Leadership without control (Part 2)

Making autonomy work: implementation strategies and practical guidance

In Part 1, I explored the philosophical foundation of leadership without control: autonomy requires clear boundaries, shared context, visible impact, and active engagement from leaders. I established that "autonomy isn't the absence of structure, it's the presence of clarity," and that the real work of leadership is context-setting, not micromanagement.

The principles are only the starting point. Autonomy requires more than intent. It takes deliberate structures, rituals, and metrics to make it real. Here's some guidance on how to put these ideas into practice, avoid the usual traps, and build teams that actually own their work.

Rituals and structures that support autonomy

Autonomy doesn't happen by decree. It's built through consistent habits and clear frameworks that bring the four principles to life:

Sensing, reflecting, and responding: Regular sessions focused on sensing and responding, not just reporting. These create the shared context essential for autonomous decisions. Ideally, these occur more than once a week but, I’ve often found that teams tend to prefer these on weekly cadence.

Explicit constraints: Clear boundaries instead of detailed procedures. These establish the guardrails within which teams can freely move and innovate. I’ve found that Jeff Bezos’ Type 1 and Type 2 decisions approach comes in very handy here.

Shared principles: Agreed ways of working that everyone understands, making invisible values visible and actionable. These should be drafted by the teams.

A single set of priorities: Unified priorities let people focus on what matters most, connecting day-to-day work with larger impact. When you have various teams, this is even more important because you want to avoid local maxima, where each team has its own set of priorities that doesn’t necessarily align with what is the most important thing across the teams.

Information radiators: Make work, blockers, and learning visible to all, ensuring impact remains at the center of conversations. If the teams are co-located, make these physical artifacts.

Retrospectives: Use these to surface what's emerging and what needs to change, not just to tweak process, creating spaces for active engagement without control.

Teams that treat these rituals as living systems, evolving them as the work and team evolve, adapt faster and avoid stagnation.

Common pitfalls and how to overcome them

Empowerment theater: Autonomy is just for show, while real decisions still flow up. 

Map real decision rights. Make them explicit. Deliberately transfer ownership of at least one key decision to the team and support them as they learn to own it. 

Abandonment: Leaders step back too far, leaving teams to drift or struggle. 

As I noted in Part 1, "autonomy without engagement is just abandonment in disguise." Schedule regular check-ins focused on context and learning, not status. Stay available as a coach, not a micromanager.

Over-control: Leaders can't let go, so teams never own the outcome. 

Let go in small doses. Delegate a single project or decision. Step in only if safety or values are at risk. Talk openly about discomfort.

Drift and confusion: Without clear boundaries and context, teams lose focus or duplicate effort. 

Make boundaries and priorities explicit. Use visual boards, working agreements, and regular context-sharing.

Learned helplessness: Teams get so used to asking for permission that they stop acting on their own. 

When a team asks for permission, ask what they think is the right call. Support their decision. Celebrate initiative, even when it leads to mistakes.

Metrics for healthy autonomy

I’ve previously emphasized shifting accountability "from predictability to learning." The metrics we track must reflect this shift. Autonomy shows up in the data.

Track these:

Decision latency: How long does it take for a team to make and act on a decision? Shorter is better, signaling confidence in their boundaries.

Ownership of outcomes: Are teams setting and tracking their own goals? Do they feel responsible for results? This measures real accountability versus compliance.

Learning velocity: How quickly do teams surface and act on new information? Are they running experiments and sharing what they learn? This connects directly to the accountability shift described in Part 1—from "are we on track?" to "what are we learning?"

Cross-team collaboration: Are teams reaching out to others without being told? Are dependencies managed proactively? This shows the network-based organization described in Part 1 taking root.

Psychological safety: Do team members speak up, challenge assumptions, and admit mistakes? This underpins the ability to navigate uncertainty together.

Reduced escalation: Are fewer issues being escalated to leadership? This indicates teams are owning their decisions within clear boundaries.

Employee engagement: Are people energized by their work and invested in team success? This is the ultimate indicator of successful autonomy.

Use a mix of quantitative (cycle time, number of escalations, engagement surveys) and qualitative (retrospectives, skip-level 1:1s) methods. The goal is to spot trends and intervene early if autonomy is slipping.

Metrics don't just measure autonomy, they reinforce the accountability shift from predictability to learning.

