Autonomy and Engagement
We've all heard about and likely talked about autonomy. But, what does it really mean? What are we actually talking about?
In a business context, autonomy typically describes the discretion that individuals or teams have to act and make decisions themselves. In a congruent, proportional, and rational system, that autonomy comes with ownership and the associated responsibility for the consequences of those actions and decisions. In business, autonomy is often thought of as connoting freedom and independence beyond just acting and making decisions, and extending into how time is allocated and spent, what resources are used, how work is done, and so on. It means discretion over many or most aspects of an individual's work and work life, based in the trust that they will behave professionally, honestly, and capably.
In a political sense, autonomy means self-governance, which I think is useful in the work context as well. Autonomous individuals and autonomous teams within a broader organization will manage themselves and their projects, at least to some extent. They will govern how they behave, how they interact, how they manage their time and resources, how they stay organized, how they communicate, and so on. We can see in practice that effective, autonomous individuals and teams are capable of managing the major social structures and responsibilities that arise in any group of people.
In a psychological sense, autonomy means both that a person is able to make decisions that align with their values and beliefs and that they are able to make decisions in a way that is free from coercion. I think that these two meanings have relevance in a professional context as well. For the first, I'm thinking of "values and beliefs" not in terms of moral and political beliefs, but in terms of what a person believes, based on their skill and experience, is correct and valuable. They not only have the discretion to act and decide, but to do so based at least in part on their particular evaluation and analysis of the situation. The second meaning is crucial for true autonomy. Decisions made under duress, without consent, or otherwise coerced, are not autonomous. In fact, they're not even really decisions.
In perhaps the broadest sense, autonomy indicates that a person has and feels a sense that they are in control of their lives. Realizing this requires fulfillment of all other meanings of autonomy; in order to have and experience control, individuals must have discretion free from coercion, they must be able to truly consent or dissent, they must have significant freedoms, they must take ownership and responsibility, they must enact control by self-governing, they must behave in accordance with their beliefs and values, and so on.
Autonomy is a basic human right and fundamental need that will invariably and inevitably find expression somehow, at some time, in some form. People and groups will do anything in order to retain or regain their autonomy, from outright opposition to subversion, from surreptitious disobedience to malicious compliance, from mutiny to self-destruction, from fighting to fleeing. At work, people will reclaim their autonomy through surrender. If their discretion is removed, then so too is their responsibility. "Just following orders" becomes a justifiable and necessary coping mechanism. Or, they'll endure the restrained conditions in pursuit of some larger goal: getting rich, getting experience that will benefit them later, or just getting through the work day so they can get home. Sooner or later, they'll vote with their feet and move on to something better, with those that are the most skilled, the most ambitious, and the most capable of effectively wielding autonomy making the move sooner rather than later. In all cases, depriving someone of their autonomy is ineffective, inhumane, and ultimately impossible.
Autonomy is fundamental and crucial, but it's not limitless. It doesn't provide a license to do whatever you want, to infringe on the rights and autonomy of others, or to act without consequences. Such an extreme interpretation of autonomy is just as bad - perhaps worse - as a complete deprivation of autonomy. In a professional context, autonomy's purpose is to provide the freedom and empowerment for individuals and teams to apply their experience and expertise in order to act in ways that they believe, and can ultimately demonstrate, are the most effective and beneficial for the constituents (which include themselves and their peers), while remaining within the established behavior and legal boundaries. If done properly and well, this also tends to increase job satisfaction and the quality of the working environment for everyone involved.
Autonomy also isn't a panacea or a magical salve. People aren't just "granted" autonomy and automatically become great. It's not pixy dust you can sprinkle on your organization to make everything better. Instead, autonomy is a resource to be used and a tool to be utilized. Like any other resource or tool, it can be directed toward benefit or toward detriment, it can be leveraged or it can be wasted. For autonomy to produce results, it must be employed by someone who can make good use of it, who is supported in doing so, and who is supported in developing their skills to do so.
