Pawel Brodzinski on Leadership in Technology

Whatever it takes to lead a team, build a product, and run a business

Tag: autonomy

The Role of Alignment

In the first part of this series, I focused on why autonomy in a workplace is a critical ingredient if we want to stay relevant. Not only is it a response to the nature of everyday work, with the increasing significance of remote work and the rise of AI, but it is also an emergent outcome of the large-scale evolution of the economy.

However, if there is a universal warning that should be attached to the advice suggesting decentralizing control, it should be the following.

It’s never as simple as “give people more autonomy.” The way people act in a decentralized system depends on a broader culture, which one should consider before giving everyone more power.

Purpose

One common theme in the discourse on organizational culture is purpose. A shared theme that people and teams aspire to change into reality.

By the way, when considering joining any company, I recommend asking about their purpose. In fact, I’d ask different people this very question and see whether their answers are aligned.

“Making more money” is not a purpose. It’s a tactic. Ditto “increasing value for shareholders.” If you want to send a man to the moon, that’s a great purpose. But it doesn’t have to be that big. I’m a fan of honest aspirations like “creating a healthy workplace that sustains a few dozen employees and their loved ones,” too.

Aside from its strategic role, or impact on motivation, purpose has a role in the discussion about autonomy. It is the force that encourages alignment of all the efforts happening in an organization.

Misalignment

Imagine a company guided by the “making more money” aspiration. People would naturally see different, sometimes contradicting, ways of generating revenues. They’d be pulling in different directions.

Using a physical metaphor, we could consider a circle as the whole organization and arrows within as different individuals pursuing different goals.

All those forces combined would create some momentum. The company would be slowly moving wherever the push is strongest.

What would happen if we gave people more autonomy in such a setup? It is the equivalent of giving every individual more influence over the whole company. Each force vector would become stronger.

Now, everyone has better leverage, but the combined effect on the organizational momentum is marginal. The reason is obvious. It’s all the contradicting priorities. People try to push in different directions.

Alignment

In contrast, we can start in exactly the same situation. However, instead of pursuing the agenda of distributed autonomy, we’ll begin with an attempt to sync up everyone’s efforts.

It would mean getting more arrows to point in a similar direction. I don’t expect a perfect alignment. Every individual has their own goals, which would never be matched perfectly with an organization’s goals. But we can get closer.

The basic tool we have is the purpose. Once it’s clear to everyone what that is, two things will happen. Some people will adopt it and adjust their actions to help achieve it. It’s as if they redirected their vector more toward the desired direction.

Others will figure that they’d rather keep pushing where they have before. For them, it would be clear they wouldn’t get much support. The odds are they’ll leave soon. If our HR does even a half-decent job, whoever comes in their place would be better aligned with the purpose.

One way or the other, we’d get more people rowing in (roughly) the same direction.

That itself changes the organizational momentum significantly. Not only did we remove the opposing force, but we also added a supporting one.

If we follow up with increasing autonomy in this setup now, we will maximize the gains.

Again, everyone has bigger leverage, but thanks to synchronized efforts, the impact is so much more significant.

Alignment First

One could argue that we can achieve the same outcome independently of the order of changes. After all, if we refocused everyone’s efforts after increasing autonomy, the end game would look the same.

In theory, yes. In practice, achieving alignment in such a manner is much less likely and more difficult.

Each vector is a representation of somebody’s drive. The stronger it is, the harder it is to redirect it significantly. Think of the arrows as if they had weight proportional to the force they represent. With bigger weights, it simply requires more effort to align the vectors.

In some cases, alignment will be impossible altogether. We extend our individual expectations to the whole organization. It’s like saying, “I want to pursue this agenda, and thus, I want my company to enable that.” While we would rarely, if ever, express it with these exact words, that’s a prevalent theme in conversations happening around job changes (exit and job interviews alike).

Bigger arrows tend to break before we can realign them to a significantly different direction.

Alignment versus Autonomy

There’s a fantastic depiction of the relationship between autonomy and alignment proposed by Stephen Bungay in The Art of Action.

He plots a two-dimensional plane with our culprits defining the axes.

In an environment with low autonomy and alignment, we won’t see much action. People will neither feel empowered, nor they would have a sense of clarity. You can expect a lot of confusion and minimal tangible outcomes.

If we stick to low autonomy but increase alignment, we will have clarity about the goals. However, the actions will still be carefully managed and controlled. It would be a typical micromanagement environment. Not the most inspiring workplace in my book.

On the opposite end, there’s a low-alignment, high-autonomy environment. There will be a lot going on in such an organization. The problem is that much of that effort will be misdirected. Some of it may be actively counterproductive.

Finally, we have our most desired quadrant with high alignment and autonomy. That’s where we have clarity about the goals, and people act without waiting for permission. Their actions, thus, will be both targeted and effective.

Interestingly enough, Stephen Bungay doesn’t stop by showing what we should expect in each type of environment. He also suggests the best path from the bottom left to the upper right corner.

Unsurprisingly, this path leads through increasing alignment first and only then distributing more autonomy.

I can personally attest it’s a good way, as we did the opposite at Lunar. The price we paid for neglecting alignment was steep. There was a load of interpersonal conflicts, which became a borderline tribal war, and 20% of the company left in the aftermath. Show me a leader who’d willingly drive their company there.

Big Picture

If there were only one big-picture suggestion, I’d couple with my strong encouragement to make distributed autonomy a central piece of organizational culture, it would be about alignment.

Decentralizing control means everyone gets more power over a company and everything it does. That may only get us promising results if everyone rows (roughly) in a similar direction.

We won’t get that unless we explicitly work on alignment. Or are extremely lucky.

I tend not to rely on the latter.

This is the second part of a short series of essays on autonomy and alignment. Published so far:

Pivotal Role of Distributed Autonomy

Feel free to subscribe/follow here, on Bluesky, or LinkedIn for updates.
I also run the Pre-Pre-Seed Substack, which is dedicated to discussing early-stage products.

