“One More Approval” — When Control Removes the Ability to Deliver

A meeting after an earlier implementation problem. Anna adds extra safeguards.

— The plan needs approval before we start. The final output needs approval before it goes out too.

A few days later, Anna asks Olek about the delay.

— Why is this taking longer?
— Because every decision has a queue now.

Anna wants to reduce risk. Olek still owns the deadline, but some of the decisions no longer belong to him.

What really happened

After an earlier problem, Anna wants to reduce risk and introduces additional approval points. From her perspective, this is sensible protection: if something went wrong, more control should make a repeat less likely. Olek is still held responsible for the deadline, but he can make fewer and fewer decisions without waiting for someone else. When the project slows down, Anna looks at Olek’s result while Olek looks at the approval queue. The core conflict is therefore: can someone be held fully responsible for an outcome when their influence over the route and pace of delivery has been reduced?

What the research says

Work psychology has long examined not only the demands placed on employees but also how much real influence they have over how the work is done — often described as job control or decision latitude. High demands are particularly difficult when people have little control over decisions required to meet them. This does not mean that control is inherently bad. In high-risk work, an additional approval can be entirely sensible. The problem arises when an organization reduces decision authority without adjusting the deadline, accountability, or expected pace. That can also increase role ambiguity and role conflict (Jackson & Schuler, 1985; Tubre & Collins, 2000).

How to handle it

Every new control point should have a named risk it is designed to stop. If the concern is client risk, there may be no reason to block every minor technical decision. The time cost also needs to be explicit: if approval takes a day, the schedule must include that day or the approver needs a defined response time. Karim’s question is useful: “What exactly are we trying to protect against with this approval?” The general rule is: the fewer decisions a person can make while remaining accountable for the result, the more carefully responsibility, deadline, and control must be aligned.

How Empatyzer and Em can help

Empatyzer can help Anna see that adding control after an error can simultaneously lower risk and remove the influence Olek needs to deliver. Profile comparison may reveal a tension between a preference for control and predictability and a preference for autonomy and fast action. Before changing the process, Em can prompt the leader with one key question: “What specific risk is this approval supposed to stop?” If the control is needed only for high-impact client decisions, it does not have to cover every small action. Em can also remind the team to define approver response times and adjust deadlines for the new queue. Team data can reveal situations where people formally own outcomes but have lost practical control over the path to them. Micro-lessons reinforce that control works best when it has a clearly defined risk and does not blur accountability.