Lately, I’ve been contemplating a recent study about employee turnover. A report by the Corporate Executive Board found that companies with strong career development programs had a 20% lower turnover rate compared to companies with weak or no career development programs..

That got me thinking about the difference between leading like a chef and leading like a gardener.

It strikes me that to lead like a chef means to approach leadership as if you were cooking a meal. The chef carefully selects the ingredients (team members) and combines them in a specific way to create a specific finished dish (your vision of your company or team).

This approach isn’t necessarily wrong, but it is limited. Sure, it works in the short term. The problem is that today’s meal doesn’t satisfy tomorrow’s hunger. Leading like a chef constricts future growth to your perception of your team members and your predictions about the best way to utilize the strengths you perceive in them.

In other words, to lead like a chef is to play a guessing game, and guessing isn’t leadership. Our team members aren’t finite ingredients; they are humans with boundless potential. They have strengths, dreams, and passions that are likely hidden from the corner office. When we try to guess those things, we are often wrong.

On the other hand, to lead like a gardener means to approach leadership as if you are tending a garden. The gardener plants seeds (team members), nurtures them with sunlight (coaching and resources), and watches them grow and evolve over time (career development).

The gardener may influence the growth of the plants, but ultimately the plants have a life of their own and will grow in unexpected ways.

Chef leaders feel the need to limit or control their team members’ professional development.

Gardener leaders realize the best way to create legendary performance is by giving people the opportunity to explore the career paths that excite them.

So, why do some organizations and leaders resist the gardener approach? It seems to me to be a manifestation of fear-driven thinking.

“Why would I want to be a gardener if it means my people might grow to a point where they would leave?” isn’t far from, “If people have options, they will choose someone else.”

In fact, the data shows that the opposite outcome is more likely. The more we encourage development, the more loyalty we create.

Freedom of growth doesn’t increase the chances that people will leave. It significantly increases the chances they’ll stay.

In 2023, a leader’s job isn’t merely to maximize static assets; it’s to enable growth by cultivating the potential of incredible humans.