May 19, 2025
Pivotal Role of Distributed Autonomy
I’m a massive fan of distributed autonomy. I believe that, in principle, giving people more autonomy at work is the largest organizational challenge the modern workplace faces.

Yes, the news of the day is either remote/hybrid work or the impact of AI on everyday jobs. Reinventing the organizational structures of a 21st-century corporation doesn’t belong to a broad discourse.

From both perspectives, however, distributed autonomy plays a pivotal role.

Autonomy in Remote Work

With remote work, the dependency is straightforward. Much of the work has moved from the office—where it could be physically supervised by a manager—to homes, where supervision is significantly limited.

The manager’s control is limited to the outcomes but not the actions that lead to them. For example, I can observe whether my engineers deliver features or add code to the codebase, but I don’t see when, how, and how much time they spend on activities that lead to “new features.”

Sure, some organizations would turn to digital tools to control employees’ activities. Guess what. It doesn’t work. Well, it does, but not the way they intend. Here’s what this kind of monitoring does to people:
- It reduces job satisfaction.
- It increases stress.
- It reduces productivity.
- It increases counterproductive work behaviors.
One hell of a slam dunk, really.

It’s not only the lack of control, though. It’s also the availability of help. For the vast majority of organizations, remote work creates additional communication barriers.

My leader no longer sits at the next desk. I can’t see whether it’s a good moment to interrupt them. Sure, I can drop them a DM on Slack, but they may not answer instantly. So, whenever I face one of those micro-decisions that I might have naturally delegated to my leader in the past, I may call a shot myself. It feels more convenient.

What has just happened here was me grabbing a little bit more authority. I might have had it all the time, but I didn’t use it because it was easier to ask the leader. Now, the path of least resistance is making decisions myself.

Multiply that by everyone in an organization, and suddenly, we have more distributed autonomy.

The choice is between embracing and strengthening the change or resisting it. In the latter case, well, we tax ourselves on every single front, from productivity to employees’ mental health. Not really a choice, is it?

Autonomy and AI

The emergence of AI creates another shift in the nature of work. We get a relatively powerful co-pilot that can help us with many tasks that would be difficult or arduous in the past.

Back then, we might have turned to the experts for help. Or drop the task altogether if it was non-essential.

The experts would give us a suggestion, and we’d accept it as the decision. If we abandoned the task, there would be no decision to make whatsoever.

But now, with our AI co-pilot, we have new capabilities at our fingertips. Yet it wouldn’t make any decision for us. Again, the path of least resistance is to grab some of that power, make a call, and move on.

As an example, it’s often a challenge to dig up a relevant source to link in my writing. I often remember a research paper or article covering a useful reference. But its topic or author’s name? Beats me.

Googling it was always a struggle, so I either turned to a human expert friend or gave up.

But now? LLMs are pretty decent in digging up relevant options. Still, the work of reviewing suggested sources and choosing a valuable one is on me. I now face a decision that I earlier deferred to an expert or dodged entirely.

More autonomy again.

Adhocracy

The changes coming from different directions align with a broader evolution of the nature of work. Julian Birkinshaw, in his book Fast/Forward, provides a neat big picture.

Over the past century or so, the world has evolved from the industrial, through the information, to the post-information era. Each step changes the rules of the game.

A hundred years ago, scaling was the biggest challenge, and the effective use of resources was advantageous. Thus, bureaucracy was a winning strategy.

In the second half of the 20th century, we saw the increasing value of information, and its accessibility and effective use gave us an edge. Thus, meritocracy was gaining ground.

Now, information is ubiquitous. In fact, with the help of LLMs, we can easily generate as much of it as we want. The world becomes less about who knows what. It’s about who can act upon (incomplete) data in a fast and effective manner. Thus, ad-hoc action gives an advantage.

Birkinshaw coins the term adhocracy to describe this new mode of operation.

A side note: one important part of the model is that all three modes of operation coexist. However, an organization will defer to the default mode whenever it faces uncertainty. We can’t expect a bureaucratic, hierarchical behemoth to act in an adhocratic way routinely.

The coexistence of all modes will naturally create tension. The decision can’t be made at the same time made by:
- a manager with the most positional power
- an expert with the best data and most expertise
- a line professional involved in the task hands-on
If we want to embrace adhocracy, which Birkinshaw argues is a prerequisite for organizational survival, we necessarily must move authority down the hierarchy.

We need to distribute more autonomy. Again.

Common Part

It’s not a surprise. When you go through the stories of companies successfully embracing non-orthodox management models, autonomy would be one shared part of all.

Be it a turnaround story in David Marquet’s, unsurprisingly titled, Turn the Ship Around, or Michael Abrashoff’s It’s Your Ship, pushing autonomy down the hierarchy was crucial.

And the fact that the military context would pop up so frequently in this discussion shouldn’t be a surprise. Decentralizing control was a pivotal part of the revolution of the 19th-century Prussian army. Its victory streak forced other armies to follow suit.

Yes, the corporate world, despite all its inspirations from the military lingo, takes its sweet time to adopt the truly important inventions. And yes, our views of the military tend to be rooted more in Hollywood movies than in the actual realities of these gargantuan organizations.

I often mention that we’d see more distributed autonomy in late 19th-century armies of the West than in many 21st-century corporations.

We’ll arrive at the same conclusion if we stick to management theory. Take Holacracy, Sociocracy, Teal, or whatever generates the most buzz these days. The cornerstone of each of those will be autonomy. It may go into how we design roles (Holacracy), get to the principle list (self-government in Teal), or define the decision-making process (consent in Sociocracy). But it’s always there.

When you think of it, it’s only natural. For hundreds of thousands of years, homo sapiens lived in small tribes of hunter-gatherers that were egalitarian and had very little to no hierarchy.

Even when our species started evolving into bigger societies, adopting a strong hierarchy wasn’t given and was only one of the possible ways of coordination.

I’d speculate that we are genetically predisposed to autonomy.

Reinventing Autonomy

Wherever we look, we seem to be reinventing the role of distributed autonomy. It’s critical to succeed on a battlefield. Staying relevant in business increasingly requires its presence. It sneaks along with the changes in the nature of work. We know it’s a prerequisite for engagement and motivation.

