The right level of autonomy

“Give teams problems to solve rather than features to build. Empower them to solve those problems in the best way they see fit.” - Marty Cagan.

Every organization wants to have high performing teams that realize maximum business value on a structural basis. One of the key characteristics of such a team is that it is has the right level of autonomy. In the article "The characteristics of a high performing team" we outlined our model of high performing teams, known as "The House of HPT". This model consists of several layers of characteristics that, when addressed properly, enable teams to become high performing, ultimately leading to the achievement of the organizational goals.

Essential in the foundation layer is the characteristic of ‘autonomy', which is crucial for enabling the team to excel. In fact, all other characteristics in the foundation layer serve as preconditions for getting the right level of autonomy.

First, we define autonomy and discuss the benefits, prerequisites and risks. Then, we outline how a high performing team can become highly autonomous and offer practical tips and some considerations for implementation. Finally, we conclude the article with practical statements for evaluating your team on this characteristic.

Definition and importance of autonomy

In this chapter, we define autonomy and explain its relevance to team performance. Furthermore, we discuss what is necessary for a team to become autonomous, and the risks of granting autonomy to a team that is not yet ready for it.

What is autonomy

The word "autonomy" is derived from the Greek words αυτονομ?α (autonomía) for ‘self-legislation’ and αυτ?νομο? (autonomos), which literally means ‘governed by one’s own laws’ (also known as self-governance). Gottlieb (2021) defined it as "the ability to act freely in accordance with one’s own knowledge and professional capabilities, without unnecessary inhibitions or bureaucracy, and without requiring permission or consent". Hackman and Oldham (1976) define autonomy in work more straightly as "the degree of freedom employees have to organize and perform work according to their own insights".

Autonomy forms the basis for self-organization in teams. It involves the division of authority between the team and management; the more authority the team is granted, the higher its level of autonomy. Autonomy involves granting the team the freedom to act according to their expertise, while also delegating certain authority to make decisions. Although autonomy and authority are closely related, they are distinct: autonomy refers to the team's ability to act without excessive oversight, while authority is the legitimate power to make decisions. The more authority a team is granted, the greater its potential for autonomy, but the two do not always increase at the same rate.

Autonomy isn’t an all-or-nothing concept; it exists on a continuum. Managers can delegate specific tasks to the team while retaining others. When a task is delegated, the team not only gains autonomy but also authority over how that task is executed. The level of autonomy reflects the manager’s confidence in the capabilities of the team.

Teams within an organization are never completely autonomous or fully self-organized; they always operate within the organizational framework. This framework can be extensive or minimal, but it always exists (teams share for example at least a common mission). Without this framework, teams would function as a separate organization rather than as part of a larger organization. While teams have freedom in their decision-making, they must still adhere to certain standards, processes, and organizational goals.

Benefits of autonomy

A high level of team autonomy provides several interconnected benefits, including increased customer satisfaction, happier and healthier employees, and better financial performance.

Customer satisfaction improves as a result of higher product quality, which comes from faster and more effective decision-making. When a team makes decisions independently, without the need to consult a manager, the results are often quicker and more accurate. The team members, who are closest to the subject, are typically better equipped to make informed decisions. This is particularly important in a fast-changing, complex (VUCA) environment, where the collective information processing capacity of the team often exceeds that of a single manager. Involving a manager not only slows down the process but also requires the manager to gain in-depth knowledge of each specific problem. As a result, teams with a high level of autonomy tend to make better decisions, leading to high quality products and therefore more satisfied customers. The link between autonomy and customer satisfaction is supported by extensive research, such as the findings by Boss et al. (2021).

Autonomy is also linked to happier and healthier employees. Autonomous teams are intrinsically motivated (Deci et al., 2004), leading to higher employee engagement (Deloitte, 2016) compared to manager-led teams. As a result, team members tend to be happier (Wheatley, 2017), more vital (Wieby, 2022), and less stressed (Zeuge et al., 2023). This is partly due to the fact that people tend to value meaningful work and influence over their tasks. Higher job satisfaction, in turn, drives increased company results and higher customer satisfaction (Thompson & Prottas, 2005).

Better financial performance is the cumulative result of several factors, including higher customer satisfaction, better product quality, and happier, healthier employees. Satisfied customers are more likely to spend more on products and remain loyal longer. Superior product quality attracts more customers, while happier and healthier employees are more productive and have lower absenteeism. Moreover, autonomous teams require less supervision, leading to lower overhead costs and, ultimately better financial performance. For non-profit organizations, responsible cost management and stakeholder satisfaction are even so crucial. Although financial results are not the primary focus in these type of organizations, they remain an important aspect of the organizational success.

