"I aim to make myself unnecessary." I picked up that idea at 25. A manager should work to become unnecessary. The team should run fine without him. A lab study points the same way. Researchers had 300 management students run a three-hour simulation. They were split into 60 teams of 5 (Source: Lorinkova, Pearsall & Sims, 2013, Academy of Management Journal). Teams under a directive boss did better at the start. Teams under a boss who handed off tasks grew stronger over time. This isn't a field observation of working managers. It's a controlled study that isolates this one factor. A good manager isn't measured by what he does, but by what his team can do without him.
Does becoming unnecessary mean you're a bad manager?
No, it's the opposite. People often picture a good manager as someone who's always needed. He's there for every question. He's there for every decision. The study shows the reverse holds over time. Teams whose boss hands off tasks learn better together. They coordinate better. They build a shared view of the work, more than teams stuck under a directive boss. In other words, they learn to think together, not just do together. A manager still needed after two years has missed the point of the job.
Is directive management always the wrong call?
No. That's the real nuance in the study. At the start, a directive boss works better. The rules are clear. Decisions move fast. No one yet knows the team well enough to improvise safely. Over time, a boss who hands off tasks wins out. That happens once the team has built up enough shared experience. The team can then take on more, without slowing down. The choice isn't between directing and stepping back as an absolute. It's about the right mix, one that shifts as the team grows. A common pattern, not one fixed case: a manager takes over a brand-new team. He gains by setting clear rules in the first weeks. Then he loosens his grip step by step. The team grows more independent along the way. Never the other way around. The right mix gets set week by week, not once on day one.
What shows a team is ready for more freedom?
There's no fixed date. There are clear signs instead. Team members start solving problems on their own. They used to bring those straight to the manager. Routine calls get made without asking first. Mistakes get fixed inside the team, not sent up the chain. If those signs are missing, pulling back too soon removes support before the team built its own. You read the shift in the team's behavior, never on the manager's calendar.
How does a business leader put this into practice?
Three steps, in this order:
- Set the frame: give a new team clear rules in the first weeks.
- Step back: hand off more tasks as the team grows ready.
- Measure: judge your role by the team's freedom, not by your own presence.
This idea shows up in how Clean Power itself is built. The company runs four regional offices: Mont-Saint-Guibert, Flanders, Liège, and Hainaut. Each office runs itself. There's no head office that has to sign off on every call made on the ground.
Does this change anything for clients?
Yes, indirectly. A company that doesn't run on one boss handles an absence better. It handles a busy spike better. It handles a team change better. The client never feels it. A company built around one boss carries the same risk as its own teams. Everything slows down the moment that one person is out. An independent team doesn't notice its boss is away. A client should never notice it either.
Becoming unnecessary isn't a weak spot. It's the goal. At Clean Power, we build that freedom every day. Our teams work on the ground, across four regional offices. It's thanks to them that this idea holds up over time, not just in a leader's speech.
Contact us to see how this shows up in how your sites get followed up. Does your current provider depend on one single person to run well?