Autonomy isn't a euphemism for neglect. A team (and the members of that team) acting autonomously should not be ignored by the team's leader and should also not expect just to be left alone by the leader to do what they want. As we'll discuss in more detail later, it's not just possible, but necessary, for a leader to both remain involved and engaged while also allowing and expecting the team to work autonomously. I deeply dislike what feels like the persistent and prevalent notion that enabling a team to work autonomously requires the leader to disengage or disconnect, which is how the phrase "hire good people and give them room to do their jobs" is often incorrectly interpreted.
It's tempting to say that autonomy is a privilege that's earned. This implies the worldview that autonomy is not the default, that it can be achieved sometimes, but that it isn't exactly the natural order of things. I don't think that's right, but I do understand where it comes from. In fact, I think it results naturally from leadership itself. As leaders, and especially as owners, our job is to ensure certain things happen, to push toward success, to take charge, to guide, and so on. What more direct and obvious way to accomplish this than to simply be controlling, even when doing so reduces the autonomy of the team? Even in a high-autonomy environment, there's an awareness that not only can the leader take more control if needed, but that doing so is their responsibility if things are not going well without their intervention. It feels like there's an asymmetry built into autonomy; reducing it is quick and easy (at least in the short-term), while increasing it is slow and difficult. It feels that even if we want autonomy, natural forces and inclinations tend to push toward its reduction.
How can we reconcile the idea that autonomy is a fundamental right with the feeling that it's a privilege? How can I personally square the idea that autonomy is necessary but also unnatural in some ways? How can we hope to be successful if autonomy is supposedly so valuable, but forces are aligned against it? These are all real and valid tensions.
The first answer is that autonomy and responsibility are inexorably linked and derive their weight and meaning from each other. Responsibility is hollow without the autonomy necessary to truly own, influence, and fulfill it. Autonomy is wasted without the responsibility to which it can be applied. As a result, considering whether or not to "give" autonomy becomes irrelevant. If you want someone to take responsibility - which you absolutely must do in any functional, successful, and ideally thriving organization or project - then you have to grant the attendant autonomy. Fromt this, we can see that the tensions described above are fundamental and inherent; you don't get the benefit of delegation and others taking responsibility without paying the cost of granting, enabling, and supporting autonomy. TODO: I think I wrote something similar about ownership and autonomy. That's actually good, but it's worth taking a look at what I wrote in ownership and see how it compares / overlaps / reconciles with what I have here.
The second answer is to flip the perspective by establishing autonomy as the default and realizing it's a necessity, not a privilege. In this context, the ability to sucessfully act autonomously at a level comensurate with a given person's experience, role, and scope becomes a requirement, and an inability to do so should be viewed as a performance issue. Similarly, an inability for a team to perform independently signals an issue with the team, its structure, its members, its incentives, etc that needs to be addressed. A habitual inability - especially after sufficient support has been provided - to employ and benefit from reasonable levels of independence can indicate that an individual is unsuited for a particular role, just as any lack of a necessary, core skill can indicate unsuitability. As a result of this change in expectations and assumptions, granting autonomy is no longer a temporary mistake that can be corrected by reasserting control over the team. Instead, taking control is the temporary and uncomfortable state that is hopefully never required, or is only rarely required as punctuation between long stretches of successful, autonomous operation. There should be no long struggle to increase autonomy and a quick descent back to control, because autonomy is the starting point and the steady state that's reverted to by default. The "happy" path should follow independence and the unnatural path should be control.
The final answer is that the difficulty releases the value. By striving for autonomous operation, rather than just regressing to the familiar, the easy, the crude tools of control, we unlock significant benefit and leverage not otherwise available or possible. Autonomy requires effort from everyone involved, but it's the only path by which to reach higher levels of scope, achievement, and productivity. Not all difficult things are valuable, but many valuable things are difficult. I certainly think that's the case with autonomy.
