Autonomy without responsibility becomes disorder.

At every workplace, in every team, and in almost every relationship, there is a common complaint. People say they are not given enough freedom. Managers say teams are not accountable. Employees say leaders micromanage. Leaders say people do not take ownership.

Organisations create systems, reviews, dashboards, and structures hoping that performance problems will disappear. Yet despite all the processes, the same concerns continue. Which raises a difficult but important question: “Do people fail because of lack of freedom or do they fail because freedom exposes what supervision was hiding?”

This question goes far beyond leadership. It is a question about human behaviour.

Because the moment supervision reduces, systems loosen, or autonomy increases, the true nature of ownership becomes visible. Some people rise. Some people drift. Some people perform brilliantly. Some begin exposing the gaps that constant monitoring was quietly hiding.

The larger issue therefore is not freedom alone, rather it is preparedness for freedom.

Accountability is not a process

We have been conditioned to believe that accountability is something a manager “enforces” during a quarterly review. But accountability is not a set of metrics; it is an internal orientation. Most organisations discuss accountability as though it is a framework,It is not. Accountability is a character. And it is not restricted to offices, KRAs, review meetings, or appraisals.

It is a trait that manifests long before a person enters an office and persists long after they leave. True ownership is the refusal to outsource your failures.

A person who avoids accountability in small things will eventually avoid it in larger things. Which is why one of the biggest leadership mistakes is assuming accountability can be enforced only through supervision. Unfortunately, it cannot.

Supervision may temporarily produce compliance. But accountability appears only when individuals are willing to stand before themselves honestly. Therefore in leadership it is important to reflect on the questions like:

Can a person admit failure openly? Can someone say:

I did not try enough.

I avoided the difficult conversation.

I delayed what I knew had to be done.

I expected freedom without responsibility.

Very often, people avoid these admissions because acknowledging weakness feels uncomfortable. Some blame leaders. Some blame teams. Some blame systems. Some blame markets.

But nobody is absolved from being accountable. That includes leaders, teams and individuals.

Trust and monitoring

Leadership becomes difficult because every relationship operates between two invisible forces: trust and monitoring. Both have to be in balance. Too much monitoring destroys confidence. Too much trust weakens review.

The key is to understand when each of that is required. Many leaders silently reduce monitoring because they trust people. Many employees assume trust means absence of accountability. Both become dangerous.

Most people adjust to systems the way they buy ready-made shirts. The shirt may fit in some places and fail in others. But adjustment feels easier than customization. That is exactly how people approach growth. Very few people are willing to pause, reflect, and consciously shape their strengths. Customization demands effort. Self-awareness requires patience.

Which is why an important question emerges: “How much are you willing to own your own solution to yourself?” Most people want freedom. But fewer people want the responsibility that freedom demands.

Freedom without ownership is chaos

Organisations constantly speak about empowerment and autonomy. But autonomy without responsibility becomes disorder. At the same time, excessive conditions on freedom make autonomy meaningless. Which raises another difficult question: “If freedom comes with too many conditions, is it truly freedom?”

The answer perhaps lies elsewhere. “Freedom cannot be given to a person. Freedom has to be from within.”

Real autonomy begins internally. People who genuinely take ownership do not wait constantly for instructions. They understand intent and act responsibly, importantly they recognize consequences too.

Often organisations select people and fit them into roles without clarity on suitability. Then later everybody complains about non-performance. The issue is not only performance. It is judgment, Selection and role fitment.

One of the biggest organisational dangers today is incomplete capability. “People only know to fly. They don’t know how to land.”

Many individuals know how to begin. Very few know how to complete.

Organisations celebrate energy, enthusiasm, communication, and activity.But outcomes demand more than movement. They demand closure and responsibility. More importantly they demand capability under pressure.

No passenger would knowingly board an airline where pilots could take off but not land. Yet organisations repeatedly operate exactly this way. And somewhere within this reality lies another uncomfortable leadership question: “Do I have the skill to measure the skill of my team?”

Because leadership is not merely about trusting people, it is also about correctly evaluating readiness.

Leadership is not popularity

One of the biggest misconceptions around leadership is the desire to remain universally liked. But difficult conversations are unavoidable. There is nothing wrong in telling people what they are not doing. Being clear is not being cruel, Feedback is not disrespect.

Performance conversations are necessary because avoiding them only prolongs inefficiency.

Most leadership discussions focus on systems, structures, policies, and frameworks. But the deeper issue is often simpler. It’s about Character. Ultimately it is not a leadership issue, but a character issue.

Do people take ownership when nobody is watching?

Can individuals stay committed without constant supervision?

Can leaders review honestly without emotional bias?

Can teams receive feedback without collapsing into defensiveness?

Can organisations distinguish between capability and activity?

Can people stop living emotionally in yesterday while neglecting today?

These questions matter far more than most processes. Because freedom alone does not create excellence. Freedom simply reveals what already exists underneath.

(Sridhar Aranala is Chief Sales and Distribution Officer at The Hindu Group)

Published on June 6, 2026