Nothing should be easier than embracing the change and giving people more power.

Sadly, it’s not the case. Power is a privilege. And as with every privilege, those in power will not give up easily. The good old bureaucracy will fight back.

More importantly still, even if we have the means to overcome the resistance, the challenge is not as easy as “Let’s just give people more autonomy.”

We need to take care of other things before we embark on this journey. But that’s the topic for another post.

This is the first part of the short series of essays on autonomy and alignment. The following part(s) will be published on the blog and linked here during the next weeks.

The Role of Alignment

Feel free to subscribe/follow here, on Bluesky, or LinkedIn for updates.
I also run the Pre-Pre-Seed Substack, which is dedicated to discussing early-stage products.
May 7, 2025
Why Wouldn’t an Intern Fire a CEO?

The question seems completely wrong. Obviously, because they can’t. An intern could not possibly let go of a CEO.

But what if they could? Would they? And if not, why?

Right now, you may be thinking, “But Pawel, what do you mean by imagining an intern could fire a CEO? It’s a completely abstract problem.”

It is not. In fact, at Lunar it is possible.

Radical Autonomy

I wrote about our radical way of distributing autonomy many times before. In short, anyone can make any decision (in a structured way). So why don’t people abuse that power?

Why don’t I need to worry that an intern would launch a letting go process for me?

And yes, they totally can.

While this decision is somewhat more complicated than the vast majority of others, anyone has the authority to start this process. Including people who joined us yesterday.

The Dynamic of the Organizational Culture

Whenever we join a new group, we tend to be more withdrawn than whatever is our norm. That’s one of the basic social dynamics.

First, we observe and learn. Subconsciously (or consciously), we look for patterns to understand the group’s norms. What’s acceptable? What’s not acceptable? What’s rewarded? What’s punished?

We orient ourselves in a new environment.

That’s precisely what happens in an organization when a new person joins. Even when rules as written say something, we observe whether it’s really so. After all, if rules contradict the norms, it’s the latter which prevails.

No one will fire the big guns before they learn to navigate a new environment well.

Peer Pressure as Safety Mechanism

OK, but the same intern will still not fire a CEO 6 months later when they already learned the norms. Why?

In a system based on distributed autonomy (again, anyone can make any decision; that’s the ultimate distribution), we have very different power dynamics.

We don’t have a person in power entitled to make the call, that entitlement being the ultimate get out of jail free card. After all, there’s no one else to make that decision.

In this case, anyone can act. But then, such a decision will be judged, challenged, commented on. If it’s controversial, let alone outrageous, people will be very vocal when opposing it.

Through that, we introduced peer pressure as a safety mechanism that basically prevents the most extravagant decisions from being made.

Reputation as Currency

What follows is that whoever volunteers to make any decision makes a bet. A bet of their reputation. If the decision goes well, the bet is won.

The more obvious the decision, the smaller the bet.

After all, if everyone thinks something is a good idea, it’s unlikely that they’ll complain, even if it goes sideways.

It’s a different beast altogether when the call is controversial. If I go against a big group, I better end up right, or my reputation as a decision-maker gets slashed.

Before anyone’s ready to make such a bet, they must accumulate some of that reputation. Which means they will have been around long enough that we no longer talk about an intern firing a CEO.

In fact, when someone is around that long, and they still want to fire me, well, they probably have some damn good arguments.

By the way, if you’re interested, the most radical proposal coming from a fresh hire we’ve ever discussed was changing the salary system. Admittedly, a serious call, yet it didn’t even reach a stage where it was an actual proposed decision. The person gave up way sooner after receiving peer feedback.

April 9, 2025
Levels of Slack Time
I learned the meaning of slack time years back in the context of Kanban. Once we start managing workflow for effectiveness, we necessarily create these moments when we want to stop the work. Otherwise, we’d overload the bottleneck.

When we design the slack time in the system, the natural question is, what’s next? How do we use it?

The Use of Slack Time

My first natural, although with the benefit of hindsight simple, answer was to optimize the teamwork.

There’s always a colleague who would appreciate help. There’s always a stage of the process that no one loves (code review, anyone?). There’s always an improvement task that just never makes it the top priority (like paying technical debt back).

Then, there’s a whole another context. Individual. Slack time creates a perfect opportunity to invest in oneself. Catch up with what’s new with technology (with the AI race, it seems like there’s something to catch up with almost every week). Learn something outside of the immediate context of the project. Sharpen one’s saw.

But then, when we start considering the value of slack time in a more generic context, we realize that it goes way beyond the team level.

Think of a fire station. Their whole system is designed around slack time. We don’t try to optimize the work for fire brigades for utilization. It would mean that we want firefighters fighting fires all the time.

Thus, we’d either have an excess of fires or firefighters moonlighting as arsonists.

Cross-Team Slack

We can then abstract away the idea of slack time and consider how it applies in different contexts.

The most basic context would be individual. Slack time helps me to get better.

Going just a bit further, we have the team level. Slack time helps the team to become more effective. We achieve that either by coordinating around the ongoing tasks (short-term help) or working on improving the long-term performance (continuous improvements, paying technical debt back, etc.).

So far, it’s all the basics. But what if we take another step into a broader context?

Then we end up in cross-team/cross-project land. We start considering coordination problems. We look at interdependencies. We analyze an entirely different layer of work design.

As much as we have a bottleneck within a development team (let’s say it’s testing), we will have one if we consider a cross-team initiative (let’s say it’s passing the security acceptance).

Once we understand this high-level picture, we can use slack time to help the entire initiative become more effective. It’s likely that one team being able to deliver more features or deliver them more predictably will not move the needle of the whole product by a millimeter.

The actual bottleneck may be in the design, or release, or even grand product-related decisions.

That’s where cross-team slack time can be redirected. It would mean we’re asking the question: what’s the best way to help when I see the big picture?

Organizational Improvements

Can we go further up, though? Once we consider individual, team, and cross-team levels, is there more?

But of course, there is.

Once we strip the context from the product/project work, we look at the bare bones of any company—its organizational design. And there’s always plenty to do around these parts.