Because we're discussing leadership, it's natural to consider autonomy (and associated behaviors like ownership, responsibility, and delegation) primarily from the perspective of how you, the leader, manage it within your organization, among the team members. That is, the focus is on how you can help the people in your team to better understand and employ autonomy in their work. While that view makes sense and is appropriate, let's not forget about your autonomy, your relationship with your own professional autonomy, and the dynamics between you and your manager regarding autonomy. As we proceed, keep yourself, your team, and your manager in mind. See how the things we discuss can apply to you as well as to your team.
Here are some questions worth considering: TODO: This could be transformed into a questionnaire. How much autonomy do you have and how much would you like? Are you satisfied with your current level of autonomy? Or, do you yearn for more freedom and responsibility? How do you handle autonomy? Are you fundamentally uncomfortable when required to operate autonomously, or does it free you to perform more efficiently and effectively? What are your manager's views on autonomy vs control (if any) and how do those views manifest (or not) in their behavior, especially in terms of how they manage you? How does autonomy propagate through your group, from you to the leaders in your team and from the leaders in your team to the people who report to them and so on, all the way down to the ICs? How does autonomy propagate throughout the broader company, from the CEO and other top-level executives down to your manager and from your manager to you?
Autonomy exists on a spectrum, with total, authoritarian control at one end and total libertarian lack of control at the other. While the deprivation of autonomy associated with the leader taking total control is deeply problematic, the passivity resulting from the leader taking no control is often just as bad. This is the "nod and smile" approach to leadership, in which the leader is vaguely positive about everything, stays hands off in order to "avoid stepping on any toes", and endlessly trusts or "has faith" in the people who report to them and in the team at large. Such leaders generally rely on some vague notion about setting the context and letting good things happen, but will often do very little to actually shape that context. Although it's clear that we want to avoid either extreme end of the autonomy spectrum, where exactly we land in between is far from clear and warrants further discussion, which we'll take on a bit later.
Along with the spectrum of autonomy, there is closely associated a second factor with its own spectrum: engagement.
Engagement is a state of mind and a set of actions. Do you give a shit or not? Are you interested, concerned, and available? Do you know about the project or team, its current status, its intentions and directions, and so on? This isn't about getting a status update once a week, but about staying up-to-speed as a natural result of engaging with the team regularly on important issues.
Engagement is about being genuinely involved with the team and their work in beneficial and supportive ways. Are you unobtrusively checking on the quality of the work being done, probing to ensure that the team is proceeding capably, and offering suggestions, guidance, support, and feedback as needed? Are you aware of the good, often thankless, sometimes valiant, frequently subtle, occassionally hidden work that the team is doing? Are you doing things that the team needs and which you are uniquely capable of providing, give your position, experience, scope, and so on? Think of it this way: does the team view you as a member or just an observer (or worse, an overseer)?
Combining the autonomy spectrum and the engagement spectrum produces a 2D space. At any given time, the leader will occupy some point in this space for each team and project, determined by their attitude and actions.
Arbitrary
*--------* Absent
| |/|\ Abstracted
| | |
| |\|/ Engaged: invested / interested / involved / informed
*--------* Annoying
Autocratic
<- Control / prescription - autonomy ->
Edges: * Disengaged / uninvolved / clueless at the top. * Overwhelmed / overbearing on the bottom. * Commanding / imperious on the left. * Passive / feckless on the right.
