Confessions of a Reformed Control Freak: Courageously Letting Go to Lead Better

I am not a courageous man. And letting go of control takes a lot of courage.

But I was lucky.

Early in my career, I had the opportunity to study under Verne Harnish (author of "Scaling Up") and an early lesson was the importance of core values. When I first encountered this concept through Vern, who had me read Built to Last by Jim Collins, I was hooked. The story about how Johnson & Johnson navigated the crisis of their Tylenol capsules being laced with cyanide by being guided by core values was inspiring. It was the adherence to those values that allowed J&J to respond with a commitment to customers, employees, and communities and come out on the other side being a leader in product safety. The idea that J&J could move through such a horrible attack with their public trust not only intact, but strengthened, seemed like a superpower.

I wanted that capability for my team at Wall Street Services, my first company in the recruiting and staffing space.

I had no idea what I was in for.

Where I constantly preached the importance of core values, I was wholly unprepared for my team to use those core values to point out the myriad of bone-headed decisions I made that were not consistent with our values. When it happened, I would begrudgingly accept the reality that was raised up, and shortly after, would acknowledge the brilliance of my teammates who saw the error of my ways. Gradually I started to weave curiosity into my thinking and strengthened my muscle of collaboration, asking questions before making decisions.

As I look at the struggles that business leaders face, I realize that the need for trust and autonomy I stumbled across reflects a broader challenge in today's business environment.

Leaders today face extraordinary pressures to perform in an environment where producing results is becoming harder and harder.

The complexities of the business environment are increasing at an exponential rate, as is pressure from competition, and employees are being more demonstrative of their desire for meaning and agency. Amidst all of these threats, executives are the ones who are accountable for producing these results and face tremendous pressure.

Some of those leaders are starting to realize that the complexity and pace of the world around them is moving at an exponentially faster pace and that they can't manage alone. The structure with them at the top making most of the decisions is slowing things down. In the press to make those decisions, critical details are left out of the analysis.

There is a pressing need to distribute decision-making, but business leaders remain accountable if things go wrong, creating a fear of letting go. Because of this reality, many hold on to the power, and are, justifiably so, afraid to let go, continuing the ever-worsening pattern of ill-informed decision-making.

When I first introduced core values, I immediately thought of Superman's sidekick Jimmy Olsen. Whenever Jimmy found himself in a desperate situation and Superman was busy saving Lois or removing Kryptonite, he had to step up and act. In those moments, in the absence of help, Jimmy would ask himself one question: "What would Superman do?" He would go through all of the things he knew Superman to be: brave, honest, strong, etc., and he would pick a path forward that was consistent with what he thought Superman would do. I wanted to give my employees that same tool. At first, I just threw the core values out there and just talked a lot about when I saw employees exhibiting them. But it was when employees started using the context of core values to question my decision-making that I saw their real value as a system of needed dissent.

So for those leaders who are looking to adopt structures that would allow teammates to shoulder some of the decision-making to improve the quality of those decisions, there will be a strong desire to grab a solution, perhaps something that has worked for others. This would be a mistake. I think it's important to recognize that processes for decision-making are highly individualized and specific to the organization itself. Leaders should therefore be wary of adopting a framework sold to them by a consultant and perfected in a different environment. Start off simple and create a few simple guidelines.

As a kid I attended a youth conference where a bunch of teenagers with minimal adult supervision would spend a weekend in a house in upstate New York. That might sound to you like a recipe for disaster, but we definitely had rules. More importantly, the organizers created a simple structure for making decisions that may or may not be covered by the rules; we were instructed to ask three simple questions: "Is it good for me, is it good for the other attenders, and is it good for the program?" If we could answer yes to all three questions, we had the ability to go forward.

And as we move deeper into the age of innovation and complexity, leaders might be wary of giving up control in the midst of so much confusion. The data backs up being courageous. Organizations that deploy distributed leadership structures grow faster, capture market share at a greater rate than command-and-control rivals. They also have dramatically lower overhead, up to 40% lower than command-and-control companies due to reduced management. What's more is that giving employees more authority increases worker engagement. According to Gallup, organizations with engaged employees are 21% more profitable, 17% more productive, and produce rates of customer satisfaction 10% better than disengaged rivals.

Where those results are exciting, it is important to recognize the need to start slow, build trust, improving what is working and cutting out that which is not. Avoiding the temptation to adopt a waterfall approach and do it all at once. This is a mistake.

Many organizations, like Bayer for example, try to make this shift without taking the time to create experiments and experiences where teams can learn how to operate in this new environment. This time to reset our thinking is a critical component in creating organizations where risk-taking can be a part of the operating structure. Culture is emergent, and where it can be cultivated, it cannot be dictated.

Another component in creating structures that lead to better decisions by team members is trust. Specifically, the trust leaders provide to teammates. If this seems like a stretch for you, perhaps something my mom taught me might help: She once told me, "No one wakes up in the morning wanting to do a crappy job and frustrate customers. We all want to be proud of our work." It is the structure (or lack thereof) that produces distrust and resentment. Unfortunately, most leaders are often blind to the structures that employees find so frustrating and cause discontent. When employees express this discontent (often justifiably) it comes across as disobedience and erodes trust.

Building trust doesn't happen on a specific timeframe. Instead, it emerges through experiences that show us there are different ways of working and incite our own sense of curiosity. One of the biggest ways to gain trust is to give it. With that, start small with controlled experiments on where teammates can have more agency and where mistakes will not be catastrophic. That will allow teams to build trust and competence in distributed decision-making.

If you're among the many executives facing burnout in these chaotic times, remember that you are not alone. It is not your fault.

We are all discovering that the leadership tools we grew up with are no longer enough.

But your colleagues crave meaning and agency from work, and there is great power in giving it to them. Start small, make experiments, and build trust. The results will make work better for everyone - including you. Especially you.

So go ahead, take a courageous step and start letting go. You might just find, like I did, that letting go takes less courage than holding on—and offers far more freedom and growth than you ever imagined.