At this level, we wouldn’t ask questions about improving my project/product. We’d look for ways to make the whole company improve.

Think of any novel initiatives. Of course, “novel” is in the context of this company; I don’t expect us to routinely do world-changing stuff. Starting a self-help group. Running a new product experiment. Looking for fellow folks to challenge existing management paradigms. Opportunities are almost endless here.

The more extravagant you become with the ideas, however, the less likely you’d be allowed to implement them. And here comes our culprit.

Role of Autonomy

We established different levels of slack time:
- Individual
- Team level
- Cross-team
- Organizational
The further down that list you go, the bigger the potential impact of the changes. But most people wouldn’t even consider going beyond the team level. Why?

Simplest answer? They don’t have enough autonomy.

The degree to which we can impact our organization depends on our sphere of influence. And that is strongly correlated with how distributed autonomy is in any organization.

It’s not binary, of course. It’s not that I can or cannot make a decision in a cross-team context. Sometimes, even when I can’t call the shots, I can influence the decision-maker.

But if I don’t have autonomy on a team level, I shouldn’t expect to have influence on a cross-team level. Thus, we can use the autonomy distribution as our measuring stick.

Limited Autonomy, Limited Impact

Whenever I teach that stuff during workshops and university courses, I ask people a series of questions to assess how much their organizations distribute autonomy.

The questions are separated into groups, roughly referring to the three levels mentioned above: team, cross-team, and organization. The outcome is the same every single time.

We see a lot of autonomy on a team level. Teams can freely decide about many things. I think we have Agile to thank for that.

But then, it breaks. Once we get to cross-team, the perceived autonomy goes from “significant” to “barely there.” And it won’t be a surprise that when we touch the organizational level, it’s non-existent.

In such an environment, we shouldn’t expect to get that much out of slack time.

So, the next step after introducing slack time to our systems is to get more autonomy in it as well.
April 2, 2025
(Non-)Challenges of Distributed Decision-Making

An internet discussion (yeah, I know, quite a bad idea for a trigger) inspired me to share some of the uncommon things we do at Lunar when it comes to decision-making.

In short, as Lunar, anyone can make any decision as long as they go through an advisory process. The latter means consulting with people with expertise on the topic and those affected by a decision.

Very few edge cases (like letting people go) have a somewhat different process, but the vast majority of calls follow the pattern described above.

So how come people don’t get extravagant and give themselves hefty raises, go for super-fancy events, buy tons of gadgets, etc.?

Care

There are a few prerequisites to distributing autonomy that I could spend hours talking about. In fact, I’m doing exactly that during my course (called Progressive Organizations) at a local university. Anyway, for this consideration, the key prerequisite is care.

When I say care is needed when we give people the power to make (any) decisions, it means that they need to feel responsible for the outcomes of their calls. Whatever happens, good or bad, they won’t be like, “Meh. Whatever.”

They will care.

That is enough to avoid an obvious extravaganza. After all, if we can predict something might be, well, not very wise or cause controversy, we’d think twice before putting our reputation at stake.

Hard decisions

It’s easy to make an obvious call. Let’s organize a company offsite! We’ve been doing it to great success for a decade, so it’s kinda no-brainer, isn’t it?

But when it comes to tough choices, believe me, people don’t queue up to pick up the responsibility. It’s where it falls to the usual suspects: people who you’d consider leaders.

And sensibly so. After all, these are people who are equipped with experience, knowledge, and intuition for such situations. They’ve been doing it for years. That’s one of the reasons we keep them around.

Also, when in doubt about whether going for this fancy conference abroad is extravagant or not, the leaders would use past experiences and provide some context.

“Why wouldn’t you consider a more local event instead? Here’s one we’ve sent people to, and they’ve been happy.”

“Have you considered how everyone might treat these trips if we treat such an escapade norm?”

And suddenly, no one really wants to push for that.

Learning the culture

I love one challenge I often get when I talk about radical autonomy. “What stops people from giving themselves a hefty raise?”

That’s the best part. Nothing. And they still don’t do it.

When you join a new group–any new group–two things happen. First, you influence the group. You provide a new behavior, perspective, thoughts, needs, etc. However, the bigger the group, the smaller your influence. After all, you’re but one person.

More importantly, though, the group influences you, too. Whatever is the norm in how they behave, what they do, what is accepted and what is not, strongly influences how you act. That’s obvious. We want to belong.

The very same thing works when anyone joins an organization. No one on their first day (or week or month) attempts to reinvent how things are done here. We wait and orient ourselves. We observe and learn norms.

With decision-making, it means considering how, when, and what kind of decisions they make. What triggers controversy, and what goes as expected.

So, if a healthy norm is that we try to keep our payroll fair, no one in a blatant way violates the norm. It would be too high of a price to pay in social credit.

Not making decisions

OK, but that whole thing means that we departed from the idea that every decision has a designated decision-maker. My team leader accepts my time off requests, my director gives me a raise, and a VP greenlights strategic efforts. We’re no longer there. It’s like anyone who wants to act acts.

And if no one wants to act… Then what?

Ultimately, there are the most mundane or unpleasant decisions that no one would fancy. Show a person who actually likes to let people go because of economic reasons, and I’ll show you a psychopath.

Normally, we’d have a designated person who is responsible for those tough calls, but hey, we gave up on that idea.

We do, however, have a person who serves as a safety net. In Lunar case, it’s me. I’d do anything that no one else is willing to do (and yes, that’s why I throw rotten food from a fridge in our cantina). Part of that burden is making the toughest decisions.

Think of it not as a designated decision-maker but rather as a fallback decision-maker.

Is it enough?

Would that be all that needs to work in order to distribute autonomy? Especially when we talk about the most radical way of doing it (remember, anyone can make any decision).

Surely not.

And I’m happy to be challenged. We most likely have a good answer to that. We have been using this system for 12 years, and it’s doing just fine.

If I learned anything during that time, the most difficult parts are really not the ones people think. And the gain from everyone’s involvement and care is immense.

