Sridhar Vembu shares why giving employees more freedom can feel ‘chaotic’

Zoho founder Sridhar Vembu has shared his views on a workplace question many companies face: Should employees wait for instructions from their leaders or take the initiative and act on their own? In a post on X (formerly known as Twitter), Sridhar Vembu said giving people more freedom to take initiative can create an energetic but sometimes chaotic work culture. Employees may disagree strongly with one another and constantly feel that things can be improved. “There is always the gnawing feeling of ‘not good enough’,” Vembu wrote, explaining the trade-off between certainty and initiative in an organisation. Sridhar Vembu on why freedom can feel ‘chaotic’ In the post, Sridhar Vembu said highly metric-driven organisations often create a culture where employees wait for instructions from the top. Such workplaces can offer more predictability and certainty. However, he warned that this approach has its risks. “Unless the top always knows how to set the right course, the org can be lost,” Vembu wrote. On the other hand, an organisation where people are encouraged to take initiative can be less predictable. Employees with energy and strong ideas may disagree with each other, he said. “Seize the initiative culture” often feels chaotic, with lots of internal disagreements. There is always the gnawing feeling of “not good enough”,” Vembu wrote. Sridhar Vembu: 'Every smart programmer’ thinks they can do better The Zoho founder also used programmers as an example to explain why initiative-driven workplaces can see frequent disagreements. “People who are full of energy and initiative often vehemently disagree with other,” he wrote, adding: “I joke about this: every smart programmer looks at another programmer's code and thinks ‘it sucks, I can do better’!” According to Vembu, this is the trade-off companies need to understand when building their culture. A workplace can provide employees with comfortable certainty but risk losing their initiative. Alternatively, it can encourage people to take initiative while accepting the discomfort and disagreements that may come with it. Here’s the post shared by Sridhar Vembu"On org culture: Do people wait for instructions from the top? Or do they seize the initiative and run? Highly metric driven orgs tend to produce the "wait for instructions from the top" culture and there is more predictability and certainty in that culture. Unless the top always knows how to set the right course, the org can be lost. "Seize the initiative culture" often feels chaotic, with lots of internal disagreements. There is always the gnawing feeling of "not good enough". In a chaotic initiative-driven culture, the external environment (market) may have to provide the occasional discipline. People who are full of energy and initiative often vehemently disagree with other. I joke about this: every smart programmer looks at another programmer's code and thinks "it sucks, I can do better"! That is your trade-off in org cultures. We can provide comfortable certainty but lose the initiative or we can seize the initiative but keep feeling somewhat uncomfortable. In my experience, trying to square this circle: "we will have a highly disciplined culture of seizing the initiative" produces the worst of both worlds."