TODO * Draw the extreme zones along all of the edges and corners. Maybe they extend 10-20% into the space on either side. I'm thinking 15% is pretty good, but see how that coordinates with the other zones. I could use rounded interior corners to show that we really want to avoid the intersection of two extremes. * Draw the engaged autonomy zone. The zone will surround a center line. I'm not sure if I'll draw it. I'm leaning toward drawing it, even though I haven't discussed or referred to the line itself in the text. It will run from like (70% control, 70% engaged) to (20% control, 30% engaged)? How about (60% control, 70% engaged) to (30% control, 40% engaged)? I think there should be some kind of asymmetry in it, where you always have more engagement than control. Maybe there's some asymmetry where you can also get to much higher levels of autonomy than control? The zone should extend around the line by maybe 5-10% in either direction. You don't want the engaged autonomy zone to overlap with any of the extreme zones. When I actually draw it out, I can play with the shape a bit and see what it reveals about the associated behavior. The axes of the space should be oriented so that engaged autonomy goes "up and to the right" as you increase autonomy and decrease engagement, because we want to imply that that's the path toward improvement. * Shade everything outside the extremes and engaged autonomy zone as the "opinionated" zone. I actually need to figure out what this looks like. Previously, I had the engaged autonomy zone extending to the edges of the extreme zones. In that case, all that's left for opinionated is really just "imbalanced". I don't think that's right. Like, what's the point of identifying this special, ideal target zone with engaged autonomy, if it's going to cover a huge range of acceptable behavior? I think the opinionated zone should completely surround the engaged autonomy zone. * Review and ensure correctness for all references to the diagram made in the text (in terms of labels, locations, etc).
What's the best position to occupy within this space? Well, it depends. The key, the art, and the challenge is in finding the appropriate balance for different people, situations, and projects, and to alter that balance over time as needed.
As a start, let's say what we don't want: any of the extremes, each of which involves detrimentally-imbalanced behavior and each of which signals an underlying dysfunction in the leader, in the team, in the project, or in the environment. These extremes are represented visually in the diagram by the edges, corners, and closely adjacent regions.
In all cases, these extreme tactics indicate a problem that the leader needs to address. Regardless of whether the issue originates from some dysfunction with the team, environment, or the leader themselves, responsibility ultimately rests with the leader to oversee the development and implementation of a solution.
To understand why each extreme alludes to an underlying problem, let's look at the reasons that leaders employ these behaviors.
First, they may be responding to conditions, adverse or adventageous by either becoming overbearing or disengaged, autocratic or absent. Shit is hitting the fan and they become an insufferable hardass. Or, they flee and are suddenly nowhere to be found, just when they're needed most. Things are going great and they take it easy and ride the wave of success without doing any of the work. Or, they suddenly become excessively and uncharacteristically interested in the project, now that it's getting results and attention.
If the leader's extreme tactics are necessary and warranted, then the dysfunction is with the team, resulting from some structural or systemic deficiency in its capabilities or dynamics, which has caused it to be entirely incapable of managing the situation and reliant on a leadership intervention. If the extreme response from the leader is not necessary or warranted, then the dysfunction is with the leader, for perversely overreacting.
Second, some leaders go to extremes as a result of their temperamental attraction to such behavior, stemming from insecurity, ego, the delusion that it provides them an "edge", or whatever other reason. In this case, the dysfunction is within the leader, who chooses to inflict their extreme behavior on the team for their own selfish reasons. They don't consider themselves the smartest, so they compensate by being the hardest working, which they express through excessive involvement and habitual presence. They think they're the greatest and have had some luck in their lives, so they implicitly believe that good things come to them a priori, without the grinding work others engage in. They live in constant fear of losing their position, so they manage their anxiety by infliciting it recursively on their team, creating an environment of fear and anxiety. They don't really care about the project and don't feel a sense of ownership for it or the team working on it - despite it falling within their organization - so they ignore it.
To see why imabalanced behavior is problematic, let's look at each extreme in turn.
If you're disengaged, uninvolved, uninterested, and uninformed about a project or team, then you've ceased to be a leader and effectively ceased to even be part of the team. In that case, the team doesn't need you and in fact would probably be better off without you filling up the slot for a leader, taking credit, but not actually doing any leading. This extreme is represented by the "disengaged / uninvolved / clueless" border of the diagram.
If you're completely engaged, heavily involved, and in every detail of a particular project or team, then you've ceased to be a leader and instead become an individual contributor. While you may be deeply enthusiastic and passionate, the extent of your involvement will prove overwhelming and unsustainable for both you and the team. People in you organization will characterize you as overbearing, due to the pervasiveness of you involvement, even in cases where you grant high degrees of autonomy. This extreme is represented by the "overwhelmed / overbearing" border of the diagram.
