Guiding Teams Toward Autonomy and Team Performance

Autonomy and Performance

Recently, a general manager expressed concerns about the effectiveness of their leadership team and its ability to function as an autonomous team. With a new organizational strategy and challenging business targets on the horizon, the pressure on the team’s performance had been intensifying. While each member was an expert in their field, the overall business results fell short of ambitious goals. However, the potential for improvement was clear.

I conducted one-on-one, semi-structured interviews with each team member to gain deeper insights into the team’s functioning. Upon analyzing their input, two critical questions emerged:

1. What organizational dynamics either facilitate or impede more autonomous functioning in a leadership team?
2. How can I gauge the team’s maturity level to transition them further toward autonomy?

With a background in Organizational Psychology, as as student at the Open University, and a recent certificate in Evidence-Based Management from Mellon Carnegie University, I sought out meta-analyses that could provide answers.

Organizational Dynamics that Impact Team Autonomy

To address the first question, I explored several foundational studies on team dynamics and autonomy:

• Langfred (2004) explores how high levels of trust and autonomy can sometimes reduce performance by limiting oversight and monitoring.
• Ford et al. (2008) frame resistance to change as valuable feedback rather than a purely adverse reaction, highlighting the importance of understanding this dynamic.
• Manz and Sims (1987) emphasize that traditional management styles can undermine self-managing teams, underscoring the need for leaders to let go of control and foster team ownership. This is an older study with, in my opinion, still relevant findings.

As expected, several dynamics commonly limit the development of a self-managing team. Key challenges include:

• Hierarchical culture: In organizations with top-down solid management, fostering self-direction can be difficult, as teams are accustomed to receiving clear instructions from above.
• Lack of trust: Low trust between team members or leadership can erode team autonomy, which relies on mutual confidence in each other’s abilities.
• Vague roles and responsibilities: Confusion over roles can cause friction and disrupt self-management. Teams need clear expectations to function autonomously.
• Resistance to change: Teams or organizations stuck in old habits may resist embracing self-management, often due to uncertainty or fear of failure.
• Over-management: Excessive leadership control can stifle autonomy. Teams need space to take ownership of their decisions and results without constant oversight.

By working closely with the general manager, we identified three specific dynamics undermining the team’s autonomy and effectiveness: the current hierarchical culture, lack of trust, and vague roles and responsibilities. These insights also led to necessary discussions about his leadership style and its impact on the team’s self-management journey.

Gauging Team Maturity for Autonomy

The second critical question was determining the team’s maturity level to assess its readiness to become more autonomous. To do so, I consulted additional studies.

• Wagner (2021) provides a meta-analysis on organizational structure and team maturity.  These findings suggest that while traditional structural models have provided valuable insights, organizations today require more nuanced approaches that account for flexibility, decentralization, and modern work practices.
• Greer et al. (2018) examine how hierarchy influences team effectiveness.

From both studies, I identified seven key indicators to evaluate a team’s readiness for autonomy:

1. Decision-making capability: Can the team make sound decisions without relying on a single leader?
2. Accountability: Does the team hold itself accountable for performance and address issues without external prompts?
3. Communication: Is the team open and honest in its communication, ensuring free flow of information?
4. Shared leadership: Can members step up and take the lead when their skills are needed, or do they rely on a single leader?
5. Problem-solving adaptability: Are team members proactive in identifying and solving challenges?
6. Skill flexibility: Can team members switch roles or take on tasks outside their usual scope?
7. Emotional maturity: Does the team handle conflict constructively and collaborate with empathy and mutual respect?

By assessing these factors, leaders can better understand whether their teams are ready for more self-management. A mature team demonstrates initiative, communicates effectively, takes collective responsibility, and thrives in an environment that values autonomy.

Moving Forward with Effective Leadership

Following an intense discussion with the general manager, we decided to involve the entire team in an interactive session. This workshop would focus on the areas identified above, allowing the team to reflect on its current level of autonomy and develop strategies to improve.

By fostering a culture of effective leadership, organizations can cultivate self-managing teams that thrive on responsibility, trust, and clear communication. Leaders who guide rather than control will enable their teams to achieve better results, both in terms of performance and team satisfaction.

How Ready Is Your Team for Autonomy?

Effective leadership is key to developing high-performing, autonomous teams as organizations evolve. Reflect on your leadership approach: are you creating an environment that fosters trust, clear communication, and shared responsibility? What steps can you take today to guide your team toward greater self-management?

Feel free to share your thoughts or experiences in the comments. How do you evaluate your team’s maturity level for autonomy, and what challenges have you faced?

Literature

• Wagner JA. “Dimensional research on organization structure: meta-analysis and conceptual redirection.” Journal of Management & Organization. Published online 2021:1-18.
• Lindred Greer, Bart De Jong, Maartje, Schouten Jennifer Dannals. “Why and When Hierarchy Impacts Team Effectiveness: A Meta-Analytic Examination.” Journal of Applied Psychology,2018 Vol. 103 Pages 591-613.
• Langfred, C. W. (2004). “Too Much of a Good Thing? Negative Effects of High Trust and Individual Autonomy in Self-Managing Teams.” Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 385-399.
• Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). “Resistance to change: The rest of the story.” Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 362-377.
• Manz, C.C., & Sims, H.P. (1987). “Leading Workers to Lead Themselves: The External Leadership of Self-Managing Teams.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(1), 106-129.

Photo by fauxels: https://www.pexels.com/photo/gorup-of-employees-working-together-3182759/