When high performing teams begin to operate autonomously, the freedom associated with new responsibilities and authority may seem unclear. What can we do and what can’t we do? This is where boundaries become valuable because they help us define our authority clearly and thus allow us to make good decisions and take independent actions.

A boundary is a limit or dividing line. It is a border that defines a territory. For example, the line that divides our property from that of our neighbour’s is a boundary, and we know not to cross it when planting trees and shrubs. Because this boundary is clearly defined, we can make decisions on our property without fear of ‘overstepping our bounds’.

When a boundary is not clearly defined, people must attempt to decide for themselves where it is, and history is full of examples of how people have struggled over unclear boundaries.

Independent actions need boundaries so that people can take them with a sense of direction and autonomy and without fear of reprisal. The intent of boundaries in the team environment is not to restrict action but rather to create the responsibility and freedom to act. The old system narrows the boundaries, whereas today’s approach is to widen them.

During the onset of change, people need clear direction so they can act with freedom and responsibility. They are being asked to take on greater responsibility for the organisation’s success, but in most cases it will not be clear what that means. Just as people need specific instructions when starting a new job, they will also need clear guidelines for making decisions.

Historically, people have gone to work to perform tasks. Basically, people were asked to do what they were told. Over the last twenty-five years, however, the ‘tasks’ people are asked to do have evolved significantly. In business today, team members have been asked to become more directly involved in process improvement.

Helping people to clearly understand their roles in your business environment is critical to success. How should a manager or supervisor act in working with high performing teams? How should team members act? When should a team member make a decision, and when should that decision be referred to a higher authority? These are some of the questions that have been communicated to me from my clients.

Think about boundaries for a moment. In your work, do you clearly know the limits of what you can and cannot do? In what ways can boundaries actually give you more freedom? What boundaries could be clarified to make your work more focused and productive?

A research study we heard about demonstrates an interesting aspect of boundaries. A group of children were taken into an open field and told to play. The children huddled closely together, never venturing far from the group. The researchers then took them to a fenced in area and the children used the entire space, exploring the far reaches of the playground.

If we use this example and relate it to organisation behaviour, we can find parallels. When people are unclear about boundaries, they tend to ‘huddle’ in the safety of their known world or work space and its familiar structure and rules. However, if they are given boundaries that are clearly defined, the risk of venturing forth is less intimidating.

Perhaps the best example of this principle is demonstrated repeatedly by the work performed by problem-solving teams. When a problem exists in an organisation, people will complain about it, believing they have little authority to affect it. When management authorises a team to be formed to address the issue, the people assigned to the team are given well defined boundaries, such as time, money, and resources, and they are expected and free to act within those boundaries.

How do people in your organisation react when asked to take on more responsibility, given the kinds of boundaries (policies and procedures) that exist today in your organisation?

How do you think people would respond if provided clear boundaries (goals and resources) within which to take responsible action to get desired results? Why would they react this way?

A case study shows how an overly restrictive boundary inhibits progress. In a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility, a three year old self directed work team had been making great strides in improving its work process. The team was flying along at a speed that outpaced the rest of the organisation. When the team members needed to order a fabricated part for one of their new process improvements, they ran into a purchasing policy (constraint) that slowed them considerably. The cumbersome policy frustrated the team and was a source of considerable de-motivation.

Another case illustrates that difficulty of drawing the boundaries too wide. At a television station, the president wanted to move quickly to a team environment. He immediately created teams and asked all teams to set goals for their work areas, which would be shared with him and others on the management team. After waiting two weeks for any team to come forward, he was disappointed to learn that no team had created any goals. When questioned, some people reported that they just did not know where to start – they felt overwhelmed with the broad definition of their task. Others reported being fearful of setting goals that were too ambitious since they knew that the management team had a history of punishing people who did not achieve their goals. Based on the history of management response and a lack of knowledge on how to proceed, the teams chose to do nothing.