Have you ever caught yourself telling an expert what they need to do? Sounds silly when you read it, but we find a lot of leaders fall into the trap of prescribing how to do things. When you do this, you aren’t adding clarity, you’re smothering creativity and elegant solutions. In Part 1, we showed how leaders become bottlenecks by taking on “monkeys”; another way it happens is by insisting on the “how” instead of setting a clear “what”.
Often, the reason leaders get involved in the “how” starts with good intentions – they know what they want done and they know how they did it, or they fear mistakes, or they’re under time pressure, but it tends to have a negative impact on the team. By being overly prescriptive about the “how”, you may get what you ask for though you jeopardise innovation and team morale.
Micromanaging the “how” suppresses discovery: people optimise for compliance, not outcomes; exploration gives way to checklists; learning cycles lengthen. Which is why the “what” should be your focus.
Here’s a template to make the “what” unmistakably clear:
> Outcome: what needs to be done , and what will be delivered?
> Timeframe + resources: by when, who participates, with which constraints?
> Non-negotiables: compliance, safety, brand, architecture.
> Decision rights (decide or notify): agree upfront to decide together or inform afterwards.
> Definition of done: how we’ll know it’s complete and successful.
Example (from “how” to “what”):
❌ “Create a 4-screen onboarding in Tool X like our competitor’s, copy their layout, add our logo, use a stepper at 25% increments, and follow my Figma file. Engineering shouldn’t change anything – just build it.”
✅ “Reduce average onboarding time from 7 days to 48 hours for 80% of new customers by Q4, without increasing support tickets.”
If you use OKRs, the “what” is the KR; the “how” emerges in plans, experiments, and weekly reviews.
Step into the “how” only when the risk is irreversible (safety, legal, or material financial exposure) or when work is materially drifting from the agreed outcome. Otherwise, coach with questions, not instructions: What are the options? What trade-offs are we likely to see? What do you recommend? What would change your mind? How will we know early if this isn’t working?
The payoff:
When leaders focus on what and let teams decide how, decisions happen closer to the work, better ideas surface as people own the route, and accountability rises because outcomes are unambiguous. The result isn’t chaos; it’s autonomy with guardrails.
At Oak Mountain, we help leadership teams set the what and build habits that let experts own the how without losing direction.
Want to strengthen outcome-clarity across your organisation?
Drop us a message at enquiries@oakmountain.ltd
Follow us for weekly insights on leadership, clarity, and execution.