“Who Approved This?” — Initiative and the Limits of Your Mandate

Office, a problem affecting several teams. Olek organizes a workshop to find a solution quickly and get things moving.

— Let’s run a one-hour workshop tomorrow and solve this once and for all.
— Who approved the workshop and the process change? — Anna asks later.
— We solved the problem.

Olek sees responsible initiative. Anna also sees a change to how other people work — something Olek did not have the authority to impose on his own.

What really happened

Olek sees a recurring problem between teams and does something constructive: he organizes a workshop, brings people together, and they find a solution. From his perspective, this is exactly the initiative companies usually say they want. Anna sees the next step as well: the workshop did not merely produce an idea; it began changing how three teams work. Olek had the knowledge to start solving the local problem, but not necessarily the mandate to establish rules for everyone affected by the change. Success and boundary-crossing can therefore both be true at the same time. The conflict is not “initiative versus bureaucracy.” It is about the right to start a change versus the right to impose that change on others.

What the research says

Organizational research describes proactive behavior in which employees take initiative to improve how the organization operates rather than simply performing assigned tasks — taking charge (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). Such behavior can be valuable and is associated with responsibility and the belief that management is open to change. Good intent alone, however, does not determine who has authority to make a decision that affects other people. When responsibility boundaries are unclear, the same proactive behavior can be evaluated very differently — role ambiguity (Jackson & Schuler, 1985). The practical implication is not “stay inside your role.” It is that organizations should clearly distinguish initiating, experimenting, recommending, and approving.

How to handle it

Create a simple ladder of authority. For example: you can raise a problem and bring people together on your own; you can test something within your own area without approval; a process change affecting several teams goes to the decision owner; only after approval does it become the rule. Anna can then protect the wider system without extinguishing Olek’s initiative, while Olek knows where his mandate ends. The general rule is: a healthy organization does not choose between initiative and control; it gives people broad permission to start solutions and equally clear rules about who can change the rules for others.

How Empatyzer and Em can help

Empatyzer can help Olek and Anna see that initiative and mandate are not the same thing — and that their natural definitions of responsibility begin in different places. Olek has the energy to move a problem immediately; Anna also sees the effects on people and processes outside his field of view. Profile comparison and role context let Em distinguish the behavior worth encouraging from the point where approval becomes necessary. Before a similar situation, Em can prompt Olek: “Start the conversation and build the solution, but do not implement a rule for other teams without the decision owner.” Em can also help Anna avoid punishing the initiative itself and instead name the mandate boundary clearly. Micro-lessons help the team internalize a simple map: what can I start on my own, what can I decide on my own, and what requires a shared or higher-level decision?