Prerequisites for autonomy

In order to build an autonomous team, a few essential prerequisites must be in place besides the other aspects of the foundation layer of the "House of HPT". First, the organization has to support team autonomy and secondly the team must be capable of handling those responsibilities.

1. A supportive organizational environment is crucial for building an autonomous team. The organization must provide the team with a clear strategy, necessary tools, resources, and access to the information required to make well-informed decisions. Additionally, the organization must be willing to grant the team the authority to make decisions within defined boundaries and accept the consequences of those decisions, including any mistakes. These boundaries might include limitations on autonomy, adherence to standards, or the mandated use of specific tools. This implies that management should trust the team and support their decisions, even when they may have chosen differently themselves. A more detailed discussion on a supportive organizational environment is covered in a separate article (will be added soon).
2. Team readiness is essential for handling assigned tasks and responsibilities. The team must be capable to handle assigned tasks, which requires the right mindset and skill set among team members. As the team develops new (hard and soft) skills, they can take on more responsibilities, leading to increased autonomy. Effective practices can help sustain this autonomy over time (article about effective practices will be added soon).

Risks of too much autonomy

Giving too much autonomy to the team, or giving autonomy too early, can have risks, especially if the team lacks the maturity or necessary prerequisites. Some major risks that can occur:

• Internal conflicts can arise when team members struggle to manage disagreements effectively, especially without adequate conflict resolution skills (DeLeon, 2001). They now have to address each other’s behavior, but may find it difficult to listen to and accept colleagues’ ideas. This can lead to more conflicts and a negative work atmosphere, particularly if they have not yet developed the right skillset to resolve these issues.
• Decision-making can become slower and less efficient due to the need for more consultation and the absence of a clear decision-making authority (no manager with a “final say”). This can lead to lower-quality ideas or decisions that do not have full team support (Schippers, 2012).
• Deviating from strategic organizational goals can become a risk when teams set their own priorities, which may not align with the organization's strategic goals.
• Stress and cognitive overload can occur when teams have more autonomy. As they are given more challenging tasks, the demands of their tasks may increase. This can lead to higher stress levels due to cognitive overload (see also "the right team scope").
• Resistance to autonomy from team members or management may emerge, when autonomy is implemented abruptly, especially from those accustomed to traditional hierarchical structures. This resistance can create friction and hinder the transition to a more autonomous team. Not everyone wants to work in such an organizational environment. Especially when things go wrong, managers may feel compelled to take back control.

Therefore, autonomy must be introduced gradually and according to the team's maturity.

The right level of autonomy in a high performing team

A high performing team with the right level of autonomy is a group of people who have the authority, autonomy and resources to make decisions, solve problems, and achieve goals that align with the overall objectives of the organization. In order to become such team it is important that the team has the right level of autonomy both on paper and in practice. Furthermore the team should be able to handle the given of autonomy.

Defining the right level of autonomy

Teams are never completely autonomous, and the right level of autonomy must be determined for each team. Autonomy is a complex, multidimensional concept, and there are various classifications to help define the right level. A well-known categorization of teams based on their level of autonomy is provided by Richard Hackman (2002). In his authority matrix (see figure below), Hackman classifies (managerial) tasks into four groups, resulting in four types of teams, each with its own level of autonomy.

The optimal level for a high performing team is in our opinion what Hackman defines as a "self-designing team." This means the team is responsible for their own work (planning and monitoring), as well as team composition and managing their environment. Management remains responsible for setting the overall direction and defining the team’s purpose within the organization. Research by Steve Denning (2021) shows that self-governing teams rarely reach high performance, apparently because the struggle to decide what to do, gets in the way of actually doing it. Additionally, a study by Boss (2021) published in the Harvard Business Review found that total autonomy can be counterproductive, leading to overconfidence, which in turn results in a fall in performance. Teams with partial autonomy tend to perform better than those with full or no autonomy.

In addition to the aspects mentioned above, there are other responsibilities that can be delegated to a team. It is impossible to mention them all, but examples are work location, work method, budget and contract management, and conflict solving.

