The Leadership Tightrope: Oversight vs. Empowerment
The Leadership Tightrope: Oversight vs. Empowerment
Knowing the difference can make or break your team
Whether you're managing a startup that's scaling rapidly or steering a late-stage growth company, finding the right balance between direct oversight and empowerment is crucial.
In my previous blog post on The Daily Dichotemies of Product Leadership, I explored different leadership styles and ways to enhance autonomy. Today, let's dive deeper into how psychological empowerment can drive motivation and productivity, and why knowing when to step in and when to let your team take the reins is key to your success.
A Circle Filled With Two Equal Halves
Picture yourself in two contrasting scenarios.
Scenario 1: Autonomy Without Guidance
Imagine you’re working in a fast-paced, innovation-driven environment where you’re given complete freedom to chart your own course. While it sounds ideal, you start to realize that the lack of guidance is more daunting than liberating.
The project’s goals are ambiguous, the structure is loose, and you’re left to navigate this uncharted territory on your own. You’re flying blind, unsure if you’re heading in the right direction.
The endless possibilities can become overwhelming, leading to decision paralysis. In such environments, the absence of clear expectations and support can leave you feeling isolated and uncertain, questioning whether your efforts align with the broader objectives of the organization.
Scenario 2: Directive Control
Now, let’s flip the coin. You’re in a scenario where every detail is meticulously planned out for you. Your goals are set with precision, your tasks are defined down to the last detail, and there’s little room for deviation.
You’re closely monitored, ensuring that you follow the established path without straying. On one hand, this structure keeps you aligned with the company’s vision, reducing the risk of errors or missteps. But on the other hand, the rigid control stifles your creativity.
You’re not just solving problems—you’re following a script, which can lead to a sense of disengagement. There’s little space for innovation or personal growth, as the directive approach leaves no room for your unique insights or creative solutions.
Striking the Balance
Finding the sweet spot between these two extremes is crucial for your development as a leader and the success of your projects.
Autonomy fosters creativity and ownership, but without guidance, it can lead to confusion and inefficiency. Conversely, while directive control ensures alignment and reduces uncertainty, it can also limit innovation and personal engagement.
The key is to navigate between these two approaches—providing enough structure to guide and support while offering enough freedom to innovate and grow. While there’s no perfect equation to understanding when to move into more direct oversight versus empowering teams, I’ve learned quite a few lessons from my many roles in the past, both consultant and in leadership, that can help you find your way forward.
Real-World Experience: From Individual Contributor to Empowered Leader
Let me share a couple of stories from my different leadership roles in the past that may resonate with you.
At Littlepay, a startup that started in small beach-side office in Geelong, Australia, but then grew to process over 100 million transactions a year, I began as employeed number six (6), a sole product manager and as an individual contributor for the team. Over time, I evolved into leading a team of five product managers. The company needed to scale and build capabilities beyond relying on me alone.
This role was a crash course in leadership. I had to switch between being hands-on solving problems with clients on the ground, then hiring more Product Managers to build a team team, learning to balance oversight with autonomy and empowerment. This was my first real taste of leadership, and it was a rollercoaster ride—one that taught me the importance of flexibility in management styles.
Contrast that with my time at Tier Mobility, a late stage Series C/D micromobility operator, rapidly growing across 200+ cities and multiple countries, with over US $300m raised in capital. Here, I move roles from Product Director to VP of Product, managing between three to twelve teams across various disciplines.
The scope was enormous, so diving into every detail wasn't feasible. Instead, I had to rely on my team's expertise and navigate and start with self-empowerment and autonomy as my default position, then only using direct oversight when I needed to critically course correct if we weren’t moving metrics.
It felt like leading a series of interconnected T-shaped teams, sometimes diving deep into one domain and then stepping back to oversee the broader landscape. It was a wild ride, but it was an invaluable lesson in managing a wide array of challenges.