February 20, 2025
Autonomy and Transparency: Both or Neither

How does transparency feel? Early in my career, I had an occasion to experience that. I was working in a typical organization where lots of things, payroll included, were secrets. Then the salary list leaked out. It wasn’t a huge leak, i.e. it didn’t go public, but I was close enough to the source that I could take a look.

When I was about to open the spreadsheet with the data, I was thinking about my expectations. I hoped that information about salaries would help me to make sense of how people in the company are perceived by the leaders. I thought that it might provide me with role models to look up to. I was ultimately looking forward to transforming new knowledge into some inspiration and motivation for myself.

That was totally not what happened.

What I saw on the payroll was a lot of unfairness. I saw numbers I couldn’t possibly justify. I couldn’t make sense of the system that produced these numbers. Most of all, I was painfully aware that there was literally nothing I could do to change that. After all, I shouldn’t have seen the data in the first place.

Ultimately, I got frustrated.

Transparency without Autonomy

With the benefit of hindsight, I see a broader picture of that experience. On one hand, I am aware that back then I couldn’t have had the whole perspective on what was valued in the organization and thus my sense of unfairness might have been exaggerated. I didn’t have insight on systems thinking to be able to rationalize the shape of the payroll as a pragmatically predictable outcome. Should I understand that my outrage and my frustration wouldn’t be that big.

The bottom line remains the same. I should have been expecting frustration as the only logical outcome of such an experiment. I put myself in a situation when I was about to get access to data that was important to me on an emotional level and yet I knew I had no influence whatsoever on shaping the future state of that data.

I got transparency with no autonomy to act. Heck, I couldn’t even ask all my “whys” to better understand what was going on. I put myself in a position where my frustration was guaranteed.

Transparency without autonomy is a recipe for frustration.

It’s like telling people stuff that they don’t like, or agree with, and then telling them to live with it. You don’t like who gets a raise? Live with it. You don’t agree with who gets promoted? Live with it. You don’t agree with disparities on the payroll? Live with it. You get the idea.

A side note: I refer to autonomy and not authority. There’s a significant difference between the two. For the sake of this discussion, the crucial part is autonomy defined as the actual use of decision-making power, not just the availability of decision-making power.

Autonomy without Transparency

What about the opposite situation? Can we let people act while keeping them from accessing sensitive data? The answer to this case is rather obvious, I think. Acting in an organizational context means making decisions. Can we then make decisions with limited access to relevant information?

Yes, we can. The question is: would that be good decision-making? Even though a common perception that more information available to a decision maker would result in a better decision is a myth, it is still crucial to have access to a few most important bits of data.

In our context most important often translates to most sensitive and thus available to few. If we let people decide without making such information accessible we’d set them up to fail. Their decisions simply won’t be informed and thus random and low quality.

Decentralizing control requires decentralizing both the authority to make decisions and the information required to make these decisions correctly.

Don Reinertsen

To stick with the original example, just try to imagine people deciding on raises without knowing what salaries are.

Transparency and Autonomy

OK, so neither autonomy nor transparency alone does make sense. What does, then? If we aim to improve either one we need to think about both at the same time.

Each time we loosen transparency constraints we should answer: how can people act on newly accessible data? What will they be able to do if they aren’t satisfied with what they see? The answer doesn’t have to be full control over changing the part of reality that we’ve just made transparent. They do need to have influence, though.

When we were making salaries transparent at Lunar Logic we didn’t give people the power to set the salaries. Well, not initially. We gave them as much as, and as little as, influence: an option to start a discussion about a salary and space to share their opinions about any raise under discussion. Even if the final decisions were still being made by the same person as before the change there were clear options anyone could exploit if they were dissatisfied with any number on the payroll.

While eventually influence has transformed into full control over decisions, the key move was the initial one. The one that gave people influence.

The guidance is much more straightforward if we start with the intention of extending autonomy. We simply need to answer what information we consider when making this kind of decision and then make that information available.

Most often the hard part is realizing what range of information we really consider. When we started experimenting with the decision-making process at Lunar Logic, the first step was to let people spend company money without asking permission. The part of the process was, and still is, what we call the advisory process.

As a part of advisory processes, I was often consulted about planned expenses. The most important lesson for me from the advisory processes was how unaware I was of all the data, experience and mental models I was using when I was making decisions myself. This, in turn, made me realize how much more transparent with all these we need to become to get autonomy working. A simple example: if we want people to spend company money wisely they should know what’s the financial health of the company and how specific expenses may affect it, i.e. regular financial reports should be available to everyone.

Moving the Bar

The bottom line is this: when we raise the bar of transparency we need to raise the bar of autonomy as well. And vice versa.

It is not as obvious as it sounds. Each change fuels and influences another. It is more of a balancing act than a prescribed set of moves one could repeat in every situation.

There is a caveat too. Transparency is a one-way street. You simply can’t undo making salaries transparent. You can’t make people unsee the payroll. Then again, transparency doesn’t go alone. It must be followed by autonomy. This means that changes on both accounts are almost impossible to reverse.

In fact, rolling autonomy back is a bad idea not only because it is connected to transparency. Even if we looked at autonomy in isolation there’s a painful penalty to pay for removing autonomy that has already been granted. It is an equivalent of saying “we weren’t serious in the first place about giving you that power”. Not only we are back to the square one but also people would be discouraged to embrace autonomy in the future because they got burned.

The obvious advice in this context would be to tread carefully and to take one’s time. We will find ourselves in a place where we feel like we took a step to far. What we can do is to take a break until we learn how to embrace the new situation.

At Lunar Logic it happened sometime after we made salaries transparent and gave people influence over raise decisions. Suddenly we found ourselves in the middle of what we now call the raise spree–a lot of raises were happening simultaneously with little consideration of their ripple effects. Instead of removing autonomy or double guessing individual decisions, which would end up the same, we focused on educating ourselves. How individual raises would influence other decisions about salaries and the overall financial condition of the company. Only as soon as we felt comfortable with the autonomy we had we moved the needle again.

Neither or Both?

