Balancing Agency and Autonomy with Organizational Effectiveness

Finding the sweet spot between micromanagement and chaos

The boss I had in my first full-time job was a textbook micromanager. Our desks had to be positioned so our screens faced the door, a policy that screamed “I don’t trust you!” My boss would stand right behind me as I worked on design projects. They weren’t much taller standing than I was sitting, so their presence was personally intrusive as they pointed out all the things they wanted changed with my work. I can still feel the hovering, nearly 30 years later.

When I got the opportunity to manage people, I swore up and down I would not be that manager — the one who doesn’t support their team members’ agency and autonomy. I was so affected by my boss’ micromanagement, I swung in the completely opposite direction.

I stood firmly in the belief that you hire great people, set a clear direction, and get out of their way.

I still do believe in and practice that general precept, but it’s never that simple, especially as organizations grow into large enterprises that can’t operate efficiently or effectively without common standards and processes. At the same time, standards and processes can have the same effect as my hovering boss if not implemented intentionally and holistically.

It seems self-evident that both agency and autonomy would be valued by employees (and there’s plenty of research to show that it’s both valued and results in higher productivity). Micromanagement is so universally despised precisely because it destroys both agency and autonomy. On the other end of the spectrum — unfettered agency and autonomy without standards and processes — is organizational chaos.

So how do we solve this seemingly intractable tug of war?

Let’s first look at agency and autonomy. These two characteristics of the workplace are often conflated, but are in fact distinct measures that impact employee satisfaction and productivity.

Agency is the capacity of employee to make choices and influence their workplace environment and outcomes. It’s agency at play when an employee initiative is valued, hierarchies flatten during decision making activities, and each employee’s voice is solicited, heard, and understood.

Autonomy is the amount of freedom or independence an employee has. Autonomy manifests in things like flexible working hours, independent decision making, and control over how work tasks are completed.

The common thread between agency and autonomy is the level of freedom or influence an employee has in decision making, so let’s look at how and where organizations make decisions.

Most organizations (at least the well-run kind) set high-level strategy and goals and then work to implement them. Within this continuum, the organization determines the reason why it has these goals (the purpose), the what will be true when the goal is accomplished (the metrics and KPIs), and the how it’s going to work to arrive at the what (the work itself). The why, what, and how are the responsibilities within an organization.

There’s a similar progression when it comes to roles within an organization. Those who lead determine the why and the highest level of the what. Those who manage flesh out the rest of the what and the highest level of how. Those who do determine the majority of the how. While the hierarchy of the organization largely determines who serves each of these roles, it’s important to remember that these are roles, not titles. That distinction has a great deal of impact on employee agency, because many workers value the opportunity to influence the top end of the why-what-how continuum even if they are a “doer” by title.

Where do standards and processes come in? They bring quality control, timeliness, accountability, predictability, and consistency to the manage and do phases. They are the guardrails that keep agency and autonomy from barreling off the cliffs of chaos. This is especially true as organizations get larger. If you have a team of two and both employees work in extremely different ways, it’s not ideal, but it’s not catastrophic. If you have a team of 20 and they’re all working in different ways, anarchy reigns.

Who wins the tug of war? Neither side, or — actually — both. Successful leaders and managers (and by proxy their organizations) find a way to align agency and autonomy with process and standards and point them both toward organizational goals.

Easier said than done, right? Here are a few ways to navigate the dilemma.

• Trust your people. Micromanagement is so toxic because it communicates a complete lack of trust in your people. If someone doesn’t feel trusted, there’s no way they’ll feel agency or autonomy. So find those places within the standards and process guardrails where you not only allow, but cultivate, agency and autonomy. Be effusive in your praise (and reward) of those who innovate creatively and produce effectively within the guardrails. And resist the temptation to correct the how of employees who are following standards and getting the job done. Let them do what you hired them to do, in the way that works for them.

• Value everyone’s opinion, even if the topic is above their title. Employee 1:1s are an incredible opportunity to engage team members in conversation about the why and high-level what of your organization. Help them understand how you see the why and what, and intentionally ask them for their perspective. You’ll not only get great ideas, but they’ll see their impact on the organization (a key to feeling agency) when you incorporate their insight into future strategy.

• Practice just enough process. For each and every standard or process you introduce, make sure you can link it directly to organizational performance improvement. There is nothing that chokes organizational productivity more than unneeded processes or standards. Have a regular review of your processes to make sure they’re still relevant. Employees will get on board with process — and not feel restrained by it — if they see the connection to success.

• Cultivate process ownership. Processes and standards shouldn’t be developed and articulated solely in the minds of organizational leaders and managers. Where feasible, engage the people who will have to adhere to the process in the development of the process. Leadership should make decisions where consensus doesn’t emerge, but involving representative voices creates a sense of agency.

• Hold everyone accountable to process, including managers and leaders. Everyone has to adapt their working style to organizational standards, and this means not everyone gets their way every time. If there’s even one outlier that is allowed to circumvent expectations, it undermines the entire purpose of having the processes and sends the wrong message to those that comply.

• Resist the urge to add more process if at first you don’t succeed. If your employees are bumping up against the guardrails, the last thing you want to do is create a narrower road for them (and the entire team) to navigate. This is especially true if most of your team isn’t struggling. Support those who are by clarifying expectations, providing training, and working to understand and help them overcome their challenges.

I’ve never met someone who strives to be a micromanager like my first boss. I’ve certainly done everything I can to avoid duplicating their mistakes in managing my own teams. But there are many successful approaches between micromanagement and organizational chaos — and they each find a way to get employee agency and autonomy aligned with standards and processes so that both are pulling in the same direction toward organizational goals.