Three months after a new employee starts a job, the manager already has a clear assessment of who that person is. Thorough, but lacking initiative. Pleasant to work with, but not suited for leadership. Performs well, as long as someone tells him exactly what to do.
The assessment may be correct. But before treating it as definitive, another question is worth asking: Has that employee ever been given an assignment that allowed him to take initiative? Has he been permitted to make a decision on his own? Has anyone taught him to exercise judgment, or has every attempt ended with the manager taking back the wheel?
Is the employee not good enough, or have you simply not given them a chance?
The Torah portion of Bereshit opens not only the story of the world but also the story of humanity. Man is created "in the image of God," given responsibility for his surroundings and placed in the Garden of Eden "to work it and to guard it." He possesses abilities, but they are not the end of the story. The work begins immediately after creation. Man is given opportunity, responsibility and choice, and what he becomes depends in part on what he does with what he has been given.
This year, God willing, I want to add another regular dimension to this weekly journey: connecting a psalm from the Book of Psalms to the world of management and business in each Torah portion. Not merely as a decorative addition to the verses of the weekly reading, but out of the understanding that Psalms addresses almost every situation managers and individuals encounter today: fear and confidence, crisis and success, responsibility, decision-making, failure, hope, leadership and the ability to change.
For Bereshit, the natural connection, in my view, is Psalm 8. King David looks at the heavens, the moon and the stars and asks, "What is man that You are mindful of him?" Faced with the vastness of creation, human beings seem almost insignificant. Yet just a few verses later comes a reversal: "You have given him dominion over the works of Your hands."
Rabbi Meir Arama, son of Rabbi Isaac Arama, author of Akedat Yitzhak (The Binding of Isaac), interprets the Hebrew word tamshilehu ("You have given him dominion") in his commentary Meir Tehillot, also through its linguistic connection to mashal, meaning parable or analogy. Man is a kind of microcosm, containing within himself various forces found throughout creation. He also describes human beings as beginning life like vessels ready to receive knowledge and learn, capable of reaching higher levels through their actions.
When we look at an employee, do we see only what that person knows how to do today, or also the potential to become something they have not yet been?
(Illustration: ChatGPT)
This is a spiritual statement, but it raises a highly practical management question: When we look at an employee, do we see only what that person knows how to do today, or also the potential to become something they have not yet been?
Aristotle expressed a similar idea from a different perspective. In Nicomachean Ethics, he explains that we acquire skills and virtues through the actions themselves. A person becomes a builder by building. Skill does not necessarily develop first and only then get put into practice. Often, it is the action itself that creates the ability.
The implications for managers are significant. An employee who has never led a meeting cannot demonstrate in advance how well he would lead one. Someone who has never been given a budget to manage cannot show experience in budget management. And someone accustomed to having every decision reopened by the manager may learn that the most rational course of action is simply to stop making decisions.
This creates one of the most familiar management traps: The manager does not delegate responsibility because the employee has not yet demonstrated the ability to handle it, while the employee cannot demonstrate that ability because the responsibility remains with the manager.
This is particularly evident in customer interactions. A new employee struggles with a difficult conversation, and the manager quickly steps in and takes over. In the short term, that is sometimes the right decision. The customer gets a solution, the risk is reduced and the day moves on. But if this happens repeatedly, a few months later the same manager will complain that all the difficult calls still end up on his desk.
Between those conversations, the manager could have been building the employee's capabilities. Explaining how to diagnose the problem, what alternatives can be offered, the limits of the employee's authority and when it is appropriate to stop and seek advice. Then preparing for a conversation together, letting the employee lead it and reviewing the outcome afterward. This takes more time initially, but reduces dependence on the manager in the long run.
Delegation does not happen simply by saying, "I expect you to take ownership." If every proposal requires approval, every change must go through the manager and every mistake immediately results in the manager taking back control, the employee receives an entirely different message: Don't take ownership. Wait for instructions.
To create independence, managers must define it. What decisions is the employee authorized to make? What budget is available? What outcome is expected? Where is the line beyond which consultation is required? Clear boundaries are not the opposite of freedom. Sometimes they are what makes freedom possible.
My approach over the years has been to trust people and believe in their abilities until reality proves otherwise. Often, that approach has worked well, but I have also learned that belief has its limits. In one case, we hired a senior executive in the United States. We had a strong feeling that it would work, and we very much wanted it to work, partly because we had already invested time, money and expectations in the recruitment process. In practice, he simply was not suited for the position, and it took us valuable time to admit that we had made a mistake.
That experience taught me that belief in potential must not turn into denial of reality. A manager must hold two ideas simultaneously: A person can change and develop, yet still may not be suited for a particular role. The key is not to automatically choose one of these possibilities, but to provide enough opportunities for practical experience to make an informed judgment.
In the investment world, too, we understand that an old valuation is not necessarily sufficient. The current discussion at Israel's Capital Market Authority surrounding the valuations of hundreds of billions of shekels in alternative assets is based on precisely this understanding: A valuation conducted at one point in time may no longer reflect reality.
The risk is similar when managing people. An assessment made a year ago, or even after just three months, can become a "fixed valuation" in our minds, even though the employee may have changed, or may never have been given the conditions that would allow us to see something different.
Perhaps that is also why I connect with my song Kol Boker Nolad (“Each Morning Is Born”). In it, I wrote: "I don't erase who I used to be, I simply choose to move forward from here." To me, this is an important point in managing people as well. Development does not require ignoring the past, but it refuses to turn the past into a life sentence.
Belief in the ability to develop does not exempt us from assessing whether someone is suited for a role. Some employees are not right for a particular position. Some gaps cannot always be closed, and some people are unwilling to invest the necessary effort. But before reaching that conclusion, we should examine whether we have truly given them a chance: training, responsibility, hands-on experience, feedback and a reasonable amount of time to improve.
At the next performance review, instead of telling an employee, "You lack initiative," try a different approach: "I want you to lead the next assignment. Let's define what you're responsible for, where the boundaries are and when I'm available to help."
The first statement defines a person by who they have been.
The second explores who they are capable of becoming.
A tool for managers: The potential test
Before making a definitive assessment of an employee, it is worth asking four questions:
Has the employee had a genuine opportunity to demonstrate the ability I believe is missing? Not a simulation, and not an assignment in which the manager made all the decisions anyway.
Have I clearly defined the employee's decision-making authority? Responsibility without authority is not development. It is frustration.
Have I provided feedback that teaches the employee what to improve? "You lack initiative" is a description. "Next time, bring me three alternatives and your recommendation" is a development tool.
When will I know whether the problem is a lack of suitability rather than a lack of experience? Even belief in a person's potential requires a point of evaluation and clear criteria.
The Torah portion of Bereshit reminds us that human beings are created with abilities, but their story only begins there. Psalms adds the question, "What is man?" followed almost immediately by "You have given him dominion." Between these two statements lies perhaps one of a manager's most important responsibilities: to see people as they are now, without overlooking who they might yet become.
A good manager does not merely evaluate people based on the abilities they have already demonstrated. A good manager creates the conditions in which they can demonstrate abilities they have not yet had the opportunity to develop.