“Command-and-control is less and less the model for how the world works. Hierarchies, with their emphasis on obedience and conformity, are ill-suited for a modern economy in which knowledge workers must improvise and bend the rules.”

~ Gary Hamel

Organisations often face a tradeoff between distributing power to lower level employees (and thereby increasing innovation and productivity) versus maximising management power and control. The traditional hierarchical structure concentrates decision-making authority with senior managers. While this enables top-down control and accountability, it can come at the expense of agility, innovation, and employee empowerment.

Some argue that pushing down real power and autonomy to rank-and-file workers or frontline staff threatens the traditional managerial chain of command. And this may be true. However, the counterargument is that empowered employees with a voice in key decisions, access to resources, and fewer bureaucratic constraints are more engaged, productive, and creative.

Studies of organisations that have “flattened” their traditionally steep hierarchies show they often outperform their more top-down competitors. Giving teams ownership of projects and problems paired with accountability for outcomes can drive faster iteration, customer focus, and solutions that leverage insider knowledge.

However, power distribution introduces messy realities to the tidy organisational chart. Concerns around losing control can make management reluctant to adopt more decentralised structures. And managers oppose changes seen as diluting their status or job security. The instinct is often to limit autonomy to non-critical functions.

So organisations face a stark choice between retaining centralised control or pushing down power to unlock greater innovation and responsiveness. The reality is you cannot have both tightly held managerial authority and the agility enabled by widespread employee empowerment. Attempts to blend elements of both will inevitably lead to confused systems with conflicting priorities.

Organisations have a choice – commit fully to either top-down control or bottom-up autonomy. There are reasonable argumentsfor both options. But make no mistake – compromising between the two by granting partial empowerment on select issues resolves nothing. It brings only greater frustration and deteriorating morale over time. Organisations have the choice of direction for the organisation and its culture – management power or burgeoning profits. The middle ground is ultimately untenable.

Further Reading

Lilla, M. (2024, February 26). Against managerialism. Current Affairs. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2024/02/against-managerialism

Who’s in Charge?

Traditionally, delegation was a top-down process. Managers assigned tasks to individuals and monitored their performance. However, with the emergence of self-organising teams, the rules of the game have changed. Senior managers now face the unique challenge of delegating to a collective rather than individuals.

What’s Different Now?

The Shift in Authority

The conventional hierarchical model of a company places a single person, or a few individuals, in a position of authority. They are the go-to people for making decisions and ostensibly bear the brunt of accountability. In stark contrast, a self-organising team operates on a distributed model of authority. This means that every team member has a say in how things are run, and decisions are usually reached through consensus, a democratic process or the Advice Process. The power dynamics are less vertical and more horizontal.

Collaborative Decision-Making

When authority is distributed, the decision-making process also becomes a collective endeavour. It’s not about one person dictating the course of action but a dialogue that brings in multiple perspectives. Senior managers who are used to making unilateral decisions might find this unsettling. The challenge lies in learning how to navigate this collective process without undermining the team’s autonomy.

Absence of a Single Accountability Point

In a hierarchical setting, if a task fails, you know whom to hold accountable—the person to whom you delegated the task. In a self-organising team, there’s often no single point of accountability. Everyone is responsible, which means no one person can be singled out for a failure. This lack of a straightforward accountability trail can complicate how senior managers assess performance and enforce consequences. It can help to have the team nominate a single person to the role of “contact person”. This can be a rotating role. This person serves as the single point of contact between the team and external parties, including senior management.

