Response to Ellice M. Johnson

Indeed, manager autonomy in decisions such as hiring, appraising, and compensating subordinates is completely crucial for the achievement of departmental and organizational goals (Elbanna, 2016). In support of this conclusion, one of the best arguments is the following. According to Wong, Skerlavaj, and Cerne (2017), and rightfully so, leader-subordinate autonomy ensures the competencies of both are completely utilized in their jobs. But how does this happen? When a manager is hired, as the name suggests, he or she comes with a rich endowment of managerial skills—skills which will not improve, if not exercised. Furthermore, when they are granted independence, they feel the burden of expectation to deliver—this expectation, ultimately, drives them to excellence. As such, from a close consideration of these facts, it is inescapable that manger autonomy is entirely consequential for the success of organizations and improvement of employee competencies.

It is important to note, however, that autonomy should not be unchecked. The numerousness of documentations, the multiplicity of supervisorial levels, and the lengthy hiring processes, should not be removed in the name of granting managers autonomy—this would be a successful recipe for disaster. Significantly, these features form the substructure of organizations, without which organizations would crumble. Nevertheless, their seeming inefficiency should not, in the least particular, be attributed to a lack of autonomy; instead, a flaw in the system at large. In short, the good managerial autonomy is that which fits perfectly into the entire system—where managers are able to make independent decisions in hiring, appraising, and compensating subordinates, but within the established organizational structure.