Resisting Coercion and Conformity Demands a Conscious Design: Here's How to Get Started
Kim Scott is the author of Radical Candor: Be a Kick-Ass Boss Without Losing Your Humanity and Radical Respect: How to Work Together Better and...
2 min read
Kim Scott
Mar 24, 2023 4:22:39 PM
Table of Contents
A leader’s job is to ensure that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It seems it should go without saying that belittling each part is not a good way to achieve that goal. But too often bosses are not subject to checks and balances in management and attempt to gain power by minimizing and bullying the people who work for them.
Most workplaces allow this by giving managers up and down the org chart unchecked authority to make decisions that have profound consequences for their employees.
Traditionally, managers dole out or withhold resources; they decide who gets hired, fired, or promoted; they determine bonuses, who gets the plum assignments, who gets stuck with the grunt work, and so on.
When managers make all these decisions unilaterally, it is too risky for employees to challenge bias, prejudice or bullying, let alone to report harassment or discrimination; and so harassment and discrimination are more likely to happen.
Poor decisions are made. Employees are robbed of their agency. Managers are not held accountable. Results suffer, and so do employees.
If you don’t design your management systems for justice, you’re going to get systemic injustice — and hurt your ability to achieve results."
The answer is not to eliminate all hierarchy. Hierarchy is necessary for successful collaboration, to coordinate the efforts of employees, to help employees work better together. But when hierarchy comes with unchecked power, the predictable result is coercion.
None of this is inevitable. It happens as a result of the choices leaders make about management systems and processes.
You can bake checks and balances — management systems in which leaders are held accountable for doing their jobs well rather than given unilateral decision-making authority — into your organizational design, or you can design a system that creates mini-dictators.
If you do the latter, the unchecked power you’ve given managers makes discrimination and harassment, as well as failure, much more likely.
It’s worth repeating: if you don’t design your management systems for justice, you’re going to get systemic injustice — and hurt your ability to achieve results.
Much has been written about “empowering” employees. But there’s something arrogant about that framing. It implies that employees are lacking in the capacity to do great work and that the powerful leader must bestow skills upon them.
When really the problem is a management bureaucracy that has robbed people of their innate capacity for work and growth.
The goal of leadership is not to treat people as though they are lacking, but to recognize what they already have, and to create systems that unleash their best efforts rather than robbing them of their agency.
In other words, the most important thing leaders can do is to stop disempowering employees by giving too much unilateral authority to managers. Remember, it’s not your job as a leader to “give people a voice.” They already have a voice.
Rather, it’s your job to make sure their boss is not silencing them, or punishing them for speaking up; it’s your job as a leader to ensure managers are held accountable for soliciting criticism and rewarding the candor when they get it.
Research explains the reasons limiting the power of individuals so that teamwork replaces old command and control structures is so important for good performance:
The best way to make sure leaders at your company are not disempowering their employees is to create a system of checks and balances in management.
This means that no one person in an organization, including its CEO, should be able to hire, fire, promote, or pay another person without input from a team. And that team should be able to override the decision of the individual manager.
Read more in Radical Respect: How to Work Together Better.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Checks and balances in management are systems that hold leaders accountable for doing their jobs well rather than giving them unilateral decision-making authority. Without them, managers can make unchecked decisions about hiring, firing, promotions, pay, and assignments — creating conditions where bias, bullying, harassment, and discrimination are more likely to go unchallenged. When these safeguards are built into organizational design, better decisions get made, employees retain their agency, and results improve.
When one person holds unilateral power over a team, it suppresses dissent, silences diverse perspectives, and concentrates decision-making in a single point of failure. Research cited in the post shows that cohesive teams outperform collections of individuals, that high-functioning teams make better decisions than high-functioning individuals, and that teams where everyone speaks up outperform those dominated by a tyrannical manager or a so-called 'superstar.' Unchecked authority undermines all of these advantages.
The post argues that the 'empowerment' framing is subtly arrogant because it implies employees lack capability and need a powerful leader to bestow skills upon them. The real problem isn't a deficit in employees — it's a management bureaucracy that has already stripped people of their innate capacity for work and growth. The leader's actual job is to stop disempowering people by removing the systems that silence them, not to act as a benefactor granting them a voice they already have.
According to the post, the core principle is that no single person — including the CEO — should be able to hire, fire, promote, or set pay for another person without input from a team. Critically, that team must have the authority to override an individual manager's decision. This removes unilateral power from any one person and replaces old command-and-control structures with collaborative, accountable decision-making that reduces the risk of bias, discrimination, and poor outcomes.
The post makes clear that hierarchy is not inherently bad — it's actually necessary for successful collaboration, coordinating efforts, and helping people work better together. The problem arises when hierarchy comes with unchecked power. When managers are given unilateral authority without accountability, the predictable result is coercion. The solution is to preserve hierarchy while baking in accountability mechanisms so that leaders are responsible for how they use their authority.
The post reframes the leader's role sharply: it is not your job to 'give people a voice' — they already have one. Your job is to make sure their manager isn't silencing them or punishing them for speaking up. That means holding managers accountable for actively soliciting criticism and rewarding candor when they receive it. Creating psychological safety to speak truth to power is a structural and systemic responsibility, not a feel-good initiative.
Three ways to put this into practice.
Related reading
Kim Scott is the author of Radical Candor: Be a Kick-Ass Boss Without Losing Your Humanity and Radical Respect: How to Work Together Better and...
Edited By Brandi Neal. Flat organizations are often touted as the future of efficient work. But when you remove managers and collapse hierarchies,...
There are many different types of management styles. However, in the U.S., telling people what to do doesn't work outside of traditionally...