• Spreading the Load, Maximising Learning: When there’s no single point of accountability, responsibility is shared among team members. This means the burden of a setback is felt less acutely by one individual, creating a psychologically safer space for team members. They are more likely to view failures as opportunities for collective learning, rather than as points for individual criticism.
• Enhanced Problem-Solving: Because everyone is responsible for the outcomes, all team members have a vested interest in solving problems. Rather than leaving it to one individual to fix things, the entire team rallies to identify solutions. This collaborative approach often yields more innovative solutions by drawing from a diversity of perspectives and skill sets.
• Fosters Ownership and Engagement: Shared accountability nurtures a strong sense of ownership among team members. When everyone’s accountable, everyone cares. This tends to boost engagement and motivation, as team members feel they have a real stake in the project’s success or failure.
• Risk Mitigation: In a hierarchical structure, the failure of a task often leads to an exhaustive search for where things went wrong, usually zeroing in on an individual. In a self-organising team, since accountability is collective, the emphasis shifts from blame to understanding the systemic issues that contributed to the failure. This provides a more comprehensive view of risks and how to mitigate them in the future.
• Reinforces Team Cohesion: Shared responsibility often leads to stronger bonds among team members. They sink or swim together, which fosters a sense of unity and mutual support. This is particularly beneficial for tasks that require high levels of collaboration and interdependence.
• Easier Talent Allocation: Without a single point of accountability, senior managers can more flexibly allocate talent based on the task’s evolving needs. If one person’s skills are better suited for another project, they can be moved without disrupting the accountability structure, making resource management more efficient.
• Senior Management’s Role: For senior managers, this means a shift in focus from micromanagement to coaching and mentoring. The upside is that this often yields higher job satisfaction for the manager, as they can concentrate on strategic oversight rather than getting bogged down in the nitty-gritty of task-level management.

In sum, while the lack of a single point of accountability in self-organising teams may initially seem like a drawback, it brings a range of benefits. These include a more engaged and cohesive team, better problem-solving, and a healthier approach to managing both success and failure.

Reimagining Delegation

Given these differences, the act of delegating to a self-organising team isn’t merely about passing down tasks. It’s about empowering the team to function within a set framework, giving them the freedom to decide how best to achieve objectives. This demands a different set of management skills, focused more on guidance and less on control. See also: Auftragstaktik

Handling Uncertainty and Risk

For a senior manager used to hierarchical structures, this new terrain comes with its share of uncertainties. You may be uncertain about how decisions will be made or how to enforce accountability. This requires a level of comfort with ambiguity and a willingness to adapt one’s management style.

The challenge lies in adapting delegation strategies to suit a work environment that’s fundamentally different from the traditional hierarchy. It’s about learning to delegate not to an individual but to a collective, and trusting that collective to manage itself effectively.

Delegating Responsibility

To effectively delegate to a self-organising team, clearly outline what needs to be done without prescribing how to do it. This allows the team to take ownership of the task and leverage its collective skills and knowledge.

Setting Boundaries

While a self-organising team relishes autonomy, it’s crucial to establish parameters. These could be deadlines, budgets, or quality standards. Providing these constraints equips the team to manage itself effectively within an agreed-upon framework. The Antimatter Principle as policy affords benefits, here.

How to Communicate?

Clear communication is vital when delegating to any team, more so with a self-organising one. Since there may not be a single point person, communication flows to the entire team. Modern tech makes this child’s play.

Written Guidelines

Document what you’re delegating. This ensures everyone is on the same page and minimises misunderstandings later.

Regular Check-ins

Have periodic touchpoints with the team to assess progress. These meetings shouldn’t be about micromanagement but an opportunity for the team to seek support, guidance and clarification.

What If Things Go Wrong?

Let’s face it; not every delegation attempt will be successful. With self-organising teams, it can be difficult to pinpoint where things went awry…

Troubleshoot as a Team

Instead of assigning blame, involve the team in identifying the root cause of any setbacks. This fosters a culture of collective responsibility.

Adapt and Learn

The aim isn’t to avoid mistakes altogether but to learn from them. Revise your delegation approach based on the insights you’ve gathered.

Are You Ready?

Delegating to a self-organising team demands a shift in mindset. As a senior manager, it’s a challenge that tests your ability to relinquish control while still ensuring accountability. Are you ready to take it on?