If we stick to the assumption that increasing autonomy and transparency should go together, the question we should ask is: should we even bother? If it’s the choice between both and none, why not to choose none and stick with the status quo?

The younger version of me would say that more transparency is always better than less. Well, now I would argue with my younger self. There are edge cases, like the one that I started with. However, in general, I believe that it is easier to lead a company when more information is available to everyone. At least in a part, it comes from a fact that not only is it more transparency, but also more autonomy. The latter releases a part of the burden of people in leadership roles.

I do have a better answer when it comes to autonomy. Dan Pink points autonomy as one of the crucial factors that our motivation depends on. Little autonomy, little motivation, he says. Given how discouraged autonomy is the modern workplace we can only do good if we pursue it more. It won’t happen unless we care about autonomy and transparency together.

For me the answer is obvious. It’s both; not neither. As difficult as the evolution can be, it’s worth it.

April 17, 2019
Agile Self-Organization: Band-Aid for a Broken Leg

One of the concepts that has been widely popularized by Agile movement is self-organization of teams. It lands very nicely in any Agile context, no matter the discussed method or even a general approach one might have to Agile implementations.

It is, after all, an idea that appeals to line employees and managers alike. Let’s give atomic teams power to decide how they would work within safe constraints. Safe here means safe for managers, of course. In one swift move we address, at least to some point, two issues. One, we increase empowerment across team members as they get more say over how they work. Two, we remove managerial burden of work organization at a the most detailed level, at which managers’ competence can frequently be challenged.

All but the most micromanagerial types should be satisfied.

Since how the work gets done is decided closer to where it actually gets done, we increase odds of good processes and policies. At the same time, through more autonomy we improve motivation and engagement.

It’s not without a reason that self-organization at a team level got its way into common practice.

History of Agile (Oversimplified)

The starting point for self-organization as a technique or a practice is not unlike other agile practices. Early Agile methods were focused on a team. The perspective might have differed, but the atomic entity in consideration was always a team. Be it Scrum, XP, Kanban or anything else, in their early forms there was little mention on interoperability across teams either horizontally or vertically.

Obviously, once Agile got traction there was a need for scaling the approach up. Initially, some makeshift approaches were being made to do that (anyone remembers Scrum of Scrums?). Eventually, whole methods were built to enable large scale Agile implementations—SAFes and LeSSes of this world.

These approaches were built around a core method, typically Scrum, and took good parts of other methods whenever authors saw fit. Fundamentally, the value added of these methods was in a description how to roll everything out in a big organization. The desired outcome would be to see the core method implemented in multiple teams while ensuring some level of alignment across an organization.

It was about scaling up the method and not scaling up the principles behind. It was about getting more Scrum / Kanban / whatever teams in an organization and not figuring out how the basic values and principles would have to work if they were applied on different levels of an organization.

That’s exactly when we petrified self-organization as a technique relevant to a team and a team only.

The Broken Leg

Let’s look at the problem we are solving with self-organization. We give people autonomy and they organize work better as they are most knowledgeable how the work can be done optimally. At the same time, since we distribute autonomy, we increase motivation and engagement.

So far, so good. I can’t help but ask: are these problems exclusive to the lowest levels of organizations, i.e. atomic teams, or are they more endemic?

There’s no reason to think that the disease isn’t wide-spread. After all, for a century we are perpetuating Taylor’s and Ford’s ideas of separating the workforce from workflow design. It doesn’t happen on the factory floor only but throughout the whole hierarchy. A higher rank designs how lower rank works and what is expected of them. It is, in fact, the hierarchy itself that discourages us to distribute autonomy more than absolutely necessary.

What we are looking at is not just a marginal problem of line employees going shallow into the higher ranks. The injury is not a scratch but a broken leg.

The Band-Aid

Despite how widespread the disease is the solution we have is far from enough: self-organization… but just at a team level. It is exactly the proverbial band-aid for a broken leg. It does the work, i.e. stop the bleeding, but only as long as the injury is skin-deep.

We know it’s not the case.

And yet we keep curing our broken organizational leg with just more band-aids of atomic teams embracing more autonomy. At the same time, we don’t address the structural problem of lack of autonomy throughout the hierarchy.

There lies the root cause of the problem. Working only on the lowest possible level, i.e. teams, we already have hard constraints of how far we can go with autonomy (and it’s not far really). Unless we start working on self-organization systematically, we won’t get much long-term effect in an organization. It would be just one more band-aid.

The Cure

We got principles missing when we were figuring out how to scale Agile up. Interestingly enough, it had long been figured out in the military. Even more curious, the problem had been solved with tangible practices and not with some vague aspirations. The difference is that the military practices were designed as scalable from the very beginning.

Take briefing and debriefing as an example. It is a pair of activities of sharing the goals and the context (the orders) by an officer to a unit and having the unit brief back to the officer what they understood. The goal of briefing and debriefing is for any rank to make sure that: a) a lower rank unit understands the goal (the purpose) of a higher rank officer and one rank above, and b) a lower rank unit understood correctly what was briefed.

Such a practice is rank-agnostic. It can be applied at any level of a hierarchy without any specific adjustments. It is entirely not so with Agile self-organization practices that were immersed in 7 plus or minus 2 people as a definition of a team.

If we aspire to see organizational transformations that would be an equivalent of turnaround of some of our teams, we need to reinvent self-organization. Autonomy distribution must become either a rank-agnostic practice or it has to have dedicated solutions for each organizational level.

The former, while much harder to design and implement, is potentially much more applicable. It is the domain where tools such as decision making process, open salaries, or inclusive hiring process reside. The meta pattern here is that by default any decision is made after collective advisory process and at a lower level that it would have been made otherwise.

I acknowledge that these examples may sound radical. They are, indeed. And yet adjusting them to a softer form is straightforward. It doesn’t have to be that anyone can decide about anyone else’s salary. It can be that anyone can decide about anyone else’s salary within their team and in accordance with budget constraints. What matters is that the decision is made at a lower level (a team mate and not a manager) and the whole team is invited to take part in the process.