If you're completely controlling a project, telling the team what to do and how to do it, then what are you gaining from them? Why do you need them? Just for their labor, for their ability to do "grunt work", divorced from the discretion and creative thought possibly only with some level of autonomy? If a given task is truly rote, then it shouldn't require your active management and leadership in the first place. Standardize it, automate it, and/or outsource it! If the task isn't rote, then the team needs autonomy to exercise their discretion and creativity. The more you limit that autonomy, the more detriment you are causing to everyone by preventing people from doing their jobs using their full range of skills and capabilities. This extreme is represented by the "commanding / imperious" border of the diagram.
If you're giving complete autonomy and exerting no control or influence on a project, then what is the team gaining from you? At best, you're an observer, a passenger along for the ride. At worst, you give the false impression of being a leader, of being "in charge" to some extent or in some capacity, while never actually taking that charge. Passive leaders of this sort fundamentally lack ownership because they are insufficiently active to influence the work and insufficiently confident to create a true environment of ownership, accountability, and achievement. In fact, I think it's incorrect to even characterize habitually passive leaders as leaders. You have to be offering something to all of your teams and team members, even those who operate with a high degree of autonomy. This doesn't mean that you need to involve yourself in your business just to look like you're useful and necessary, but instead to find some genuine way to help or support them, to facilitate their work from your level, to queue up opportunities for them, and so on. This extreme is represented by the "passive / feckless" border of the diagram.
Each of the corners in the diagram represents an interesting, albeit frightening, intersection of two extremes. I've assigned an epithet to each, describing the kind of leader that manages to attain one of these doubly-problematic position.
- Autocratic: They're completely, suffocatingly involved and completely, dominantly in charge. It's their world and if you happen to get trapped in it, you belong to them.
- Annoying: They're totally involved, totally locked in, and totally unable or unwilling to offer any concrete opinions, to make tough calls, to say anything controversial, or in any way do their actual job of leading.
- Arbitrary: They don't know what's going on, they can't be bothered to stay up-to-date, but they won't let that stop them from telling everyone exactly what to do, at least when they're paying attention. This is the "dive bomber boss", who you mostly don't see, except when they drop in just to boss you around for a bit.
- Absent: They're just not there. They don't know what's going on, they don't exert influence or control, they don't add anything, but they also thankfully don't detract. They're just not a concern. Each team member is left to fend for themselves, which can be positive or problematic, depending on the individual. Of all of the corners, this is probably the most preferred, especially for the competent and ambitious team members, who can use the full autonomy and full time to successfully run their own show.
We can also say that we don't want micromanagement.
Micromanagement involves being excessively involved in the details and prescribing specific, detailed actions and approaches, rather than describing purpose, goals, desired outcomes, motivations, and so on. It's about dictating how to do things, rather than suggesting what is to be done, or, even better, explaining why certain end goals and results are important. The most discussed problem with micromanagement is that it violates the autonomy and independence of individuals and teams. It tends to destroy any sense of ownership that was felt because it removes control entirely or sporadically. It's frustrating and disheartening. Less discussed is the reality that essentially all micromanagement is selective micromanagement and incomplete micromanagement. There's just too much going on, too much work, and too many decisions, for a top-level leader to be involved in all of it, in detail, all the time. As a result, the experience of any individual or team is that, most of the time, the leader "leaves them alone" and then sometimes the leader is totally, overwhelmingly involved. Often, being left alone by a micromanager means being ignored, rather than being given appropriate and supportive levels of freedom. It's all or nothing, either they care tremendously about what you're doing wrong or they don't care much at all. This too is frustrating and disheartening.
