Time to Read: 4 minutes

Article at a Glance:

• Redmond uses structures designed to support freedom, ownership, growth, and contribution instead of control, compliance, and fear of imposed consequences.
• Controlling structures rely on rules, incentives, and punishments to manage behavior, while empowering structures create space for people to act from intrinsic motivation and grow through trial and error.
• This kind of structure only works when people are motivated by helpfulness, leaning into learning, developing self-awareness, and spending meaningful time in their Three Circles.
• Structure itself isn’t the enemy. The real question is whether a structure helps people do great work and develop their gifts, or just keeps them in line.

When you first started working at Redmond, you might have asked about rules.

And you might have been surprised to discover that while Redmond definitely has expectations, actual rules are few and far between and reserved mostly for safety. Meetings aren’t mandatory. Beyond safety requirements and basic professionalism, our dress code is pretty lax. Few people have clear-cut job descriptions, and almost no one “stays in their lane.”

It’s not that Redmond has no structure, We just have a different kind of structure.

‍

The difference is, Redmond focuses on structures that free people to do great work rather than structures that control people.

Why?

Empowering Structure vs Controlling Structure

Controlling Structures

These are the structures you usually think about when you think of “structure” at a typical corporation.

These come with lots of strict rules and blanket policies with no room for exceptions. To motivate people to stick to the rules, there are incentives for compliance and punishments for non-compliance. So, people are driven by the desire for reward and fear of consequences, rather than by the work itself.

Controlling structures come with some advantages. After all, they get results. With lots of clear structure, everyone knows what’s expected of them. People know exactly where to go for answers. There’s little question how to spend your time.

The downside is that these structures leave little room for growth, learning, or passion.

Caveat: Structure Isn’t a Bad Word

Does this mean that structure itself is generally controlling? Not always.

It’s called empowering structure, not a lack of structure.

Deadlines, for example, can be a controlling or enabling structure. They can be manipulative and force people to do work they don’t want to do.

Or, they can prompt us to eliminate distractions and perfectionism so we can finish and ship projects instead of endlessly fiddling with details.

We have few strict structures at Redmond (and quite a few loose ones), depending on what helps us fulfill our high expectations of our associates (aka, what helps us do great work).

It’s how you engage with the structure. It’s about the reasoning and result of structure, not the structure itself.

Empowering Structures

Empowering structures allow people to act according to their best judgement, for better or for worse. And that’s the point.

When there are no carrots and sticks, it leaves room for intrinsic motivations like a desire for growth, learning, and helpfulness. The work becomes its own reward, and people are allowed to show up as better versions of themselves.

Or…they don’t. This is also important information that we don’t want to hide. Empowering structures that allow people to show up authentically shows us who they really are and whether they are thriving here.

This is exactly what we’re going for at Redmond.

So, what do these empowering structures look like? Here are a few examples.

Understanding instead of punishment.

Instead of writing people up for being late, there might be conversations about the ripple effects tardiness can cause (like the rest of the team having to pick up the slack, lousy customer experience, etc.). In the long run, these are much more effective than a slap on the wrist.

Discovery Check-Ins instead of performance reviews.

Instead of performance reviews, we try to have Discovery Check-Ins with each associate every quarter so we can discuss and collaborate on their Three Circles, what they’re struggling with, and what they’re learning about themselves and their contribution. That leads to way more growth than a performance review ever could.

Collaboration instead of silos.

Collaboration is built into our culture, with lots of organically-forming conversations and focus groups that might involve associates from many different teams.

No one stays in their lane here. It’s totally normal (and encouraged) for associates to be involved in a few different teams and projects.

This works because it brings lots of different perspectives together so we can make and execute better decisions rather than all of us working in our own little boxes.

Three Circles instead of incentives

When people are motivated by the love of their work and the desire to be helpful, it’s silly to control them. You wouldn’t need to control someone who’s in their Three Circles because they can’t even stop themselves from contributing.

We Choose Great Work, Always

These structures take a lot more exploration, intention, and consciousness than traditional cookie cutter corporate structures, but they yield great work.

Empowering structures give people the room to be themselves, share their perspectives, try new things, change, jump in where they’re helpful rather than staying in a lane, and develop their strengths. We can also learn so much faster because there’s no fear of the hammer coming down if you make a mistake.

Creating a workplace where this is the norm, where we can trust each other’s intentions and do great work together, is part of the purpose of Redmond and elevating the human experience!