Control and context are often seen as the opposites of each other. We might think that if we wanted our organization to be high context, we must necessarily lower the level of control. Or, to put it differently, if we wanted an autonomous team, empowered to choose how they solve a business need, we must stop telling them what to do. But is that always true?

What if control and context are related, but separate levers? What if there are situations when they could be optimized independently. What if by treating them as separate, we can design better organizations and avoid costly mistakes?

One of my favorite tools to use when I want to tease apart a seemingly indivisible concept is to throw the extremes on two orthogonal axes and see if they make sense on their own.

Looking at the image above, I can see that each of these four quadrants represents a possible real-life situation. I can even think of a few of my past jobs that fit in three of the quadrants. Let’s examine each quadrant and imagine what sort of place they could represent.

I. Low control, high context.

“We take risks and innovate towards a clear vision.”

Organizations that fall into this quadrant are characterized by a high level of autonomy afforded to their employees. Very few rules are necessary because everybody understands what’s expected of them and why — high context. And people are motivated to innovate and do their best work every day, without a lot of oversight — low control.

II. Low control, low context.

“We’re winging it.”

Working at a company in this quadrant could be an incredibly frustrating experience. Because despite the high autonomy that employees enjoy, the direction is not clear — low context, and it often feels like everybody’s just doing their own thing — low control. The progress is slow, and the future is uncertain.

But for the right person this could be a golden opportunity to step in, and make a name for themselves by clarifying the vision — adding more context, and leading the organization into quadrant (I).

III. High control, low context.

“Do as I say! And don’t ask questions.”

These organizations typically have numerous rules and regulations to help mitigate risk. The processes and procedures are elaborate and detailed, which makes them easy to follow — high control. But nobody understands the rhyme or reasons behind all that process — low context. And the risk aversion seems disproportionate to the amount and cost of risk.

IV. High control, high context.

“We follow strict rules to avoid costly mistakes.”

The organizations that fall into this quadrant often operate in a strictly regulated industry. Like health care or finance. The cost of a mistake could be somebody’s life or livelihood — high context. As the result, there are strict rules and regulations that everybody must follow. And the consequences of non-compliance are well understood, and often enforced by an external body — high control.

Which quadrant does your organization fall into? Does this quadrant make sense for your org? If not, what can you do differently to move it into a more appropriate quadrant?

Can you think of some areas of your business where a different quadrant makes more sense? How would you implement that?

Set Yourself Up For Failure

Control vs. Context