In addition to these "emotional" problems, micromanagement also has technical problems that reveal structural dysfunction within organizations that employ it widely. If we look at the motivations for micromanagement, we see that they're all unhealthy and indicative of some underlying problem that should itself be solved. Relying on the "bosses" to take charge when things get tough, or to motivate people by "force", or to regularly do work that the team should be able to handle on their own, is never a good strategy and it indicates a lack of efficacy, motivation, and/or capability within the ranks of that organization. What happens when the higher-level leaders are inevitably unable to consistently manage everything happening in every part of the organization? Then, the incapable teams will be left to flounder ineffectively until the next leadership intervention. If micromanagement isn't required for success, and leaders are therefore employing it unecessarily, then that indicates an egotism among the leaders, a distrust for the team, or some other deeply problematic relationship between the top-level leaders and everyone who reports to them. In all cases, micromanagement within organizations indicates some incongruence or inconsistency, between what people think their job is and what it actually is, between what people want to do and what they're allowed to do, or between what the organization needs and what the leaders provide.
There is a way in which micromanagement can be made congruent and consistent: by developing a top-down, command-oriented organization, in which every decision is made at the top by autocratic leaders and all employees act helplessly and subserviently, either as a reflection of their inherent worldview or as a coping mechanism developed to survive within an organization that won't allow anything else. While this may be rational in some sense, and while it may be the kind of organization that certain obedient people seek out and thrive in, it will certainly be inefficient and runs a high risk of being ineffective. Such an organization is the anti-gestalt, runs counter to the Jobs quote above, and is subject to overbearing key-man risk. It can work, but rarely does, and can last, but rarely does. Ultimately, it embodies a dark vision of work and the world that should be avoided at all costs. Thankfully, it can be avoided with little cost, and pays out handsome dividends in return.
Where does micromanagement reside in the space? Surprisingly, it's all over! Specifically, it's in all of the extreme regions (the edges and corners) that we just discussed. To understand this, let's take the non-obvious approach of considering a leader's scope, which describes the breadth of their responsibilities, including the number of projects, components, people, teams, etc that are within their purview.
A micromanager who maintains consistent, autocratic control must constrain their scope to only those areas they have the time and energy to control directly. This necessarily limits their influence and impact within the broader organization and to some extent limits the damage they can do.
If the micromanager's scope ever exceeds the threshold of what they can fully and directly monitor and control, their micromanagement will unavoidably move out of the "autocratic" corner and become both selective and incomplete. At times, they won't be able to keep up with all the details, but will still want to make all the decisions, in which case they will move along the high-control edge, sliding toward the "arbitrary" corner. At other times, they'll have to completely disengage from a particular team, project, issue, or aspect in order to focus their excessive attention on something else, in which case they'll jump to the "absent" corner. Finally, there will be times at which they are confronted with a large-scale project of sufficiently broad scope that, in spite of their high level of engagement, they realize they will never be able to fully understand and control it. The fear of having to make decisions without total information - and the potential, attendant consequences - will outweight their desire to be in control. In response, they'll avoid making decisions at all, thereby sliding along the high-engagement edge toward the "annoying" corner.
Not every micromanager will exhibit every extreme behavior, and not every leader who behaves in these extreme ways is a micromanager, but every micromanager may go to any of these extremes, and when they do so, it will be a result of the same underlying motivations and characteristics that induce them to micromanage in the first place.
Micromanagement and so many of the other malignant or neglectful management styles are fundamentally dysfunctional because they lack an appropriate mix, or really any mix at all, of autonomy and engagement. They are fundamentally mispositioned because they involve the leader operating at a level of abstraction that is not comensurate with their role, either by being overwhelmingly involved (and thereby rejecting abstraction) or by being neglectful (and thereby embracing abstraction to the point of ignorance).
Striking approximately the right balance of autonomy and engagement, finding approximately the right level of abstraction, and making tradeoffs to do so is a way of life for leaders. Their success is determined in large part by how capably they are able to achieve those goals. But, going to one extreme or another is a rejection of balance and abstraction, and a rejection of everything that doesn't align with the extreme behavior. There are costs and consequences to doing too much or too little as a leader, and to operating too far outside of your level. You have an important, impactful, and difficult job to do as a leader. Do it, rather than trying to do some other job or someone else's job.
