Empowerment – Bridging the gap

Almost all leaders in large and complex organisations will tell you that empowerment and autonomy are crucial. Their teams must be mandated to make key decisions and seize opportunities without being bogged down in bureaucracy and cumbersome chains of command.

But a lot of them are lying. Most of all to themselves.

Lying is perhaps too strong of a word. It implies wilful deception. That leaders don’t actually believe in empowering their team members to make their own decisions. I don’t believe that to be the case. But in many organisations what is said about the importance of empowerment is undercut by what is actually done.

Meetings are filled with too many stakeholders who all have strong opinions on what should be done. Leading either to projects taking forever or ending up trying to stitch mismatched parts together like an organisational Frankenstein’s monster. Leaders give their team a strong mandate and then proceed to micromanage them to make sure that everything is done precisely how they envisioned it. Reviews become laborious processes where every decision is revisited even after it has been clearly delegated.

Empowerment becomes a celebrated buzzword rather than a lived reality.

Clear boundaries – for both team members and leaders

I believe that the frustrating feeling of lacking empowerment comes down to unclear boundaries. For both team members and leaders. There is a lot of literature dealing with how a leader can set clear boundaries and give mandate when delegating to their team. At Workz we are partial to back-briefing as a method, where a leader gives a brief containing a “why” and a “what” and then delegates the “how”.

However, the other side of the coin is equally important: what are the boundaries for the leader when a task has been delegated? How does one act as a stakeholder and give valuable input without undermining the mandate and autonomy of the team?

At Workz, we firmly believe that conversations need to be designed and structured to deliver impact. Clarifying the type of input needed is doing just that: structuring a conversation in a way that gives the most beneficial results for the leader, the team and the organisation.

Clarify the input: Directional – Detailed – Red flag

When giving input on a task or a project that has been delegated, the leader and the team members need to agree on which type of input is being given. Is it Directional, Detailed, or Red Flag?

Directional

Directional input is often given early in a project where the leader clarifies the intent and the direction of what they want. For example: “We need the new sales tool to emphasise our partnership model rather than just product sales” or “The strategy implementation materials should be a tangible step-by-step guide for our local affiliates”.

It can be done using the back-brief method mentioned earlier and is often a way of linking a specific project with the overall strategic focus of an organisation. The intention is to help the team members create something that is contributing to the overall aim of the strategy.

This type of input is not necessarily confined to the initial kick-off of a project. It can also be given during ongoing reviews to clarify the direction wanted. Especially if the team member is working in a direction that is not aligned with the strategic intend of the organisation. The goal of the input is to get the project back on track without micromanaging the actual content.

Directional input needs to be clear on the why and to some extent on the what but leave room for the team member to add the how. If the leader starts supplying the how then we are in the realm of Detailed input.

Detailed

Detailed input is just that: detailed. This is where the leader and the team members really dig into the content of the project and maybe even co-create the solution together. It can make sense if the leader is also a subject matter expert and has specialised knowledge that is important to the project.

However, it often runs the risk of the leader spending too much time on details rather than on overall guidance. Which is both a contra-productive way for most leaders to spend their limited time and a direct way to undercut the mandate and autonomy of the team member.

Most projects need detailed input from end-users and subject matter experts. But it is rarely a good idea for the leader to take on those roles. Rather, detailed input should often be explicitly avoided with the leader and the team member agreeing that the leader will not give detailed input at any point of the project.

Red flag

A red flag is something in the project which the leader cannot accept. Something that needs to be changed before the project can proceed.

It is often done late in a project when the solution starts taking shape. Or after a research phase where a team member is presenting their findings and resulting next steps to the leader or a steering committee.

Working with red flag input requires discipline and constraint from a leader lest it turns into detailed input. A red flag is not something where they would prefer a slightly different solution. It is a major deal breaker that must be changed. Successful empowerment hinges on leaders who are able to distinguish between those two things.

Matching what one says with what is being done

Many organisations experience the frustration of talking a lot about empowerment, but then not living up to what is being said when the grind of daily operations and deadline hits. The trouble is: that a lot of leaders think they are delegating and giving a mandate. But then they cannot resist providing Detailed input when given the opportunity. Which of course, undermines their words about empowerment.

In my experience, it comes down to blurring the boundaries between Detailed and Red Flag feedback. For empowerment to work, leaders need to understand the difference between good decisions that are different from what they would have done in the situation and bad decisions that are going against the strategic intent of the organisation. Improving the quality of their Directional input will help many leaders avoid Detailed input. When done right Detailed input provides a clear link to the strategic direction of the organisation, which allows the leader to step away and give their team the mandate and resources they need to succeed.

Having a high level of psychological safety in a team allows for candid conversations about the input needed and whether the leader is actually delivering it. Often, a leader will not realise that they are veering into Detailed input unless their team members have the necessary psychological safety to speak up and tell them.

Balancing the different forms of input is an important step towards bridging the gap between what is being said and what is actually being done about empowerment. It requires leaders who can let go of their ego and accept solutions that might not be exactly what they envisioned, but which are still sitting with the overall strategic ambition of the organisation.

Empowerment isn’t easy. It takes discipline and constraint. But by having a clearer playing field and a shared language for setting boundaries we can get closer to matching our actions with our words.