Advisor I Mentor

Sparring partner

Piotr

Kania

In many companies, it sounds the same:“We need more consistency.”“We have to standardize the way we operate.”“It’s time to organize the structure.”

These statements set a direction that almost every manager is familiar with today—whether they work in a corporation or in a company entering the next phase of growth.

Bringing order makes sense. At larger scale, it’s hard to operate any other way. More interdependencies, more teams, more risks. Common models appear, central systems, matrix structures, and processes that are meant to apply equally everywhere.

From the headquarters’ perspective, this is a rational move. It provides control, predictability, and clear frameworks. But from the point of view of a local manager running a business, a team, or an operational function, it increasingly means one thing: decisions shift upward, autonomy declines, and initiative must fit within a predefined form.

And that’s where the tension begins. Although the company operates more efficiently, people on the ground are asking more often:Does what I do still make sense?Do I still have any real impact?

Step by step, day by day, agency disappears.

At first, there’s no noticeable difference. Everything seems to work as usual. But over time, a new pattern starts to emerge in everyday decisions. More and more matters need approval, alignment with the model, or sign-off from someone outside the team.

The change doesn’t happen overnight. It’s not visible in email subject lines or boardroom slides. It comes in stages, via seemingly neutral but clearly directional messages like:

• “Recruitments require regional-level approval.”

• “We’re pausing local development programs—the central platform will launch soon.”

• “Support functions now report to central structures, not locally.”

• “A local service app? Let’s wait—there’s a global solution in the pipeline.”

• “Operational initiatives? Sure, but in line with the new organizational model.”

•  

Each decision can be logically justified. But together, they create a climate where managers increasingly feel:“I’m accountable, but I can no longer decide.”

Frustration follows. There are no outbursts or loud conflicts, but questions start to surface. Someone tries to spark a conversation, push for change, reclaim some space. Sometimes, they try again.

But when nothing changes, frustration sets in. Initiative fades. Ideas stay in the drawer. The team performs adequately but without true engagement. The company functions—but it’s no longer fueled by people’s drive, only by the momentum of the system.

This hits hardest for those who used to drive change—the leaders with energy, responsibility, and ambition. The people who want to lead, not just implement. And they’re the ones who eventually leave—not because of chaos, but because of order that robbed them of influence.

A leader’s role is not to follow procedures, but to take responsibility for people and the meaning of their work.

It’s not just a “top-level” problem.

This experience isn’t reserved for local directors or board members. The same dynamic plays out across the entire structure—horizontally and vertically.

Middle managers lose influence over how they shape their teams, define processes, or respond in real time. More and more issues must be aligned, fit to global standards, or simply set aside—“That’s not our call.”

Function heads, who used to create solutions close to the people, now implement policies and templates that come from above. Even team leads—those closest to day-to-day operations—feel they can offer less of their own input. Their voice carries less weight. Their agency ends at proper execution.

This process spreads slowly but steadily. And it’s not about formal structural changes. It’s about how people begin to perceive their roles. Fewer decisions. More reporting. Less “What can we improve?” More “Is this aligned with the model?”

And that’s when the most precious thing disappears: a sense of meaning and impact.Without those, it’s hard to talk about engagement. And even harder to talk about growth.

If we – as leaders – don’t take care to ensure our people feel they have impact, no one else will. And if no one else does, it will come back to us. Because soon, performance will suffer, teams will disengage, and motivation will be much harder to rebuild.

What can we do as leaders?

We can’t stop organizations from moving toward greater consistency, order, and centralization. That’s a natural stage of growth for companies that scale and want to manage complexity.

But we can influence how we maintain agency—our own and that of our teams—within that process.

That takes more than competent management. We need to actively seek out spaces where decisions can still be made close to the people. To remember that even in the most structured systems, there are still spheres of influence we shouldn’t give up just because “the company is changing.”

We can delegate not only tasks, but also responsibility. We can build a sense of ownership by clearly saying: “This depends on you.” We can talk not only about what needs to be done, but how to achieve it—on our own terms, within the limits, but with initiative, creativity, and accountability.

Now is the time for leaders who don’t hide behind the system but know how to turn its frameworks into team strength.Leaders who don’t repeat “That’s not allowed,” but ask:“What can we do differently?”Leaders who don’t wait for permission—if they know they can act in good faith and for the right outcome.

I once overheard a conversation between two seasoned managers. One asked:– How do you keep making things happen despite all the restrictions and corporate roadblocks?

The other replied:– Do it. Don’t ask. If you ask, the answer will always be no. But if you act, maybe you’ll get slapped on the wrist—but later they’ll praise you. That’s what happened with me. Now they use it as an example.

This isn’t a call for rebellion. It’s a reminder:A leader’s role is not to follow procedures, but to take responsibility for people and the meaning of their work.

So today, we should ask ourselves:How much real decision-making am I willing to give to my team?Where can I release control to increase engagement?How can I leave space for agency in what I do?

Because if we—as leaders—don’t ensure our people feel they have impact, no one else will. And if no one else does, it will come back to us. Results will decline. Teams will become passive. Engagement will be harder and harder to revive.

And then someone at HQ, looking at the numbers, will ask:“What happened here?”

The answer will be simple:There was no more impact. And no more leaders willing to fight for it.

Tips to Help You Stay in the Driver’s Seat:​​​​​​​

• Keep your influence where you can – Use your decision-making space and don’t give it up unnecessarily.

• Give your team real ownership – Delegate not just tasks, but decisions and responsibility.

• Foster a sense of agency through conversation – Ask people what they’d change or improve. Give them voice and space.

• Don’t always wait for permission – Act responsibly, but don’t fear initiative. It’s often better to apologize than to ask for permission for every step.

• Protect your team’s energy – Rather than stifling enthusiasm with procedures, find ways to channel it constructively.

• Lead the team—don’t just manage it – Be active, present, and engaged. Keep your hands on the wheel.