Leaders are in the business of helping those who report to them.
Whenever a team member hits a wall, leaders are there to lend a hand. The problem could be a stalled project, a skill gap, a failing relationship, or a situation too delicate to navigate alone.
How the leader responds in that moment influences not only the outcome but also how effectively they spend their own time.
How they help comes down to a deceptively simple choice: when offering support, leaders can “go high” or they can “go low.”
Going high means elevating the solution above both the leader and the team member.
Rather than digging in, the leader connects the team member with a resource, such as a subject-matter expert, a training program, a peer who has solved the problem before, or a successful template.
As the metaphor implies, the leader goes above the situation to survey the broader landscape, spots what is needed, and pulls it in. Going high leverages tools and resources. The leader solves the problem without getting entangled in the work.
Going low means the leader descends into the work alongside the team member.
They pull up a chair, roll up their sleeves, and work through the problem together.
Imagine a new sales rep who can’t crack a difficult client conversation. The leader going low doesn’t direct them elsewhere. The leader sits on the next call, debriefs in real time, and coaches from inside the problem. The connection is direct, personal, and immediate.
Going high preserves the leader’s time, builds the team member’s network, and creates independence. Going low builds trust, transfers knowledge directly, and is often the only way to solve the problem quickly.
Neither approach is inherently better than the other, but the likelihood is that you have a strong preference. This preference is worth fighting against.
Go high too often, and you are likely a hands-off manager who only leads when called upon. Go low as a default, and you are likely a micro-manager who gets into the weeds on everything, and not just when asked.
The wrong instinct is to always default to one or the other. The best idea is not to become the perpetual delegator who never gets their hands dirty or the hands-on leader who becomes a bottleneck everyone leans on.
The right question isn’t “Which approach is better?” It’s “Which approach best fits the situation?”
To make that call, leaders should consider three factors: urgency, capability gap, and growth stage.
If the situation is on fire, go low. If this is a common problem that others have faced, go high. If the team member is early in their development and needs attention, go low. But if a genuine expert exists who can serve the person as well as or better than the leader can, go high.
The best leaders develop fluency in both directions, moving between high and low based on what the situation demands.
Going high or low isn’t a personality type. It’s a decision. The best leaders make it deliberately, with the situation and the person in mind.
Do you normally go high or go low? Try hard not to have a preference.