Understanding Direct Oversight
Oversight, in leadership terms, involves closely monitoring and guiding team members' work to ensure they meet established goals and standards. It often includes setting explicit objectives, providing detailed instructions, and regularly reviewing progress. This approach is particularly effective in situations where tasks are complex, require precise execution, or involve high stakes.
For me, being in a financial services environment where accuracy is critical, using oversight for my teams helps prevent errors and ensures compliance with regulatory standards. When implemented well, oversight can provide the structure and clarity needed to achieve high-quality outcomes and maintain alignment with organizational goals.
However, oversight can become dysfunctional if applied excessively or inappropriately. When team members are micromanaged or scrutinised too closely, it can lead to diminished morale, reduced creativity, and a lack of ownership.
This is especially true in environments that benefit from innovation and flexibility. In these scenarios, overly stringent oversight can stifle initiative, limit problem-solving capabilities, and create a culture of dependency rather than empowerment. The challenge lies in striking the right balance—using oversight to provide necessary support and direction, while avoiding the pitfalls of micromanagement that can hinder team growth and effectiveness.
Understanding Psychological Empowerment
Psychological empowerment isn’t just about having the freedom to make decisions; it’s about feeling that your work has meaning, that you’re capable, and that your actions matter.
This empowerment ties directly into the core components of Self-Determination Theory:
Autonomy;
Competence;
Relatedness (or “Meaning”); and
Influence
The theory is that when an individual feels self-determined with full influence, they are more likely to take ownership of your work, leading to greater satisfaction and productivity.
Let’s dive into each pillar one-by-one.
The Role of Autonomy: The Freedom To Choose
Autonomy is a cornerstone of both psychological empowerment and Self-Determination Theory. It’s the feeling that you have control over your work and the freedom to make decisions that align with your understanding of the task at hand.
In a high-pressure environment, especially in growth stage or late stage companies where you want to ensure a product-led organisation where ‘bottom up’ ideas and execution matters more than top-down oversight, having autonomy can be a powerful motivator.
However, autonomy needs to be balanced with oversight. For example, in the early stages of a project, it’s essential to have clear goals and expectations to ensure alignment with the company’s objectives. As you build trust with your leaders, you can expect more autonomy, allowing you to exercise your judgment and creativity.
The Role of Competence: Building Confidence through Guided Development
Competence is another critical component of Self-Determination Theory. It refers to the belief that you can perform tasks effectively. When you feel competent, you’re more likely to take initiative and engage deeply with your work.
However, building competence often requires guidance, especially in a complex field like financial technology. If you’re working on sophisticated financial products, you might need structured training and regular feedback to develop the necessary skills. Initially, your managers might take a more hands-on approach, but as your competence grows, they should shift to a more hands-off style, empowering you to take more control.
The Power of Meaning: Aligning Work with Core Values
Meaning is about feeling that your work has significance and aligns with both your personal values and those of the organization. This sense of purpose is essential for psychological empowerment.
In the financial services industry, where the stakes are high, understanding the impact of your work on clients' financial well-being can be incredibly motivating. Leaders can help you find this meaning by clearly communicating the broader purpose behind each project.
While direct oversight might be needed to keep the team aligned with these values during critical phases, the ultimate goal is to empower you to connect your personal values with your work, driving sustained engagement and performance.
Relatedness: Fostering a Supportive Team Environment
Relatedness, the feeling of connection and belonging within a team, is the final pillar of Self-Determination Theory. It’s vital for creating a cohesive, motivated workforce.
In product management, where collaboration is key, fostering relatedness can significantly enhance team dynamics. While leaders can set the tone for a collaborative environment through clear communication and inclusive decision-making, empowerment comes into play when you and your peers support each other and self-organise around shared goals. This not only strengthens relationships within the team but also promotes a culture of mutual respect and accountability.
