Teach, Don’t Rescue: A Healthier Model for Product Development Teams

By Christopher Cook

3 min

2

Add a reaction

In product development organizations, there is a familiar and often well-intentioned reflex: when something goes wrong, the most capable person steps in and fixes it. Deadlines loom, customers are waiting, and the pressure to “just get it done” is real.

In the short term, this approach can feel efficient. In the long term, it quietly erodes the very capabilities organizations depend on to succeed.

At Lei Systems, we advocate a different mindset—one that favors teaching over rescuing, collaboration over bypassing, and long-term learning over short-term relief.

The Hidden Cost of Fixing It Yourself

Helping someone solve a problem is fundamentally different from solving it for them.

When a leader, architect, or senior contributor personally fixes someone else’s mistake, the immediate issue may disappear—but so does the opportunity for learning. Over time, this pattern starves the organization of growth. Teams become reliant on a few “heroes,” while others are unintentionally discouraged from developing deeper judgment and confidence.

What looks like efficiency is often deferred cost.

Mistakes are not merely defects to be eliminated; they are signals. They point to gaps in understanding, unclear processes, or misaligned expectations. When those signals are bypassed instead of explored, the organization remains vulnerable to repeating the same errors.

Knowledge Spreads Through Understanding, Not Bypassing

Organizations do not learn because solutions exist; they learn because understanding spreads.

Knowledge transfer happens most effectively when people are supported through the reasoning behind a solution—not when they are shielded from the problem entirely. When someone is walked through why something didn’t work and how to think about correcting it, that learning compounds. It travels with them into future decisions and influences others around them.

By contrast, bypassing people to solve problems privately concentrates knowledge rather than distributing it. Over time, this creates silos of expertise and weakens the organization’s collective capability.

The Human Impact of Bypassing

There is also a human cost that is often overlooked.

When someone is bypassed—when their work is quietly “fixed” without engagement—it can create resentment or embarrassment, even if no words are exchanged. The bypassed individual may feel undermined or excluded. Meanwhile, the person doing the rescuing can grow frustrated by being repeatedly pulled into the same role.

This dynamic breeds animosity on both sides, despite everyone having good intentions.

Healthy teams are built on trust, mutual respect, and shared ownership. Those qualities are difficult to sustain when collaboration is replaced by silent intervention.

Collaboration Over Correction

A more constructive approach begins with collaboration.

When a mistake is identified, it should be pointed out in a collegial, professional manner—focused on the work, not the person. The goal is not to assign blame, but to create clarity. Often, simply surfacing the issue and discussing it openly is enough for the individual to correct it themselves.

If they do not know how to proceed, the next step is not to take over, but to make time.

Scheduling a focused session to sit down together sends an important signal: learning matters, and improvement is worth the investment. These moments, while seemingly small, are where capability is built.

The Sherpa, Not the Governor

One of the most effective metaphors for this approach is the idea of being a sherpa, not a governor.

A governor dictates direction and enforces control. A sherpa guides, advises, and supports—while allowing the climber to take each step themselves.

In practice, this means letting colleagues do the work while you provide context, ask guiding questions, and highlight risks. It may take longer in the moment, but it creates durable competence. Over time, the need for intervention decreases because the team has internalized the thinking required to navigate similar challenges independently.

Importantly, this approach benefits everyone involved. The person being guided grows in confidence and skill, while the guide gains deeper insight into how others think and where systems or processes may need refinement.

Learning as a Shared Outcome

When teaching replaces rescuing, learning becomes a shared outcome rather than a private asset.

Teams that operate this way develop stronger problem-solving muscles, healthier communication patterns, and greater resilience under pressure. They are better equipped to handle complexity—not because they avoid mistakes, but because they know how to learn from them together.

How This Shapes Our Work at Lei Systems

This philosophy is not theoretical for us—it is foundational.

When we work with client teams, our goal is not to become indispensable problem solvers who fix everything on their behalf. Instead, we aim to raise capability across the organization. We focus on helping teams understand tradeoffs, clarify decision-making, and build sustainable product development practices.

The result is not dependency, but confidence.

By teaching rather than rescuing, organizations retain knowledge, strengthen collaboration, and create environments where people—and products—can grow.

In product development, as in leadership, the most valuable contribution is not solving the problem yourself, but helping others learn how to solve it well.