The Tannenbaum-Schmidt Continuum – how ‘bossy’ should a boss be?
Library → Models and frameworks → Tannenbaum-Schmidt continuum of manager control
No, it’s not a Rick & Morty episode. Instead, the Tannenbaum-Schmidt Continuum illustrates a spectrum of control from manager, from this most dictatorial micro-manager to the most lassiez-faire Claire.
First introduced by Robert Tannenbaum and Warren H. Schmidt in 1958, the Tannenbaum-Schmidt Continuum is a powerful, yet understated model that outlines a spectrum of leadership behaviors. This model teaches us that quality leadership isn't a rigid ruleset, but rather a fluid system, shifting based on a multitude of factors – so, as always, being able to adapt our leadership style is a crucial skill. As we’ll soon see, different degrees of team delegation are called for under different circumstances.
But let’s start by taking a look at the famous diagram.
Diagram: the Tannenbaum-Schmidt Continuum
O Tannenbaum, O Tannenbaum…
At one end of the continuum, we find the autocratic leadership style. Here, the leader makes decisions without seeking input from team members. They are the final authority and their word is law, while employees have no freedom to influence the process. This style is beneficial in high-stakes, time-sensitive situations where swift decision-making is critical.
Yet, swing to the opposite end of the continuum and you'll encounter a totally democratic leadership style. Democratic leaders actively involve their teams in the decision-making process - and might not even participate in it themselves. This style fosters a sense of ownership and involvement among team members, resulting in increased morale and productivity.
Between these two extremes, Tannenbaum and Schmidt describe five additional levels of leadership behaviors. They reflect the varying degrees to which a leader can choose to retain authority or to provide their teams freedom in decision-making processes.
Now, you may ask, "Which leadership style should I adopt?" Well, the power of the Tannenbaum-Schmidt Continuum is its emphasis on adaptability. The model suggests that no one style of leadership is 'the best'. Instead, it suggests that effective leaders adapt their style based on the nature of the task, the maturity of the team, the organizational culture, and the specific situation at hand.
For instance, a seasoned team working on a familiar task might flourish under a democratic leadership style. Conversely, a team of novices facing a high-pressure, unfamiliar task might benefit more from autocratic leadership. The key is to analyze your situation and to flex your leadership style accordingly.
The Tannenbaum-Schmidt Continuum is not just a leadership model; it’s a call to leaders to embrace flexibility and responsiveness. It’s a guide that reminds us that our leadership approach should change, evolve, and adapt, just like the world around us.
Seven levels of delegation
1) Telling
“We’re going to Mars. Pack your spacesuits. Blast off’s in 5 minutes.”
This is the most autocratic style, where the leader makes decisions without consulting the team. This approach may be useful in emergency situations where quick and decisive action is required.
It’s also a common mode for controversial or disappointing decisions where employees may not be expected to be ‘complicit.’
However, this autocratic style can lead to a lack of motivation and engagement among the team, as they don't feel involved in the decision-making process. It may also limit creativity and innovation, since it does not encourage differing opinions. "I’ve ordered us pizza."
2) Selling
“We’re going to Mars – I hear the weather is gorgeous! And it’s so much closer than Neptune. So: any questions?”
In this mode, the leader still makes the decision, but takes time to convince the team about the benefits of the decision.
For obvious reasons, it tends to engender more goodwill than the ‘telling’ method. The leader should be confident they have more expertise or insight than the team, though, because despite a persuasive approach, decisions still come from the top. There’s no room for the team to contribute their perspective, which may lead to resentment (at best) or a massive oversight (at worst.)
3) Suggesting
“Folks: I’m thinking our next destination should be Mars. Let me talk you through a plan, and tell me if you spot any problems.”
The leader presents a potential decision as a suggestion, and invites discussion. This can work well when the leader wants to gently guide the team towards a decision, but also values their input.
Even though this style appears democratic, it can seem manipulative or a waste of time if the leader is not genuinely open to other options. It can breed distrust if the team senses the leader has already made a decision.
4) Consulting
“FYI, I’ll be planning our next interplanetary expedition shortly – I’d love to get everyone’s thoughts on where we might best explore.”
In this approach, the leader seeks the team's opinions in a more open format, before taking the final decision themselves.
This is best suited when the leader values the team's expertise, and wants to enhance morale and experience by involving them in the decision-making process. It also develops the team’s capacity at thinking strategically.
While this style values input, the ultimate decision still lies with the leader, which could potentially lead to disappointment if the team's suggestions aren't incorporated in the final decision.
5) Joining
“Crew, we need to have our next cosmic flight plan filed by next Thursday.
