On this page
Kick-off for a shared project. Karim wants to show that he trusts the team’s competence, so he begins with a question. Amira is waiting for clear direction from the person leading the project.
— What do you think we should do?
— Really, you choose.
Karim sees handing over the choice as respect and autonomy. Amira starts wondering who is actually taking responsibility for the direction.
How does Empatyzer account for hierarchy's effect on autonomy?
Empatyzer helps you see that the leader is handing over the decision to the team, and the team is still waiting for the leader. It also allows you to check how hierarchy affects real autonomy.
Features that can help:
- You vs. the team: Compares your way of acting with the team in areas such as hierarchy, autonomy and real decision-making, making it easier to see where the misunderstanding "The leader asks. The team is waiting for the leader" comes from.
- Organisational culture: Shows the preferred and actual organisational culture, which helps check whether the "Leader asks. Team waits for leader" situation is related to the dominant norm of the company or team, and not solely to the character of the individuals.
- Talk to Em about your team: Allows you to discuss the "Leader asks. The team waits for the leader" problem with Em in the context of the entire team and establish a shared rule that prevents similar misunderstandings in the future.
What really happened
Karim wants to show trust and give people influence, so he asks, “What do you choose?” Amira does not automatically experience that as respect. Because Karim is leading the project, she expects him first to define the goal, the boundaries, and his responsibility for the overall direction. Within those parameters, she is happy to decide independently. Karim sees “I’m giving you influence.” Amira sees “the leader is not defining what he owns.” The disagreement is not about whether autonomy is good. It is about the level at which autonomy should begin.
What the research says
Leadership that gives people influence and discretion is, on average, associated with stronger motivation, creativity, and performance (empowering leadership; Lee, Willis & Tian, 2018). Research also shows, however, that a mismatch between leader and employee expectations about autonomy can increase role ambiguity, particularly when a leader gives more discretion than the employee expects (Humborstad & Kuvaas, 2013). “More empowerment” is therefore not automatically better at every moment. Autonomy also needs clarity about purpose and boundaries.
How to handle it
A leader can separate three things: what the goal is, what the boundaries are, and who decides how to get there. For example: “I own the goal and deadline. You choose the solution. If the cost goes above X, bring it back to me.” Influence then no longer looks like the leader abandoning responsibility. The general rule is: useful autonomy has a visible field of play; people should know where the leader’s decision ends and their own begins.
How Empatyzer and Em can help
Empatyzer can show Karim that handing a decision to the team will not always be experienced as trust. The assessment and cultural layer may reveal that he naturally reduces distance and gives wide discretion, while in an important project Amira first needs to know where the leader’s responsibility ends and the boundary of her own mandate begins. Em can help Karim open the project differently: “I set the goal and these three boundaries; you choose how we get there.” Amira receives genuine room to act rather than a decision vacuum. Team-level insights can show whether similar uncertainty affects a broader group, while micro-lessons reinforce the distinction between autonomy and leaving people without the framework they need in order to act independently.
Sources
- Sut I Wong Humborstad; Bård Kuvaas (2013). Mutuality in leader–subordinate empowerment expectation: Its impact on role ambiguity and intrinsic motivation. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(2), 363-377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.01.003 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.01.003
- Allan Lee; Sara Willis; Amy Wei Tian (2018). Empowering leadership: A meta-analytic examination of incremental contribution, mediation, and moderation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(3), 306–325. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2220 10.1002/job.2220
Find an article
Enter at least 2 characters. Minor typos are OK.