In the early days, the leader being the bottleneck is not a problem. It is the operating model.
You are often the architect, the escalation point, and the person who still jumps in when production breaks at midnight. Decisions are fast because there is one brain and one set of priorities.
Then the team grows.
Suddenly you are still the person who approves the hire, the vendor, the architecture change, the release, the pricing experiment, and the Slack thread about whether a button should be blue.
Nothing is wrong with caring. The problem starts when speed depends on your attention, and your attention is already full.
This pattern is especially sharp for technical leaders who came up as hands-on builders. You know where the bodies are buried. You can spot a bad tradeoff in thirty seconds.
That expertise is real. It is also finite.
How You Know It Is You
The symptoms are usually obvious once you name them:
- Your calendar is mostly reactive: approvals, clarifications, "quick questions" that are not quick
- Work stalls when you travel, get sick, or try to take a day off
- Senior people wait for your opinion before acting, even on things inside their mandate
- You feel busy all week but cannot point to strategic progress
- The team says they want more autonomy, but every path still leads back to you
None of this means you are a bad leader. It often means the company outgrew a decision model that was never written down.
Early on, the model was implicit: "Ask the leader." That worked at five people. At twenty-five, it becomes a queue.
Why Leaders Hold On
There are good reasons leaders keep decisions close.
Quality. You have seen what happens when someone ships the wrong abstraction, hires the wrong profile, or signs the wrong contract. Caring about quality is rational. The trap is when "quality" becomes you reviewing every decision because nobody else meets your bar.
I know that trap. Early in my career as a programmer, attention to detail was a real strength. It did not carry over cleanly into management. You cannot run a team as a perfectionist without slowing yourself down and the people around you.
Speed (short term). It is often faster to decide yourself than to explain the context someone else needs.
Risk. Some mistakes are expensive or hard to reverse.
Habit. If you were the hands-on builder, being the decider may simply feel normal. You were the default answer for a long time. Stepping back is not always a trust problem. Sometimes it is unlearning a reflex.
If trust and autonomy are the emotional side of this (I wrote about that in What It Takes to Build a High-Performing Team), decision rights are the operational side.
You can trust your team and still be the bottleneck if nobody knows what they are allowed to decide without you.
Not Every Decision Deserves You
The goal is not to stop caring. The goal is to stop being the routing layer for decisions that do not need your judgment.
I use three buckets.
1. Keep (leader-level)
These should still come to you, or to a very small group with clear accountability:
- Direction and tradeoffs that change what the company is building or who it serves
- Irreversible or high-blast-radius calls: equity, major contracts, compliance posture, security incidents with legal or customer exposure
- Key people at the level where one hire changes team culture (senior engineering leadership, first finance hire, etc.)
- Capital allocation above whatever threshold actually hurts if you get it wrong
If everything feels leader-level, you are probably not distinguishing strategy from execution.
2. Delegate with guardrails
These decisions should live with the person closest to the work, within limits you define once and revisit occasionally:
- Architecture and implementation inside agreed principles (performance budget, security baseline, supported stack)
- Hiring below the level that sets culture for a whole function
- Vendor and tool choices under a spend cap
- Release timing when quality gates and rollback plans exist
- Prioritization inside a quarter's goals, not rewriting the goals every week
The guardrails matter. "You own this" without constraints creates anxiety. "You own this within these boundaries" creates ownership.
3. Decide once as policy
This is where most leaders unlock time without a reorg.
Turn recurring debates into defaults:
- Who can merge to production and under what checks
- Definition of done for a feature, a bugfix, and an incident follow-up
- When to escalate (severity, customer impact, security, spend)
- How experiments get approved and measured
- Which meetings require you and which do not
Policy is not bureaucracy if it is short, visible, and maintained. It replaces hundreds of micro-decisions with one decision you already made.
A Simple Decision Map (One Working Session)
You do not need a twelve-page RACI chart to start.
Block ninety minutes with your leads (or just yourself if the team is small). List the ten decisions that consumed your last two weeks. For each one, ask:
- Did this actually need my judgment, or only my availability?
- If it happens again next month, should it follow the same path?
- Who is the natural owner if I am not in the room?
- What guardrail would make me comfortable delegating it?
Write the answers in a shared doc. Not a manifesto. One page is enough.
You will usually find a pattern: a handful of true leader-level decisions, a pile that should move to leads with limits, and a set of arguments that should become policy so they stop resurfacing.
What Good Looks Like
You know the map is working when:
- Escalations are exceptional, not the default path to progress
- Your calendar has blocks for thinking: roadmap, partnerships, hard problems
- Leads disagree with each other sometimes, and resolve it without you as referee every time
- You are surprised occasionally (in a good way) by a decision you did not know was made
That last point is uncomfortable for many leaders. It should be.
If you are never surprised, you are probably still the router.
The Bottleneck Is a Phase, Not a Personality
Being central early is normal. Staying central by habit is expensive.
Teams that scale past this phase rarely do it by hiring "more executors." They do it by making decision rights explicit: what stays with the leader, what moves to the team, and what gets decided once so nobody has to ask again.
You do not have to become hands-off overnight. You do have to decide which decisions still deserve you, and stop hoarding the rest because it feels safer.
If you are a technical leader and this pattern is slowing your team down, I work on exactly this: engineering leadership, decision frameworks, and operating models that fit how you actually build. Get in touch, or see Engineering Leadership Advisory.
