To avoid stifling teams with bureaucracy, leaders should provide slightly less structure than seems necessary. This approach, described as "give ground grudgingly," forces teams to think actively and prevents the feeling of "walking in the muck" that comes from excessive process. It's a sign of a healthy system when people feel they need a bit more structure, not less.
Related Insights
To truly disconnect, empower your team with financial autonomy for problem-solving. Define a clear budget (e.g., '$400 per problem') within which they can act without your approval. This forces resourcefulness and prevents you from becoming a micromanagerial bottleneck.
To move beyond static playbooks, treat your team's ways of working (e.g., meetings, frameworks) as a product. Define the problem they solve, for whom, and what success looks like. This approach allows for public reflection and iterative improvement based on whether the process is achieving its goal.
Instead of avoiding risk, teams build trust by creating a 'safe danger' zone for manageable risks, like sharing a half-baked idea. This process of successfully navigating small vulnerabilities rewires fear into trust and encourages creative thinking, proving that safety and danger are more like 'dance partners' than opposites.
The CDO argues that one-size-fits-all structures are ineffective. He believes management's true job is to thoughtfully and dynamically create the right rituals, structures, and processes for each unique combination of problem, people, and timeline, rather than forcing teams into a pre-defined box.
Musician Jacob Collier evaluates groups on a 'supple vs. brittle' axis. Supple groups adapt to unexpected events, while brittle ones resist and snap under pressure. Leaders must create psychological safety that enables teams to embrace spontaneity rather than tightening up.
Instead of over-analyzing and philosophizing about process improvements, simply force the team to increase its cadence and ship faster. This discomfort forces quicker, more natural problem-solving, causing many underlying inefficiencies to self-correct without needing a formal change initiative.
Many leaders, particularly in technical fields, mistakenly believe their role is to provide all the answers. This approach disempowers teams and creates a bottleneck. Shifting from advising to coaching unlocks a team's problem-solving potential and allows leaders to scale their impact.
To encourage participation from everyone, leaders should focus on the 'why' behind an idea (intention) and ask curious questions rather than judging the final output. This levels the playing field by rewarding effort and thoughtfulness over innate talent, making it safe for people to share imperfect ideas.
Leaders readily design tangible elements like incentives, job ladders, and meeting agendas. However, they often feel uncomfortable with the idea of intentionally designing the overall "process" or "environment," fearing it's overly controlling or manipulative, despite it being a logical extension of their other design activities.
Counteract the natural tendency to add complexity by deliberately practicing 'relentless subtraction.' Make it a weekly habit to remove one non-essential item—a feature, a recurring meeting, or an old assumption. This maintains focus and prevents organizational bloat.