There’s an idea in the western world that freedom is good, and following on, that maximising freedom maximises good and that restricting freedom is bad.

This idea is so ingrained in us that it can trip us up.

A well meaning, generous leader who wants to give a team the power to exercise their skills, talents and creativity might want to give them a lot of freedom to execute a task. But what if it turns out that isn’t the most generous thing to do?

Isn’t it generous to set your team up to succeed?

Could it be that curtailing some freedom of choice by providing a process, a framework, a recipe, a path to success is an act of generosity?

What if we say, “I’ve got a map that will get you to where you want to go, and I’m giving it to you.” … is that an act of generosity?

What if we add a bit to the end, “I’ve got a map that will get you to where you want to go, and I’m giving it to you, and I want you to use it“?

Is it generous to refuse to give someone enough rope to hang themself?

Way over on the other end is the iron first. Zero freedom to choose. Zero opportunity to make things better.

And so the truly generous leader walks a tightrope, for it is neither generous to give too much rope, nor generous to give none at all.

So how much rope?

Well, if it were easy everyone would get it right. How experienced is the team? What are the stakes; the consequences of success and failure? Are there feedback loops? How far into the future do consequences become known? Who is playing the game and who is watching them play? How complex is the task?

If you have a great tool for determining how much rope to give, and when, then I’d love to hear from you – rope me in with a message.