Such a change won’t happen overnight. Even in a small organization it likely requires years and not months to implement. However, unless there is a motion toward that direction, we are just paying lip service to self-organization and apply more band aid to broken legs.

November 20, 2018
Lack of Autonomy: The Plague of the Modern Workplace

Radical Self-Organization is a way I tend to label organizational design that we adopted at Lunar Logic. It’s been dubbed The Lunar Way too on occasions. Anyway, it draws from different approaches to design organizational structure in a very flat, non-hierarchical way. Describing what we do is probably worth a separate post on its own, yet this time I want to focus on one underlying principle: autonomy.

Our evolution toward Radical Self-Organization was experimental and emergent. Initially we didn’t set a goal of distributing authority, autonomy, and all the decision-making power across the whole organization. It emerged as a sensible and possible outcome of further evolution on the path we set ourselves onto. This means we were figuring out things on our way and quite often explored dead-ends.

The good part of such approach is that, we wanted it or not, we needed to understand underlying principles and values and couldn’t just apply a specific approach and count on being lucky with the adoption. No wonder that on our way we had quite a bunch of realizations what was necessary to make our effort successful.

One of the biggest of such realizations up to date for me was the one about autonomy.

A traditional, hierarchical organizational structure that distributes power in a top-down manner is ultimately a mechanism depriving people of autonomy.

Let me explain. Top-down hierarchy addresses challenges of indecisiveness and accountability. We ideally always know who should make which decision and thus who should be held accountable for making it (or not making it for that matter). So far so good.

The problem is, that the same mechanism discourages managers throughout a hierarchy to distribute the decision-making power to lower levels of organization. After all, if I am held accountable for a decision, I prefer to make the final call myself. Even if I end up being wrong it’s my own fault and I don’t suffer for mistakes of others, i.e. my team.

In short, as a manger in a traditional structure I’m incentivized to double-guess and change the decisions proposed by my team even if I go as far as consulting my calls with the team. In other words, I am discouraged to distribute autonomy.

This has fundamental consequences. Autonomy is a key prerequisite of being motivated at work. Lack of motivation and disengagement is a plague at modern workplace. In 2013 Gallup reported that worldwide only 13% of employees were engaged. We can’t expect our team to be creative, highly productive and responsive to ever-changing business environment when they simply don’t give a damn.

And it’s not teams’ fault. We create systems where autonomy, and as a result engagement, simply is not designed in.

It’s not managers’ fault either. We set them up in a structure where they are punished for distributing autonomy.

The biggest problem is that hierarchical structure is a prevailing management paradigm, which we are taught from the earliest contact with the education system. The very paradigm is the plague of the modern workplace.

There is one important side note to mention here. Autonomy doesn’t equal authority. The two works well as a pair but neither is a prerequisite to have the other.

I can give people authority to make project related decisions, e.g. that we terminate collaboration with a client. They can formally do it. However, if I instill enough fear of making such a tough call so that everyone is too afraid to do so people won’t have autonomy to make such a decision.

On the other end, we may not distribute authority formally, but we may live up to the standards of “what’s not forbidden is allowed” and may believe that “it’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission”. In such an environment people will be making autonomous calls even if they don’t always have authority over the matter.

Coming back to the argument about disengagement, it’s about lack of autonomy, not lack of authority. In other words, simply giving people power to make some decisions won’t solve the issue. It’s about real autonomy, which unfortunately is so much harder to achieve.

If we agree that lack of autonomy is the problem we have quite an issue here. Since the root cause of the problem goes as deep as to the way we design organizations. Changing how we think about the domain is a huge challenge.

The other day I was reading an article that mention a guy who opened a branch office in another city and let it run as a Teal organization with no managers and huge autonomy. His summary of his own story was something along the lines: there are 30 people with no management and they are doing great, but I think by the moment there are 50 of them we’ll hire a director.

This shows how strongly we are programmed to think according to old paradigm. It’s like saying “it’s going great, let’s kill it because, um, my imagination doesn’t go as far to imagine the same thing in a slightly bigger scale.”

It also shows how big of a challenge we are about to face. Simply changing how the power is distributed in an organization won’t do the trick. Unless such a change is followed with the actual change in power dynamics, enabling autonomy in lower levels of an organization it would simply mean paying a lip service. The most difficult change that needs to happen to allow for such a transformation is the one happening in the mindset of those in power, i.e. managers.

That’s bad news. If we consider power as privilege, and I do perceive it so, it means that many managers would be oblivious to the notion that they are somehow privileged over others. It means that we first need to work on understanding of domain. Once there, there’s another challenge to face: giving up the privilege. It can’t just be done by setting up different roles. That would be simply distributing authority and that is not enough.

The real game changer is distributing autonomy: the courage to make decisions even when—especially when—a decision would go against manager’s judgement. After all, the plague of the modern workplace is not lack of authority, but lack of autonomy. Without addressing it we should neither expect high motivation levels nor high engagement.

September 17, 2018
Teal is the New Black

On many occasions, I’ve shared how we operate at Lunar Logic. We exploit radical transparency—every single bit of information is available to everyone at the company. We exercise radical autonomy—everyone can make any decision on the company account. We entertain radical self-organization—there’s no enforced structure or hierarchy, there are no managers, and the CEO role is purely titular. While it sounds extreme when you hear about it, it feels even more so when you live it.

Given that we went through a transformation from a rather typical organizational structure, we very well understand how many mistakes one can make when introducing such an organizational model. After all, we made great deal of them ourselves.

We didn’t use any of the labeled models when approaching our evolution. We are, however, very frequently dubbed as a Teal organization, as described by Frederick Laloux in his book Reinventing Organizations. I don’t necessary fancy the label as I’m not overly fond of the model proposed by Laloux. Nonetheless, the label is somewhat useful to communicate how we are organized at Lunar.

The interesting thing is how people react to Lunar Logic story. Over time I get more and more reactions like “oh, we’re working exactly the same way” or “yeah, we are Teal too”. This often triggers some questions on my end. Do you have transparent salaries? How do you set salaries? Do people know the contract details? How much company money can people spend without getting a permission? Can people leave the project they’re on when they want to? How is the strategy decided? Which decisions can be made by high-ranks only?

