Loose-Tight Leadership Styles: Balancing Autonomy and Control
Loose-Tight Leadership Styles: Balancing Autonomy and Control by Casey Reason, Ph.D.
Dr. Abraham Sagie is a well known researcher and scholar, and the originator of the concept of loose-tight leadership. In my ongoing exploration this quarter on leadership style choices, the model he presents is very informative to practicing leaders. Let’s explore what loose-tight leadership means to your style, and how you can apply what’s known about this concept:
Understanding Loose-Tight Leadership
Loose-tight leadership is a paradoxical approach that combines flexibility (loose) with clear boundaries (tight). It recognizes that effective leadership requires both autonomy and structure. Here’s how it works:
Loose (Autonomy):
Autonomy is the standard- Leaders grant autonomy to their teams, and the pursuit of that autonomy is the system’s cultural expectation. They encourage creativity, innovation, and individual, front line decision-making.
Owning goals, decisions and results- Teams have the freedom to explore, experiment, and adapt to changing circumstances. It’s not about being allowed to lead. It’s leading in a way where teams expect to lead and anticipate owning their decisions and the results.
Trusting, believing and growing as leaders- Trust is the cornerstone. Leaders believe in their team members’ abilities. Teams also believe in the leader, and ideally grow as leaders themselves given the benefit of their given autonomy.
Tight (Control):
The setter- Within this approach, leaders set clear expectations, goals, and boundaries. With loose structures, an individual or a team might embrace the vision and identify ways to add value. With tight structures, the leader makes those calls and tells others how they can and should make a contribution.
The checker- Tight leaders monitor progress, provide feedback, and ensure alignment with organizational objectives. Loose structures encourage individuals and teams to do the internal examination and evaluation of progress.
Accountability holder- Tight leaders consistently hold people accountable. Loose leaders expect individuals and teams to hold themselves accountable. In some organizations, a tight accountability holder is needed, because the internal standards are too low. In some loose organizations, the standards individuals or teams set are perhaps higher than a tight leader might impose, resulting in higher levels of performance.
Loose-Tight Leadership Style Decisions Matters because leaders will often struggle with decision points over just how loose, or tight they should be in any given moment. Trust, this loose or tight fork in the road is a crossroads that leaders must continuously monitor and evaluate. How loose? How tight? How come? All important questions. Over time it instinctually gets easier for the maturing leader who is better able to read the room and evaluate what's needed. Furthermore, a leader who gets to know the organization likewise is in a better position to evaluate both the system and the individuals within that system and their needs for loose or tight support. This level of maturation and knowledge of the organization is elevated however with knowledge of what it means to be in a loose tight system, and awareness as we are articulating here as to how to know and act on the differences.
When and how to be loose-tight:
Strive always for looseness- Every leader should strive to delegate, empower, and to provide autonomy as much as the receivers of that looseness and autonomy can accommodate. It should be the goal of every leader to grow and develop every employee to the place where they need less supervision, direction, and leadership oversight. This is the ultimate goal of helping every person in their position mature and evolve and continue to improve. Keep in mind, old historic models of leadership didn't necessarily believe this goal I have articulated here as realistic or appropriate. More progressive use of leadership understands that the aspirations of human potential must always be considered, and we must always try to help every frontline worker find the best within themselves, and ultimately be as loose as they possibly can to maximize both their work within the position, and their Overarching human potential.
Be as loose as the maturity of the individual and team allows- Leaders who are too loose with inexperienced individuals and teams who aren't ready to execute without support will find that the performance suffers. Conversely, mature and previously autonomous and work-ready individuals don't respond well to suddenly more constricting, tight leadership approaches. Once again, it should be the goal to always strive for maturity in every position, and greater degrees of looseness. However, a leader must carefully provide the loose approach commensurate with the readiness of the individual or the team. As the individual or team earns the trust of the leader and others from throughout the organization, the looseness is then earned and embraced as a cultural expectation. While openness and looseness might be an ambition of the culture in every progressive organization today, a leader must not leave inexperienced team members wandering alone in the woods when greater degrees of support are needed. After all, the research is clear that employees need more supervision earlier in their career, or in their tenure in their position (Sagie, A. 2004). Thus, the tight then loose structure is a proven evolution.
Get loose (Mostly) for creative expression- Slightly oversimplified, but conceptually helpful to consider, creativity requires greater degrees of leadership looseness. Loose leadership tends to allow for a bit more flexibility of approaches, potentially launching more unfiltered and potentially paradigm breaking approaches. The only converse to this axiom leaders might consider would be if they were leading a group of wildly undisciplined, creative contributors. Sometimes in those cases, getting tight might give the creative class the discipline and direction to potentially do their best work.
In times of chaos or toxicity, get tight- Even in largely loose organizations, there are times when chaotic or toxic behavior requires strong corrections, and very tight re-establishment of control . For example, if a team within an organization begins to really behave in a way that's inconsistent with the values of the organization, a tight reprisal by the leadership might be needed, with the expectation that looseness could be reestablished with appropriate followed measures.
Be situational in times of change- This can get complicated. Be tight as needed when there is legitimate urgency to change. Declaring that strategy and approach must change is a tight demand, and perhaps necessary, especially if time is of the essence. Getting clear about expected levels of performance that are non negotiable is yet another element of being declarative and tight. However, once the goal is established, to truly get the most out of everyone involved, getting loose about how the goals are reached, or the new strategies identified will create a greater chance for buy-in. Simply put, when people are part of engineering the solution, they are more likely to engage in a full-throated pursuit of the outcomes. Once again, the maturity of those involved will have an impact on the formula just articulated. And historically loose, high performing teams will likely come together and surf the wave of change with very little need of leadership imposition of tight structures. Conversely, teams that lack maturity may not necessarily be in a position to engineer solutions with the looseness observed. It truly does come down to the readiness of the team, and the leader's awareness of that situational readiness.
Conclusion: Orchestrating Harmony
Dear leaders, embrace the symphony of loose-tight leadership. Conduct with finesse, allowing your team to play their unique notes while staying attuned to the organizational score. Remember, leadership isn’t a solo; it’s a harmonious ensemble. 🎵🌟
Sources:
Sagie, A. (2004). Supervision for early career BCBAs. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 27(1), 86-901