How to move from control to context

Transitioning to real autonomy is incremental. Here's a practical roadmap that builds on the leadership shift described in Part 1:

1. Map current decision rights: Who decides what today? Where are the bottlenecks?
2. Pick a pilot area: Choose one team or project to experiment with increased autonomy.
3. Set clear boundaries and context: Define what's non-negotiable (compliance, budget) and what's up for team ownership.
4. Transfer a real decision: Let the team own a meaningful decision, with support and coaching.
5. Establish feedback loops: Use regular retrospectives and check-ins to surface issues and learnings.
6. Scale what works: As teams build confidence, expand autonomy to more areas. Share stories and lessons learned.

This shift is as much about unlearning as learning. Leaders practice stepping back. Teams practice stepping up. Both will make mistakes. Treat them as fuel for learning, not evidence of failure.

Overcoming resistance to change

As I noted in Part 1, "most of us were trained to prevent uncertainty, not harness it." Resistance to autonomy isn't obstinance—it's a natural response to a fundamental shift in how we define leadership and work. This fundamental tension creates resistance that must be addressed directly:

For leaders struggling to let go: Acknowledge the psychological barriers: fear of becoming irrelevant, discomfort with ambiguity, and the challenge of redefining your leadership identity. Start small with a single decision you'll delegate, set clear boundaries, and coach rather than override. Create peer groups of leaders to discuss struggles and successes.

For middle managers caught in the middle: These leaders often face the most difficult transition, squeezed between autonomous teams and traditional expectations from above. Provide them with coaching on their evolving role as context-setters and boundary-keepers. Create forums where they can practice articulating the value they bring beyond control.

For teams hesitant to step up: Teams accustomed to being told what to do may initially resist ownership. Initiate with small decisions where the stakes are lower. Celebrate when teams make decisions without approval, even when the outcomes aren't perfect. Make the learning process explicit and safe.

For skeptical executives: Frame autonomy through business outcomes—faster time to market, increased innovation, higher employee engagement and retention. Document baseline metrics before implementing autonomy and track improvements. Start with a contained experiment that can demonstrate tangible results.

A few notes on autonomy in remote and distributed environments

Remote work amplifies both the challenges and potential benefits of autonomy. When teams are distributed across locations and time zones:

Balance synchronous and asynchronous collaboration: While asynchronous work enables autonomy across time zones, real-time collaboration remains critical. I've found that teams need both: scheduled synchronous sessions for alignment, relationship building, and complex problem-solving, complemented by robust asynchronous practices. At Split, we established "collaboration windows" – dedicated times when the entire team was available for real-time work – while building a strong documentation culture for everything else.

Information sharing becomes even more critical: Asynchronous documentation of context, decisions, and rationale must be exceptional. Create digital "context radiators" that make priorities, constraints, and progress visible to all team members regardless of location.

Deliberate relationship-building is essential: Without natural hallway conversations, build in virtual spaces for both structured and unstructured interaction. Create rituals for distributed teams to build trust before expecting full autonomy.

Clear working agreements matter more: Distributed teams need explicit agreements about communication channels, response times, and decision protocols. Document these and revisit them regularly.

Metrics and feedback loops must be more visible: Create dashboards that show real-time progress against outcomes, not just activities. Hold regular retrospectives that surface learning across locations.

Timezone challenges become autonomy opportunities: Embrace truly asynchronous decision-making by setting clear boundaries and then trusting teams to move forward within them, rather than waiting for synchronous approval.

The key is maintaining a one-team mentality despite distance. At Split, we leveraged "documentation-as-conversation" practices where asynchronous work felt like dialogue, not disconnected handoffs. This required teams to write clearly, ask thoughtful questions in documents, and respond promptly to maintain the collaborative feel of synchronous work.

Examples from distributed companies show that remote environments can actually accelerate autonomy when these practices are in place, as proximity control becomes impossible and leaders must focus on clarity and outcomes.

Cultural influences on autonomy implementation

Organizational and national cultures significantly impact how autonomy principles translate into practice:

Power distance variations: In cultures with higher power distance (greater acceptance of hierarchy), the transition to autonomy requires more explicit permission structures. Leaders may need to formally grant decision rights, while in lower power distance cultures, teams may more readily claim them.

Uncertainty avoidance impacts: Cultures with high uncertainty avoidance prefer more structure and explicit rules. Implementation should emphasize clear boundaries and expectations rather than open-ended autonomy.

