that received strengths-based development with control groups that received less or none. In 90% of the workgroups, gains reached at least 14 to 29% in profit and 9 to 15% in the share of engaged employees.

One more number stays with me. About 67% of employees who strongly agree that their manager focuses on their strengths are engaged. Among employees who strongly disagree, only 2% are engaged. Two percent is what a team can feel like when nobody invests in the people on it.

The timing matters too. Global employee engagement fell to 20% in 2025, and Gallup attributes most of the recent drop to declining manager engagement. Leaders are stretched thin, and development is often the first thing to go.

What I'd ask you to consider

I can't promise that every team will see these gains, and the research doesn't either. A small share of the workgroups in that study did not reach those ranges. What I can say is that the evidence points in one direction, and it is a consistent one. The leaders who invest in their people tend to build the teams that perform, stay, and show up with energy.

If you work in HR or lead leaders, you may have someone like the leader I met in your organization. They are probably not careless. They may never have seen development modeled, or they may believe it competes with results. You can start with a few practical steps. Ask every manager how they are developing each direct report, build development into manager goals, and give managers training and coaching of their own. Gallup notes that highly engaged organizations hold their managers accountable for their team's engagement and for how it relates to team performance.

I still believe, as I did early in my career, that developing people is some of the most meaningful and effective work a leader can do. The difference now is that I know it doesn't come naturally to everyone, which means it's something we can teach, model, and measure. Have you ever worked for someone who invested in your growth, or for someone who expected you to arrive fully formed? I'd love to hear what it did for you.

Fernanda Brasileiro

Consultant & Strategist

CONNECT

© 2026. All rights reserved.

Services

About

Set up a free consultation

GET FREE TEAM DIAGNOSTIC