MPowerment Matters

Autonomy

January 2009

Autonomy is a double edged sword for both leaders
and followers. Danger lurks in what is normally
thought of as a positive trait. So, it is
imperative to be aware of being careful what we
wish for and what we grant to others under the
cloak of "autonomy." It is also important that
we really understand what it means to act with
autonomy.

The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines autonomy
as : (1) the quality or state of being
self-governing ; especially : the right of
self-government (2) self-directing freedom and
especially moral independence; and (3) a
self-governing state.

BusinessDictionary.com defines autonomy slightly
differently, as the "Degree or level of freedom
and discretion allowed to an employee over his or
her job. As a general rule, jobs with high degree
of autonomy engender a sense of responsibility
and greater job satisfaction in the employee(s).
Not every employee, however, prefers a job with
high degree of responsibility."

A third, slightly different definition, says
"Autonomy is being able to undertake activities
without seeking permission from a controlling
body."

So, the various definitions range from
self-government to freedom and discretion and
acting without permission. If we wanted to play
"the lawyer" we could parse the different words
and create some large differences in definition.
If we can do that, so can employees, so when we
grant autonomy we better define what we mean.

A vast majority of business leaders desire a
high level of autonomy for themselves. They look
to take responsibility for a strategy and the
tactics employed to effectuate it. In most cases,
this is a positive occurrence. But we must
remember that every trait, even the most
positive, can become negative when present in too
great a concentration. All traits exist on a
scale. For ease of discussion, they can each be
assigned a number of one to ten. A person who
measures a two in autonomy has the trait, but to
a much lesser degree than one who measures a ten.
And neither is either a good or a bad score.

The person who scores a two may desire autonomy
but lacks other traits, such as confidence,
creativity or critical thinking ability that
might enable her or him to assert autonomy. She
or he may need more feedback or input from others
than the average person. Such a person would not
be a strong leader in a "command and control"
type environment, but might still flourish as a
leader, even being low on the "autonomy" scale,
in a "consensus environment.

Those who score high on autonomy are good folks
to handle projects in many types of environments.
When an organization is stretched thin at the
top, those leaders strong on autonomy can achieve
without requiring too many additional resources
from the organization. But, how will they
function as part of a team? They may not succeed
if they are not inclusive, if they don't
communicate, if they don't establish common
purpose and goals. They may become the "cowboy"
or "The Lone Ranger", held in disdain in an
organization where teamwork counts. In many
circumstances they may act outside of the culture
of the organization, and even if they get good
results, they may fail.

Remember the old adage "It is easier to seek
forgiveness than permission." That comes from
those exerting autonomy in a somewhat extreme
fashion. That may save the day every once in a
while and make a person a hero for the moment.
But a steady diet of that attitude can wear on an
organization and lead to an erosion of values and
policies and procedures. It moves the lines in
the sand so much, nobody remembers where they
were.

The conclusion that I arrive at from this is that
the level of autonomy an individual is willing to
assert must closely match the level of autonomy
the organization is willing to grant. If a leader
doesn't understand the organizational needs and
culture, many traps await her or him. Company
politics can sink those who want all of the
control and all of the glory or those who want no
autonomy and hence no responsibility.

What about followers? For them autonomy is a
dangerous concept, one rife with both opportunity
and danger. Leaders doing their job well are
looking for leadership traits in their team of
followers. Those wishing to move up and become
leaders themselves need to show that they can
take on responsibility and follow through on
tasks and actions. They need to show they can
think critically, even strategically. And so,
autonomy is a good thing.

But, they cannot upstage their boss. They cannot
appear to be taking individual credit, even where
due, if they are part of a team. Leaders are
discovered or developed by their managers, not
self-proclaimed.

So, like leaders, followers require political
savvy and an understanding of their
organizational culture. They also need to develop
a relationship of trust with their manager, so
they can be mentored rather than viewed as a
threat or a competitor.

Communication is critical to all. When asking for
the autonomy to "take a project and run with it",
be careful. Know what that means to your boss and
to the organization. Understand the results
expected and the impact on your team of peers and
your direct reports. Make autonomy a positive
trait, not one that will lead to your dismissal.

Where does that leave us? Perhaps reading the tea
leaves of the organization so that we understand
what is needed and what is acceptable. We need to
check our compass along the way so that we do not
stray too far from the proven path. "no guts, no
glory" may work in sports, and it will work in
business on occasion. Just be aware of the risks,
the other side of that sword. If particular
individuals need a high degree of autonomy to
achieve job satisfaction, they better make sure
their boss and their organization encourage it.