Influence: The Power to Shape Outcomes
Influence is about having the ability to affect decisions and outcomes within your work environment. It’s the sense that your voice matters and that you have a role in shaping the direction of projects and initiatives.
When you feel influential, you’re more engaged and motivated because you see the direct impact of your contributions. In a team setting, this means having the opportunity to contribute ideas, provide feedback, and make decisions that align with your expertise.
Leaders can enhance this sense of influence by actively seeking input from team members and involving them in decision-making processes. When team members feel their influence is valued, they’re more likely to take ownership and drive success.
When To Choose Oversight vs. Empowerment?
To effectively balance oversight and empowerment, I’ve found a super helpful model, called Situational Leadership: developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard in the late 1960s, and still applies to this day.
Their model recognises that there is no one-size-fits-all approach, allowing leaders to adapt their behaviours to suit the unique needs of each situation. They believe that your leadership style should vary depending on two key factors:
Competence, which is an individual’s ability to perform a task effectively. It encompasses their skills, knowledge, and experience related to the task or role. High competence means the person is skilled and knowledgeable, while low competence indicates they may need additional training or support.
Commitment, which reflects an individual’s motivation, enthusiasm, and willingness to engage with a task or role. High commitment means they are highly motivated and eager to contribute, whereas low commitment might suggest they are less motivated or uncertain about their role.
If an individual is considered “low” on both counts, then directive oversight is recommended with clear goals, expectations and even instructions on how to conduct the work. Conversely, a high performer that appraises themself high in both counts may simply need empowerment: a clear goal and some guidance only when necessary.
The interplay between Competence and Commitment creates a four-quadrant matrix, each requiring a different leadership approach, as shown in their diagram:
Low Competence, Low Commitment: In this quadrant, you need to be more directive, often referred to as “Telling.” Detailed instructions and close supervision are necessary as individuals may lack the skills and motivation to perform independently. Here, extremely high oversight is needed.
Low Competence, High Commitment: This quadrant calls for a “Selling” approach. While the individual is motivated, they still need guidance to build their skills. Your role here is to provide support and encouragement while also offering direction.
High Competence, Low Commitment: In this scenario, a “Participating” style is effective. The individual has the skills but may lack the motivation or confidence. Collaborative decision-making and providing emotional support can help re-engage them.
High Competence, High Commitment: Finally, in this quadrant, you can adopt a “Delegating” approach, which may be deemed the most ‘autonomous’ or empowered approach to use. Because the individual is both capable and motivated, you are allowed to step back and empower them to take full ownership of their work.
Hersey and Blanchard's research shows that adjusting your leadership style to the situation improves team performance and individual satisfaction. Understanding this matrix helps you tailor your approach based on where you or your team members fall, ensuring you provide the right mix of oversight and empowerment.
Final Thoughts
As you grow into your role as a product manager, it’s crucial to find the right balance between seeking guidance and taking ownership of your work. By understanding the principles of psychological empowerment and Situational Leadership, you can better navigate the balance between needing oversight and embracing autonomy.
As you grow as a product leader and are managing a team of individuals, you need to also think about when to apply situational leadership, depending on the commitment and competence of your team.
I encourage you to reflect on your current approach and consider how you can apply these principles in your daily work. Whether through seeking more autonomy, focusing on competence-building, or finding deeper meaning in your tasks, the right balance can help you unlock your full potential.
Ask yourself:
How well do you balance autonomy with oversight in your current role?
Are you providing or receiving the right amount of guidance to foster competence within your team?
Does your work align with your core values, and do you feel a sense of meaning in your daily tasks?
Are you cultivating a supportive team environment where collaboration and relatedness thrive?
When faced with varying levels of competence and commitment within your team, how do you adjust your leadership style?
What steps can you take to ensure that both you and your team members feel empowered and capable in your roles?
If you’d like to discuss how these concepts can be tailored to your unique situation, please feel free to reach out! Simply leave a comment below and I’ll get back to you as soon as I can.