Autonomy: Do we really need it?

Let’s start by looking back at Rock’s SCARF model (2008): This model asserts that five particular domains elicit specific human reactions: Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Fairness (Rock, p.1, 2008). This week, I want to focus on the A in SCARF – Autonomy.

Autonomy is the freedom to make discretionary and binding decisions consistent with one’s scope of practice (Lewis, F.M. 2006, p.1).

While the autonomy definition posted above doesn’t spell it out, I’m of the opinion that autonomy also provides individuals with the right to act on the decisions they make within the scope of their practice –leadership practice, or otherwise. Personally, I believe there is a growing need for autonomy in today’s organizations, despite the demand for increased organization-wide accountability. But not everyone shares this view. This week I heard an experienced leader discuss the topic of autonomy. His contention was that in modern organizations, there is a need to balance the need for autonomy with larger, system-wide needs. In fact, this speaker asserted that in order to optimize organizational integration, a “top down”direction would be required. I don’t think the speaker was saying that we had to find a way to rid ourselves of autonomy, but he was pointing out that it could be an impediment to broader organizational goals.

How then, does a leader balance holding the reigns loosely enough to promote leadership, growth, and creativity (all inherent in the concept of autonomy), but at the same time hold the reigns tightly enough to avoid classic pitfalls resulting from too much autonomy (e.g. silos and divisiveness)?

As leaders, what options can we consider in our leadership and management practices to achieve large organizational goals as well as delivering on the growing demand for individual empowerment? Let’s discuss our options by examining two complimentary leadership styles, namely transactional and transformational leadership, with a view that both are necessary in today’s leadership world. I know some folks will argue that transformational and transactional leadership styles are contradictory, but hear me out.

Transformational leaders keep three things in mind when leading: the first one is how to achieve current organizational goals and secondly how to raise it to a higher standard, and thirdly, how to develop staff and subordinates and others who are part of the organizational infrastructure so they can lead and achieve the intended changes within their areas of responsibility and leadership in the future. Sounds like there is a high degree of autonomy and empowerment included in this leadership style.

Also focused on productivity, transactional leadership primarily focuses on the individual and less on the organization as a whole. Nguni et al. (2006) says transactional leadership draws out the selfish attributes of followers: staff is expected to produce some results and is rewarded accordingly. With this leadership style, leaders exert influence by setting goals, clarifying desired outcomes, providing feedback, and exchanging rewards for accomplishments. This style also includes a degree of autonomy and empowerment.

I summarized a table of metrics for each type of leadership for you (some references included at the end of the blog, and more available if you contact me at jbezz@shaw.ca):

Transformational Measurements	Transactional Measurements
Develops a compelling vision Creates a trusting environment Motivates and inspires employees Empowers personnel to make own decisions personnel Changes the existing situation Develops workforce Improves the culture Effects change by influence	Identifies clear goals and objectives for visible results Offers rewards for achieving goals Creates structures and processes for control Solves issues Maintains current situation and improves it Plans, organizes and controls operations Protects the culture Effects change by authority

Now, let’s step back to last week’s discussion again. If we know that a lack of autonomy activates a genuine threat response, and if we also know that working in a team necessitates a reduction in autonomy, how can leaders still get the best out of staff at both an individual and group level and stay true to the organization’s overarching goals?

Rock’s solution to this question is to clearly establish the boundaries within which individuals can

exercise their creativity and autonomy. Furthermore, one should enable individual point-of-need decision-making without consultation with, or intervention by, leaders (Rock, 2008).

This past week, I heard about a beautiful example of Rock’s solution in action: a manager asked front line staff to do some problem solving so the team could circumvent problems from a recent staff shortage. Though the manager was well aware of options she could elect to put in place, she waited patiently for the team to identify their own solutions. She then supported them in implementing their ideas even though there were other obvious options that could have addressed the circumstances even better. However, seeing no damage coming from their ideas, she let them go for it. This is a classic example of all the steps involved in combining the transformational and transactional leadership traits, and in providing an environment to build autonomy and empowerment. I was amazed at this story, and know there are others like it out there –I’d love to hear some of your examples.

What’s the point of this week’s blog? I just wanted to point out that being a leader isn’t that simple anymore. Back in the early days, the fields of leadership and management were studied and written about in “either or” scenarios (either transformational or transactional; either building autonomy or aligning to the organization’s vision). Now days, leaders are tasked with blending all the best ideas gleaned from research and combining recipe ingredients to match the circumstances. I hope some of you reading this blog will feel comfort for those days when you face unusual circumstances and you aren’t sure how to resolve the issue. It might be that you have to use a combination of elements previously thought to be contradictory, as we’ve just discussed.

Until next time, take good care.

Kotter, J.P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Lewis, F.M. (2006). Autonomy in Nursing, Journal of Nursing, 3(2), 2006

Nguni, Samuel, Sleegers, Peter, & Denessen, Eddie. (2006). Transformational and transactional leadership effects on teachers' job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior in primary schools: The Tanzanian case. School Effectiveness& School Improvement, 17(2), 145-177.

Rock, D. (2008) SCARF: a brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing others, NeuroLeadership Journal, 1(1), 296-320.