Can we work together to game out some options?”
The leader collaboratively makes the decision with the team, participating as an equal. This method works best in teams with high levels of trust, competence, and collaboration.
This approach requires more time and active involvement from the entire team, which might not always be practical or efficient. The biggest risk is that the manager’s voice still tends to loom large in the room. Consider reserving your opinion until everyone else has expressed theirs!
6) Delegating
“Squad, I need you to get our next expedition plan finalised.
Let me know what you decide - just nowhere that needs an interstellar warp drive, please.”
The leader passes the decision-making process to the team. This is a powerful approach for teams that are able to navigate disagreements, where an on-the-ground perspective is likely to is likely to give them additional insight, and the decision is within their area of expertise.
Delegating decisions to the team can be problematic if the team lacks the necessary information or experience to make a sound decision. It can also lead to inconsistency if different people make conflicting decisions.
And remember: although you may delegate the job of decision-making, the ultimate responsibility for the decision will remain yours, especially if there are unforeseen consequences.
7) Abdicating
“It’s been a while! Wh… Alpha Centurai, you say? Well, it takes all sorts, eh?
Let me know how it goes. Best of luck!”
The leader gives total control to the team without any input. This approach might be appropriate in very flat, autonomous structures, or when the decision doesn't significantly impact other aspects of work.
This approach risks decisions being made without a full understanding of their implications. It may also lead to a sense of disarray if no one takes responsibility for the decision, or a power vacuum if the leader is seen as too hands-off.
Key factors in deciding how much authority to delegate
As you flex your management style depending on the situation, bear the following factors in mind. Decisions that are high-stakes, urgent, divisive, subjective and require sensitive context call for greater involvement. Conversely, decisions that are ‘safer’, slower, amenable to consensus or data-driven approaches, and benefit from an on-the-ground perspective are a great fit for a democratic approach.
Your team’s experience, stage of team development, motivation and alignment with your goals should also be bourne in mind.
Use your authority |
Provide more freedom |
|
|---|---|---|
| Stakes | This is an irreversible decision, with potentially major consequences. | This decision can be walked-back if it doesn't work out, or the worst-case scenario is not particularly serious. |
| Urgency | A decision needs to be made very quickly. | There is no particular hurry to reach a decision. |
| Experience | The team has not encountered an issue this complex before. | The team has repeatedly and successfully addressed complex issues like this. |
| Knowledge | Solving this problem requires an organisational context or knowledge that only I have. | The relevant facts are well known (or within the scope of the team to find out) and can be discussed openly. The team is likely to a better perspective on this issue than I do. |
| Controversy | This issue is likely to divide the team, elicit strong opinions, and not have a clear answer. | Consensus or cheerful compromise is likely: either differing opinions are not be strongly held, or a widely-accepted solution is likely (e.g: an objectively 'correct' decision can be identified through data) |
| Values | The team and organisation lacks fundamental principles or 'rules of thumb' that can be applied to arrive at an appropriate solution. | The values and priorities of the organisation are shared and understood, and the team can be trusted apply them to novel situations. There is a consensus about what 'good' looks like. |
| Team morale | The team is new, unfamiliar with each other, avoids conflict, or is prone to resentment. There are cliques and few informal influencers. | The team is close, able to handle disagreements constructively, and respects one another's point of view. |
| Motivation | The team seems to be underperforming, is struggling with the current task/decision set, or making poor or slow choices. They don't seem invested in ultimate outcomes to the same degree I am. | This is a decisive and high-performing team that is highly motivated by end results. Our ultimate goals are aligned so they are likely to make the same kinds of choices I would. |
Note that there are some steps you can take to move along the continuum over time:
Take every opportunity to delegate complex decisions when the stakes are sufficiently low, so the team can develop their judgement and experience
Understand the tacit team roles in your team - if you’re delegating, teams may need a natural Co-ordinator with soft power who can help shepherd the group towards consensus
When using suggesting and consulting levels, be candid about your reasoning, certainty level, and how you reached your suggestion, so your team can understand how you currently make decisions
Don’t pretend to ‘consult’ or use a ‘joining’ style, if you’ve really already decided – over time, people will switch off and consider the process window-dressing. If a decision is almost done deal, and you’re just scanning for massive problems, say so, rather than invite a host of creative alternatives
Make your organisations’s values, principles and ‘rules of thumb’ explicit, so people know what a ‘good’ decision looks like
Use tactics from the ‘five dysfunctions of a team’ model to develop mutual trust and tolerance for conflict - these are crucial factors in a team’s capacity to deal with delegated decision-making responsibilities.