Individualism versus collectivism: More collectivist cultures may implement autonomy at the team level more naturally, while individualistic cultures might see more individual autonomy emerge. Align your approach with the existing cultural tendencies.

Communication preferences: Direct versus indirect communication styles affect how feedback and context are shared. Adapt your information-sharing rituals to match cultural norms while still ensuring transparency.

Successful autonomy implementation respects existing cultural patterns while gradually shifting them. Map your organization's cultural terrain before implementing, and adapt your approach accordingly.

Managing up: how to handle senior leadership

Not everyone will be convinced. Here's how to manage up:

Frame autonomy as a business enabler: Link it to speed, innovation, and engagement. 

Share data and stories: Use metrics and concrete examples to show how autonomy improves outcomes.

Start small: Propose a pilot. Show results, then ask for more space. 

Anticipate concerns: Address fears about risk, compliance, or loss of control up front. Offer guardrails and escalation paths.

Enlist allies: Find other leaders who support the approach and build a coalition.

Unfortunately, autonomy isn't always appropriate

Let me start with a word of caution: these situations should be few and far between. Command-and-control should be your last resort, not your first instinct. I've repeatedly seen truly autonomous, empowered teams shine even in high-pressure situations that conventional wisdom would suggest require command-and-control leadership.

That said, there are rare contexts where a more directive approach may be temporarily necessary, distinguishing between what I call "wartime" and "peacetime" leadership modes:

Crisis situations (wartime): When safety, security, or reputation is at immediate, severe risk, command decisions may be necessary. During these situations, I’ve temporarily shifted from the usual autonomous approach to a more directive command-center response. I’ve stepped in to coordinate efforts, assign clear roles, and make rapid decisions to contain the situation. What made this work was clear communication: "We're in wartime mode now. Here's why, here's how decisions will flow, and here's when we'll return to our normal autonomous operations."

New or inexperienced teams: Teams without the skills or context may need more guidance. This is a transitional state – the goal is still autonomy, but the path is more gradual. This can often occur when teams are stuck with finalizing decisions or with breaking impasses. I’ve found that even here, it's better to provide guardrails and coaching rather than directives. 

Highly regulated environments: Some decisions are constrained by law or policy. Define the non-negotiable areas clearly, while preserving autonomy wherever possible. The key is to make the constraints explicit rather than using them as an excuse for unnecessary control.

Mission-critical launches (wartime): When timing is non-negotiable, tighter coordination may be required. Again, even here, focus on alignment around outcomes rather than controlling the how.

Be explicit: "For this project, here's why we're using a more directive approach, and here's when we'll return to autonomy." Use these moments to build skills and context for future autonomy.

What distinguishes great leaders is how they handle the transition back to "peacetime" autonomous operations. Once the crisis situation is resolved, debrief as a group, discuss what worked and what didn't, and then deliberately hand decision-making and ownership back to the teams. This transition should include a retrospective focused on how to improve both your crisis response and your return to autonomy, ensuring teams feel supported rather than undermined.

How will you know your team is ready?

Check for:

Skill diversity: Does the team have the skills needed to deliver end-to-end?

Context awareness: Do they understand the business, customers, and constraints?

Trust and safety: Do team members trust each other and feel safe to speak up?

Initiative: Do they take ownership, or wait for direction?

If gaps exist, invest in:

Training and coaching: Build missing skills and context.

Pairing, mobbing, and rotation: Expose team members to new people, domains, and challenges.

Shared rituals: Use retrospectives, context-sharing, and working agreements to build trust and alignment.

In the past, I’ve extensively used pairing, mobbing, and dynamic team formation to accelerate readiness. Teams that had struggled with ownership became much more proactive after spending time in other areas and seeing how different folks approached problems.

Getting started

The call to action from Part 1 remains: Stop pretending. Start building real autonomy. Part 2 shows you how: Pick one team, one decision, and one ritual to start with. Share what you learn. The work starts with you.

Leadership without control isn't about chaos, but about clarity. It's not about abandonment, but about engagement. And it's not about control. It's about creating the conditions where teams can thrive in uncertainty.

The journey from control to context isn't easy, but the rewards—faster innovation, higher engagement, and more resilient organizations—make it essential in today's rapidly changing landscape.