Distribute power and decision making
Wardley argues that once teams share the same map, they must also share the authority to act on it. "Distribute power and decision making" means pushing autonomy to the edge so that the people closest to the user need can respond to situational changes without waiting for central approval. Maps become a coordination mechanism instead of a command chain.
Why this doctrine matters
- Local autonomy beats central inertia. Teams that own their slice of the value chain can respond as soon as signals shift.
- Distributed decisions expose better options. When multiple teams experiment simultaneously, organisations discover new patterns faster.
- Shared power builds resilience. If one unit stalls, others can continue evolving the landscape instead of being blocked by a bottleneck.
Practices to embed
- Delegate authority with boundaries. Use maps to define the scope where a team can act independently and when escalation is required.
- Publish intent, not tasks. Leaders set direction by clarifying user needs, desired outcomes, and guardrails, leaving execution choices to teams.
- Create challenge forums, not approvals. Replace gatekeeping committees with peer reviews that test logic while preserving the team’s right to decide.
- Invest in enabling platforms. Provide shared services—identity, data, compliance—that make it safer for teams to operate autonomously.
Watch for anti-patterns
- Re-centralising control whenever something goes wrong, signalling a lack of trust.
- Granting accountability without providing the information or resources needed to act.
- Allowing shared platforms to become political levers that override local decisions.
Questions to ask
- Which decisions are still escalated by default, and why?
- Do teams understand the outcomes they own and the constraints they must honour?
- How quickly can a team ship a change that improves its portion of the map?
- What systemic barriers make autonomy risky or expensive?