Inevitably, most of the answers are as expected. “We can’t let people decide to spend company money at their whim, let alone set their own salaries. That would ruin the company! We can’t even let people know what everyone else earns as it would trigger huge frustration. And obviously strategy, and many other important decisions, are prerogative of senior managers.”

Other than that, you are perfectly Teal, aren’t you?

Progressive Organization is an umbrella term I use to describe different modern approaches to redefine how organizations are designed. Declaring that a company is one of flavors of Progressive Organization became a fashionable thing. People aspire to have flat-structure organizations, and to empower people (which is a completely flawed goal by the way). When it comes to labels, Teal organizations are getting most of the buzz these days. It’s a trendy thing to say that an organization is Teal or at least aspires to be so.

Teal is the new black.

The problem is that little comes afterwards. Transforming an organization from a traditional, hierarchy-based model toward radical self-organization and radical autonomy (both being crucial parts of becoming a Teal organization) requires lots of changes.

I don’t necessarily say that fully transparent salaries, salaries set by employees themselves, freedom over choosing what people work on, no permission expected to spend significant amount of company money, or all the authority distributed to everyone at the company are all required to dub a company a Progressive Organization. I do say that, in one way or another, the way all these decisions are made need to be reinvented to be more inclusive for everyone at the company.

In most cases the disputed companies have no will whatsoever to challenge the old operating system where managers make vast majority of the important decisions. I even heard people explicitly stating that they were “somewhat Teal” and had “no will to become more so”. Why would they even refer to the label then?

Because Teal is the new black.

If I counted companies whose representatives declared that they work in a similar way to Lunar or that they are Teal I should be over the top. After all, I’m somewhat pessimistic about the pace at which the organizations would evolve away from the old, entrenched, century-old, hierarchy-based management paradigm. The reports I keep hearing should be a proof that the situation is far better than I thought.

I stay skeptic, though. The reason is that most of the reports are about Progressive Organizations in the name only. Hearing the stories, I’m not comfortable with as little as saying that it’s their genuine aspiration to evolve into a new organizational design. I would rather describe it as a pretense, and the one introduced on the weak grounds of fashion.

The outcome will be two-fold. On one hand we already see inflation of the commonly used terms, like Teal. When someone says “Teal” it means less and less over time as it’s used to describe lots of different things. It wasn’t a precise term to start with and the more popular it is the faster the watering down process is. It is the fate that awaits any niche concept that hits the mainstream. The term Agile is a canonical example. These days it is used to label pretty much anything.

Personally, I don’t care overly much about this effect, though. After all, I don’t have any stakes in promoting Teal.

I do care about the other effect and I believe it will be positive in the long run. Given increasing popularity of the idea, even without implementing it the proper way, we can expect that more and more people would become aware of alternative organizational models. While in the short run I still see little action to truly transform companies, awareness is something that will provide leaders and managers with options in the long run.

At the beginning of our way at Lunar we were inventing lots of things ourselves. There was limited literature about alternative models and none of us was into what was available. There were few stories of progressive companies, even though they exist at least since fifties. We didn’t know much where we were headed or what the desired endgame looked like.

Awareness of what is possible, makes it easier to plan the change. With increasing number of available stories of different Progressive Organizations, there is plenty of inspiration to design own model and run own experiments. In the long run this fashion will, I believe, have a lasting effect on how humane our organizations are. In the even longer run it will hopefully affect whole industries.

That’s why on one hand I treat Teal as a label that often bears little value but I’m happy that it makes its way to common awareness. In a way I’m happy that Teal is the new black.

September 5, 2018
Autonomy and Authority

These days I speak extensively about how we designed Lunar Logic as an organization. After all, going through a transition from a traditional management model to a situation where company has no managers at all is quite an achievement. One of the pillars of managerless organizational design is autonomy.

After all, decisions won’t just make themselves. Someone has to call the shots. Once we got rid of managers, who would normally make almost all decisions, we need everyone else to embrace decision making. For that to happen, we need to distribute autonomy.

Interestingly enough, when Don Reinertsen, who I respect a lot, talks about decentralizing control he uses somewhat different wording.

Decentralizing control requires decentralizing both the authority to make decisions and the information required to make these decisions correctly.

Don Reinertsen

Authority refers to a formal power to make a decision. However, I tend to make a clear distinction between authority and autonomy. Ultimately, as a manger, I can give my team authority to make a decision. However, at the same time I can instantiate fear or pressure on decision-makers so before they actually make their call they would ask me what I think about the topic and go with my advice. This mean that even if authority was distributed autonomy is not there.

Corollary to that, I may not have formal authority but I can feel courageous enough to make a decision. If that is an acceptable part of an organizational culture it means that I may have autonomy without authority. By the way the latter case is interesting as it pictures the attitude I’m very fond of: ask forgiveness rather than get a permission.

I’m not going to fundamentally disagree with Don Reinertsen, though. As a matter of fact, we are on the same page as he follows up with his train of thought.

To enable lower organizational levels to make decisions, we need to give them authority, information, and practice. Without practice and the freedom to fail upon occasion, they will not take control of these decisions.

Don Reinertsen

In the first quote Don is talking about prerequisites to decentralize control. In the second he focuses on enabling it. He adds a crucial part: people need to practice. This, as a consequence, means that occasionally they will fail, a.k.a. make bad decisions.

And that’s exactly what autonomy is in its core.

In vast majority of cases autonomy is derived from authority. It doesn’t work the other way around, though. In fact, situation of having formal authority but no real autonomy to make a decision is fairly common. It is also the worst thing we can do if we want people to feel more accountable for an organization they’re with.

Not only do they realize that the power they got is virtual but once it happens they’re not even back to square one. It’s worse. They got burned. So they’re not jumping on that autonomy bandwagon again when they are asked to get more involved in decision making.

That’s, by the way, another case that portraits that cultural change are not safe to fail.

Long story short, don’t confuse authority with autonomy. If you really care about your organization take care of distributing both, not only the former.

December 6, 2017