Management models are often seen as falling into one of two camps: command and control or the more laissez-faire, participative variety. But this is a false dichotomy. Successful managers and leaders today combine elements of both — in the ratio that’s right for them and their organizations. They offer autonomy and ‘self-actualisation’ but they do so in a clear and conscious ‘frame’ that reflects their sector and circumstances — and the preferences and skills of their employees.
Executives and managers are inundated with management theories, philosophies and models, many of which offer contradictory advice. One dilemma they face is whether to grant employees autonomy or to use control to guide their performance.
Both approaches have their merits. Autonomy and independence are important for employee engagement and, by extension, ‘discretionary effort’, productivity and innovation. Control and supervision, on the other hand, are important for a well-focused and goal-driven workforce and, crucially, the management of risk.
But it’s not a question of making a ‘once and for all’ or an ‘either or’ choice. It is more a question of adopting a ‘paradoxical lens’ and managing the contradiction that autonomy and control can be interdependent. (The more you empower employees, the more, for example, you might need to make sure core processes and controls are ‘tight’.)
Recent qualitative research from the Gordon Institute of Business Science suggests that successful leaders and managers navigate between the two contrasting approaches and blend elements of both.
The researchers interviewed 16 leading South African management and human resource experts in depth — and all 16 said that, in the majority of cases, autonomy and control should co-exist and that ‘balancing the right combinations’ was essential for ensuring high performance and creating competitive advantage. Several felt that neither exclusive autonomy nor exclusive control was sustainable in the long term. (The former was felt to be too risky, the latter too ‘creatively’ restrictive.)
Oscillating between autonomy and control can be particularly relevant in today’s complex business environment where uncertainty and ambiguity demand a ‘dynamic equilibrium’.
But what do successful combinations ‘look like’?
According to the study, they can be categorised as ‘indirect control’, models in which the culture of the organization creates the guiding principles and framework and ‘aligns’ employees with overall goals and objectives.
The research further identifies 17 key influences on degrees of autonomy and control and the ways they might combine. Divided into organizational factors, managerial factors and employee factors, these include:
How can organizations move towards a balanced approach? How can they seek to influence the level of autonomy and control?
Several measures can be inferred from the research. These include:
Conscious efforts can be made to create a defined structure that combines ‘opposing forces’ and leads to opportunities for competitive advantage. It is important to remember, though, that the right combination of autonomy and control varies not only by sector but also by situation. Successful managers will experiment with different combinations in different circumstances: the equilibrium needs to be ‘dynamic’.
Ideas for Leaders is a free-to-access site. If you enjoy our content and find it valuable, please consider subscribing to our Developing Leaders Quarterly publication, this presents academic, business and consultant perspectives on leadership issues in a beautifully produced, small volume delivered to your desk four times a year.
For the less than the price of a coffee a week you can read over 650 summaries of research that cost universities over $1 billion to produce.
Use our Ideas to:
Speak to us on how else you can leverage this content to benefit your organization. email@example.com