I also really like your separation of recognition and reward. Recognition may be the simplest. easiest thing to do. It takes no time and costs no money. And yet I meet many, many employees who feel that they’re consistently being undervalued.

Some of the debate about new leadership and employee empowerment has been about whether management is good or bad, whether we should manage less or more. And as you write structure and freedom are not mutually exclusive, quite the contrary.

Also I like your aproacjh of providing is structure over which employees have influence, rather than trying to control everything.

My favorite example of good structure is eXtreme Programming, which, paradoxical as it may seem, creates more structure AND more freedom than other methodologies.

I also like it because it’s the only methodology that has mad it a goal to make software development fun!

It’s not so much a specific manager as much as it is the entire philosophy. We have very clearly defined roles and responsibilities. Likewise, we are also provided the matrix with which to measure our success on any given task. Beyond this, though, we are left to our own devices to figure out how best to achieve those goals. So we have the structure of our tasks, but we are given the freeedom to achieve them in the way that best suites our own style. In my opinion, this breeds the opportunity for personal pride in one’s own work, and thus lending itself to each individual taking ownership of whatever is being done.

Added to this is recognition. This is a HUGE part of what can make or break a work environment. Management can “talk” all day long about how it is the people who make the company, but if they never actually show it then what good is it? I also think that this term is misunderstood, too. All too often we equate “recognition” with “reward”, and that simply doesn’t have to be the case. People know when something is just lip service, and when it is really heart felt, and we all want to know that what we are doing is appreciated.

Finally, management needs to provide the avenue for their employees to succeed. Not simply financially, but in every aspect of their jobs. We are encouraged to continually innovate our way of doing things, and we all work together to test the ideas that are put forth. Providing success can be as simple as listening to an idea from someone who is brand new and never worked in that environment before instead of squashing it. In this way, a fresh approach to a challenge is put forth, and that person now feels like a part of the team.

What this means to my particular environment is that everyone feels as though they have something to contribute to any given project, which in turn fosters a very positive work experience.

What is the difference? It is not so much a question of freedom v. structure at a project level, but of freedom v. structure at a role level.

As a tech lead on the “good” team, I have the responsibility to determine architecture and assign tasks. I also have the freedom to discuss with the project manager scheduling issues that are not technically part of my role. As a tech lead, I could assign a task and say “do it”, but I do not. I allow developers the freedom to discuss the design with me, which in trun, allows them to grow and ‘buy-in’ to the project.

On the “bad” team, people do as they please. Tasks are not scheduled and schedules are not tracked. If an overrun happens, it must have been an act of God, but never poor management. And so it goes. Developers handle requirements analysis, design, code, and test: stovepipe to a ‘tee’.

I believe a certain amount of structure is required. Documentation needs to be written and schedules need to be kept. Developers do not, traditionally, enjoy documentation, but it is a necessary evil for ensuring continuity and preventing the “hit by a bus” syndrome.

Structure and freedom are not mutually exclusive. Structure at a management level can produce freedom at the developer level. Is there a cost? Yes, nothing is for free. Do the benefits outweigh the cost? I believe they do.

I would like to ask you: Why do things work as well as they do in your department? Is it a certain manager, a certain way of doing things? What could other companies learn?

Also: What does it do for you and your colleagues to be in this environment?

I don’t think that it’s so much whether structure is bad or not, but how that structure is defined and implemented. Management and structure should be tools that create a process whereby an ultimate goal is able to be achieved, but all too often this is not the case. Structure and freedom are not bi-polar, but, as put forth in this article, related. Without structure there would be no freedom, only anarchy.