While avoiding the worst is good, striving for the best is better. Now that we know what we don't want, we can look at what we do want.
Eliminating the extremes leaves us with a variety of more mixed and versatile approaches. In the diagram, this is represented as the central region composed of two parts: the "opinionated" zone and the "engaged autonomy" zone. Once again, we can ask the question: what's the best position to occupy within this space? And, once again, we'll get the same answer: it depends - based on the people, situation, and project - and will vary over time.
Opinionated leadership can be beneficial and even necessary. In fact, intentionally employing a willful approach can be highly effective at times, while muddled, thesisless approaches can get stuck in the "mediocre middle". However, I don't believe it is ever desireable to reside permanently in an opinionated approach. You may visit or vacation in the "opinionated" zone, you may even be detained there for a time, but you should never plan to get residency or citizenship. Even in heavily hierarchical or top-down companies, you want the members of your team, whether individual contributors, leaders, and/or managers themselves, to autonomously carry out the tasks they've been assigned. Even in high-autonomy environments, you need to be engaged and informed as a leader. And so on.
In my view, the ideal, what you ultimately want, whenever possible, is to be deep in the engaged autonomy zone by providing high levels of autonomy while remaining engaged. For me, that's a fundamental goal, invariant, and definitional quality of good leadership. Having said that, neither targeting engaged autonomy nor avoiding extremes precludes you from having an opinionated leadership style (residing in the "opinionated" zone), at least at times, in which you heavily (but not exclusively) emphasize some facet(s) of leadership. In all cases, the key is to choose and develop you style purposefully and adjust it in response to real-world conditions and real feedback about its efficacy and effect on the team and on individuals.
Employing high levels of autonomy within an organization is not easy or simple for anyone involved. Leading a team in which you allow and in fact require that the team members typically act autonomously is not easy. Being expected as an IC to typically act autonomously is not easy. Many people find it easier to simply do what they're told. There's doubt and uncertainty built into having to make one's own decisions. There's risk built into having to make any decision, and more risk the higher the value of the decision and the less certain the outcome.
So, why value autonomy? Wouldn't it be simpler not to? We fight that fight because we have to. We have to because autonomy is a basic human right that will inexoribly seek, and invariably find, expression. We have to because there's not enough time to control and know everything. We have to because it's the only true path to growth - both personal and professional, and in terms of size, scope, and impact - for ourselves and our teams. We have to because it's the right thing to do, for work and for the world. Our only option is how that autonomy is directed, either in a controlled way toward beneficial purposes or in a repressed, explosive way toward detrimenal ends. TODO: I think I like this paragraph. But, is it too heavy handed? Some of the claims I make (especially toward the end) are unsupported.
You want engaged autonomy simply because it's the best for you, for the team, and for the constituents. My thesis is that striking a mix of engagement and autonomy that lands you in the engaged autonomy zone is the most effective, most beneficial, and most sustainable way to lead something. Staying within this zone ensures a harmonious and sustainable balance between the extent of the control you exert and the depth of your engagement. If it is necessary to increase your control, so too should your engagement. As the team operates more autonomously, your involvement can and should reduce.
Engaged autonomy allows you as a leader to add value to the teams and projects, stay informed and invested, keep things on track, have professional and supportive relationships with the team members, attract more capable and independent employees, and still have time to focus on growth and development of the group at your level, including teeing up the next round of projects, opportunities, and growth. Engaged autonomy allows the team the freedom and time to do what they're skilled at in a respectful and enjoyable environment, to be supported but not suffocated, and to grow and advance themselves and the project.