Allowing teams the freedom to define solutions

Another aspect of autonomy in a high performing team is that the team should be responsible for defining the solution for a given problem (Cagan, 2020). This requires a deep understanding of the business needs and close involvement in defining the right solution. In some cases, the team may be entirely responsible for the solution, while in others, they may collaborate with other parts of the organization. The main point is that teams should not be handed features to build without understanding the problem they are solving.

"It doesn’t make sense to hire people and then tell them what to do; we hire smart people so they can tell us what is possible” - Steve Jobs

How to delegate gradually responsibilities

When striving for autonomy, it's crucial that the team is ready to handle the new responsibilities. The manager should delegate responsibilities gradually, monitoring the team's ability to manage them effectively. The team should have the freedom to make mistakes, allowing them to learn. This means the manager should not interfere too quickly but rather coach the team to handle those responsibilities better.

A useful method for delegating decision-making power to the team, is the delegation matrix (Appelo, 2011), see figure below. The essence of this method is that a certain responsibility can be handed over in several steps ranging from explaining decisions (sell) via advising to fully delegating them to the team. This gradual approach allows teams to grow their autonomy while minimizing risks.

The delegation board below represents an example of a typical implementation of the desired level of autonomy in a high performing team. Keep in mind that the list of activities may vary depending on the team's context and can be expanded as needed.

Achieving the desired level of autonomy typically takes time. Delegation is an evolving process (action-learning-doing-proces), and the rule of thumb is to start with the activities that have the highest level of delegation and work from there.

The changing role of the manager

It is important to note that even when teams operate with a high level of autonomy, the role of the manager does not disappear but instead changes. The manager’s role transitions to one of coaching and facilitating, supporting the team’s growth and effectiveness. This is further explored in the characteristic of a 'supportive organizational environment' (will be added soon).

Another change of the manager’s role is to ensure the team has access to relevant information needed to make decisions and understand the results of those decisions. Previously, the manager might have made these decisions independently, but now responsibilities are shared with the team.

Considerations

When thinking about autonomous teams, management should consider the following aspects:

• Managing staff departments and their guidelines: it is essential to ensure that the organization aligns with the agile nature of high performing teams and avoids creating unnecessary dependencies. A balance must be struck between the team's responsibility to deliver its product and the need for input from other departments.
• Coordination with other parts of the organization: there is often a need for a single point of contact to ensure clarity. However, assigning a fixed coordinator could lead to that person becoming a de facto team leader. Amelsvoort (2003) suggests assigning coordinators for different aspects to address this issue. For example a coordinator for HR activities, and another coordinator for product dependencies.
• The role of the product manager (or product owner): it should be avoided that the product manager becomes a kind of team manager; a high performing team has no team manager.
• Individual autonomy versus team autonomy: be aware that the individual autonomy can be decreased when introducing team autonomy. Aspects which were solely the responsibility of the individual, now becomes something that has to be discussed with the whole team (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999).

In conclusion

In conclusion, fostering team autonomy is essential for building high performing teams capable of delivering exceptional business value. By empowering teams to solve problems and make informed decisions, organizations can benefit from improved customer satisfaction, product quality, and employee well-being. However, autonomy must be implemented thoughtfully, with gradual delegation and support from management. While full autonomy may not always lead to the best results, a balanced level of autonomy enables teams to thrive and contributes to organizational success.

Assessment

It is helpful to assess your team's position regarding this characteristic and initiate discussions for improvement regularly. To support this assessment we have provided some statements to get the discussion started. One approach is to rate each statement on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 'strongly disagree' to 'strongly agree.' Team members can then discuss these ratings to identify improvement initiatives, focusing on enhancing their own performance rather than comparing directly with other teams.

1. As a team, we have a clear understanding of both our own responsibilities and those of management.
2. As a team, we regularly discuss our level of autonomy with management.
3. As a team, we are responsible for managing and monitoring our own work.
4. As a team, we are responsible for handling our dependencies with other parts of the organization.
5. As a team, we are responsible for our way of working (within the boundaries as set by the organization).
6. As a team, we are responsible for continuously improving ourselves.
7. As a team, we feel the freedom to invest in activities that are necessary for sustaining long-term product quality and performance, even when (product) management feels differently.
8. As a team, we experience that our management trusts us and accepts the consequences of our decisions (even when management may have chosen for a different approach).
9. As a team, we work on ‘problems to solve’ and we decide how to solve them ourselves.
10. As a team, we have sufficient management support to handle our responsibilities.
11. As a team, we have the necessary skills and mindset to effectively handle the level of autonomy and authority entrusted to us.
12. As a team, we are well-equipped to resolve internal conflicts and disagreements without external intervention.

