“Be More Independent” — Autonomy Without Clear Boundaries

After a project, at Karim’s desk. Karim gives Olek some brief feedback about the way he works.

— I’d like you to be more independent.
— Okay. I’ll ask less and make more decisions myself.

A few days later, Olek makes a major client decision without consulting anyone. Karim meant more freedom in day-to-day work; Olek heard a broader mandate overall.

What really happened

Karim wants Olek to consult him less about everyday details. But he phrases the feedback broadly: “be more independent.” Olek has no access to the boundary Karim is silently holding in his head, so he interprets the message more widely: ask less and decide more often for yourself. When Olek then makes a high-risk client decision without consulting Karim, Karim is surprised. Both are behaving logically given the information they have. Karim communicated a development direction, but he did not communicate a new scope of authority. The missing decision map is what creates the error.

What the research says

Research generally shows that autonomy at work supports motivation and functioning, especially when leaders give people genuine room to use their own judgment — often described as autonomy support (Slemp et al., 2018). Autonomy works less well, however, when employees do not know what they are actually empowered to decide and where the manager’s responsibility begins — role ambiguity. Meta-analytic evidence links role ambiguity with poorer functioning and lower performance, although the strength of the relationship varies by type of work (Tubre & Collins, 2000). Research on empowerment also shows that managers and employees can hold different views of how much discretion has really been delegated, and that mismatch can itself create problems (Humborstad & Kuvaas, 2013).

How to handle it

Feedback such as “be more independent” should end with a decision map. A simple version has three zones: decide yourself / consult before deciding / escalate immediately. For Olek, those zones might cover routine technical choices, changes that affect the schedule, and separate treatment of client risk. Independence then becomes observable behavior rather than a guessing game about what the manager meant. The general rule is: you cannot meaningfully increase someone’s autonomy with a slogan alone; you have to say which decisions are genuinely moving into their mandate.

How Empatyzer and Em can help

Empatyzer can help Karim see that “be more independent” sounds clear only when both people share the same map of decision boundaries. Olek’s profile may show a strong preference for autonomy and initiative, making a broad message especially easy to interpret broadly. By combining profiles with role context, Em can suggest a much better version before the feedback conversation: “On day-to-day decisions I want you to act on your own; if there is client risk, consult me.” It can even help map the three zones: decide / consult / escalate immediately. Olek gets real autonomy instead of room to guess. Micro-lessons reinforce the leadership habit of translating abstract phrases such as “more ownership” into observable boundaries of action. Empatyzer then does more than repair one conversation; it helps build independence over time without weakening accountability.