Consistently sliding toward higher degrees of autonomy creates an environment of ownership and leadership for the entire team. If the fundamental character of the place, the natural force field underlying everything, is directed toward autonomy, then leadership and ownership opportunities will arise naturally and unavoidably. Think of every move, every minor shift, toward autonomy as creating a small power vacuum or gap in ownership that opens up for someone on the team to fill. By explicitly relinquishing control (whether you were actually in control or just assumed, by default, to be) you not just leave room, but establish the requirement, for someone else to take that control and the associated responsibility. In doing so, they are fundamentally opting into and buying into leadership, even if they accept the role subconsciously or grudingly (within reason).
Every time someone, whether a leader or an IC, accepts responsibilty and operates autonomously, they create a "little labratory", a little startup, a little world in which they and their team can experiment, learn, and accomplish. In this environment, setbacks, uncertainty, and moderate levels of inefficiency are not only acceptable, but inevitable factors on the journey of growth, creativity, and success. Taking the kid gloves off, allowing people to make mistakes, putting away the shit umbrella, and exposing them to both the realities and potential of the broader environment are necessary for growth and deep satisfaction. As the scope of their work, the breadth of their leadership, and the depth of their impact grows, so too do the members of the team and the world in which they operate. TODO: A drawing of a little labratory or even a little world like the little prince? TODO: For the prior paragraph and the next: it's a little heavy on the rule-of-three lists. I think it's pretty good, but take a look back and see if I can revise the form a bit.
If the leader tells everyone what to do and how to do it, then at best, they'll get exactly what they asked for, and at worst, they'll get far less. In this way, the potential of the team is bounded by the leader's skill and creativity. Often, the reality falls far short, because the leader's not as clever as they imagine, because the directions are not as clear as intended, and because the team is understandably not as motivated as desired. If, on the other hand, the leader allows people and teams reasonable levels of freedom, along with support and backstops, the potential results are essentially boundless, limited only by the collective skills, creativity, and enthusiasm of the team. Yes, the path may be rockier, but the potential is far greater, both in terms of the results and the growth of the team members.
At any given time, a leader has a simple - but not easy - two-part job: appropriately manage the current state of things while simultaneously guiding the team toward the desired position. This is true in general and certainly true for autonomy and engagement. Use your best judgement to strike the right mix in order to tactically manage the current situation, whether that's an emergency, business as usual, or somewhere in between. This may cause you to move or even jump from position-to-position within the space. This may require that you take an opinionated approach in the opinionated zone. Not only is doing so OK, but it's necessary and beneficial, as long as the mix you employ is approximately correct and as long as that mix evolves based on feedback from the team and your evaluation of changing conditions. Simultaneously, you need to be constantly moving strategically toward your desired position, toward a more stable equilibrium of engaged autonomy. Beyond just managing the situation at hand, and beyond just preventing a particular situation from arising again, you want to fix the system that created the situation and was unable to effectively manage it without your intervention. You want to be intentionally and consistently helping the team to develop and mature, to guide it toward greater capability and skill.
What does this look like in practice? Of course, manage the current reality. Keep the wheels of the team and the projects turning in the face of whatever challenges and opportunities are present. Beyond that, keep moving incrementally toward engaged autonomy. Let the team know that you are doing this, help them understand the associated responsibilities that will fall on them, and ensure there is a sufficient level of understanding and buy-in. At each step, evaluate how the team has performed with the new mix. If they have done well, keep going, and if not, step back, determine what they need in order to move forward, and then provide that support. Operate on a sliding scale of engagement, support, oversight, control, and whatever else is needed, based on the feedback and results, in order to make progress. Periodically and pragmatically evaluate the actual situation within a team or project in order to determine what needs to be done next and if the overall program is working. Stay engaged and informed through regular informational updates from the team, probing for information and evidence in selected areas, cross-referencing information from various team members and external sources, and applying your own analysis in area where you have sufficient expertise to do so. Expect the team to increasingly handle things they can and should be able to handle, and to come to you when they truly need help, including raising potential issues early. At all times, provide what you can uniquely contribute to the advancement of the team from your position and based in your experience and skill. Seek at all times to have others handle things they are better suited or positioned to handle. Seek to delegate as much as you reasonably can, and to grow the extent of that delegation over time.