References

Amelsvoort, P. van, Seinen, B., Kommers, H., & Scholtes, G. (2003.). Zelfsturende teams: Ontwerpen, invoeren en begeleiden. ST-Groep.

Appelo, J. (2011). Management 3.0: Leading Agile Developers, Developing Agile Leaders. Pearson Education.

Boss, V., Dahlander, L., Ihl, C., Jayaraman, R. (2021, December 1). When autonomy helps team performance — and when it doesn’t. Harvard Business Review.

Cagan, M. (2020). EMPOWERED: Ordinary People, Extraordinary Products. John Wiley & Sons.

Deci, E. & Vansteenkiste, M. (2004). Self-determination theory and basic need satisfaction: Understanding human development in positive psychology. Ricerche di Psicologia. 27. 23-40.

deLeon, L. (2001). Accountability for individuating behaviors in self-managing teams. Organization Development Journal, 19(4), 7–19.

Deloitte. (2016). The 2016 Deloitte Millennial Survey: Winning over the next generation of leaders.

Denning, S. (2021). Most high-performance teams are self-organizing teams. https://stevedenning.com.

Gottlieb, L. N., Gottlieb, B., & Bitzas, V. (2021). Creating Empowering Conditions for Nurses with Workplace Autonomy and Agency: How Healthcare Leaders Could Be Guided by Strengths-Based Nursing and Healthcare Leadership (SBNH-L). Journal Of Healthcare Leadership, Volume 13, 169–181. (https://doi.org/10.2147/jhl.s221141)

Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performances. Harvard Business Press.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, volume 16, issue 2, 250-279. Google Scholar

Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58–74.

Pascua, J. C. (2022, 23 december). Self-organized VS self-managed VS self-directed team. Medium.

Schippers, M. C., West, M. A., & Dawson, J. F. (2012). Team Reflexivity and Innovation. Journal Of Management, 41(3), 769–788.

Thompson, C. A. & Prottas, D. J. (2005). Relationships among Organizational Family Support, Job Autonomy, Perceived Control, and Employee Well-Being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 100-118.

Wheatley, D. (2017). Autonomy in Paid Work and Employee Subjective Well-Being. Work And Occupations, 44(3), 296–328. (https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888417697232)

Wieby, A. D. B. (2022). How to stimulate vital employees: The relationship between task autonomy, work passion, and employee vitality [Master’s thesis, University of Twente]. University of Twente Repository.

Zeuge, A., Lemmer, K., Klesel, M., Kordyaka, B., Jahn, K., & Niehaves, B. (2023). To be or not to be stressed: Designing autonomy to reduce stress at work. Work, 75(4), 1199–1213. (https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-220519)

Further reading

Amelsfoort, P. van (n.d.). Wat is zelfsturing? Zelfsturende teams & succesfactoren. House of Control.

Buljac, M., & van Wijngaarden, J. (2009). De weg naar een effectiever werkend team. Jeugd En Co Kennis, 3(1), 23–26.

Cagan, M. (2024). TRANSFORMED. John Wiley & Sons.

Eringa, R. (n.d.). Evolution of the agile manager.

FasterCapital. (n.d.). Providing autonomy and ownership.

Kuipers, H., van Amelsvoort, P., & Kramer, E. H. (2018). Het nieuwe organiseren: Alternatieven voor de bureaucratie. Uitgeverij Acco.

Laloux, F. (2014). Reinventing organizations: A guide to creating organizations inspired by the next stage of human consciousness. Nelson Parker.

Management 3.0. (2015, September 9). How to delegate better with the 7 delegation levels [Video].

Piercy, S. (2022). What is empowerment? [Master's thesis, Utrecht University]. Utrecht University Repository.

Pink, D. H. (n.d.). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us [Video].

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860.

Tjepkema, S. (2003). Verscheidenheid in zelfsturende teams. In Werken, leren en leven met groepen (p. 19).

Tjepkema, S. (2016). The learning infrastructure of self-managing work teams (Doctoral dissertation, University of Twente).

Wintzen, E. (2007). Eckart’s notes. Lemniscaat.

Zhou, X. (2020). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect of job autonomy and its explanation mechanism. ResearchGate.

Published on: November 27th, 2024

Authors: Koen Verwoerd and Bj?rn Hoogenes