How leaders can reduce approval-dependency at work (Part 2)
Approval-dependency crops up frequently in my coaching conversations, although people rarely use that term. They talk instead about needing reassurance before acting, waiting to hear the most senior opinion before offering their own, or worrying about the consequences of making a mistake.
It is easy to interpret these behaviours as a lack of confidence, initiative or leadership potential.
Sometimes, however, they may be understandable responses to a workplace in which approval has become closely associated with safety, belonging or progression.
That matters because approval-dependency is not only an individual issue. Organisational cultures and management practices can unintentionally reinforce it and weaken the independent judgement leaders need from their teams.
In my first article on this topic, How to reduce approval-dependency and trust your own judgement, I explored what individuals can do to develop a healthier relationship with external approval. This second, companion article looks at the other side of the equation: what leaders and organisations can do to reduce approval-dependency in the workplace.
What is approval-dependency at work?
The problem is not that people value recognition and feedback.
People need to know when they are doing good work. Recognition shows that their contribution has been noticed.
Specific feedback helps them understand what worked and what to repeat.
Constructive challenge exposes blind spots and creates opportunities to learn.
The problem begins when people become dependent upon approval to feel secure enough to speak, decide or act.
This does not necessarily indicate limited ability or commitment. It may be a reasonable adaptation to an environment in which approval appears to determine who feels safe, valued and able to progress.
Why approval-dependency matters for teams
When people become overly dependent on external approval, they may be less willing to challenge prevailing thinking, acknowledge uncertainty, raise mistakes or act on their own judgement.
Potential leaders also have fewer opportunities to develop confidence in making decisions for themselves.
Research on psychological safety helps explain part of this. Amy Edmondson and Derrick Bransby’s review of the field describes psychological safety as 'reduced interpersonal risk' and identifies leadership and learning behaviour as important themes in the evidence. This matters when employees are deciding whether it feels safe to question, admit uncertainty or speak about mistakes.
Neither this research nor the other studies cited here examines “approval-dependency” as I am using the term. But they help us understand the conditions that can make independent thought and action easier or harder.
How leaders can unintentionally reinforce approval-dependency
Organisations can unintentionally encourage approval-dependency when:
● standards are unclear and people are left guessing what good work looks like
● praise and opportunity appear to depend upon pleasing a few senior people
● disagreement is treated as disloyalty
● mistakes are punished or concealed rather than examined
● managers provide answers before asking employees for their assessment.
In these conditions, watching those above you carefully may be a sensible strategy. If approval appears to signal safety or progression, people have good reason to try to secure it and avoid its withdrawal.
Leaders can then reinforce the pattern without intending to. An employee asks for reassurance, the manager supplies the answer and the work moves forward. It feels efficient. But the employee has had no opportunity to exercise and strengthen their own judgement, so they are more likely to ask again.
Research helps explain why the environment matters.
A 2026 meta-analysis of 192 workplace studies found that employees’ perceptions of support from workplace leaders were associated with greater satisfaction of three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence and relatedness - a sense of connection and belonging. These, in turn, were associated with more autonomous motivation and positive workplace outcomes. The authors are careful not to claim that all these relationships are necessarily causal, and we should be too.
Self-determination theory also distinguishes between autonomous and controlled motivation. This is useful when thinking about recognition. Feedback can help people understand their competence; the risk comes when a person’s confidence, belonging or willingness to act becomes too dependent upon securing another's approval.
The answer is therefore not less recognition or support. It is support that helps people get better at assessing their own work and exercising their own judgement.
Three ways leaders can reduce approval-dependency
Give people clear standards, expectations and decision-making principles.
If employees understand what they are trying to achieve and what good judgement involves, they have a stronger basis on which to assess and improve their own work.
They are less likely to keep asking, “Is this what you want?” because they can form a view of their own.
Clarity makes feedback less personal. The conversation becomes less about whether the leader approves of the person and more about how well the work meets an agreed objective.
This does not mean prescribing every action. People need enough clarity to make sound decisions and enough freedom to make them within appropriate boundaries.
Explain what worked, why it mattered and what the person should continue doing.
Vague praise is easy to give but teaches very little. Vague criticism creates uncertainty without showing someone how to improve.
Instead of just saying, “Great job”, identify the judgement, behaviour or skill that made the work effective.
When something needs to change, describe the behaviour and its effect, then agree what better would look like. This separates useful information about the work from a general judgement of the person.
Over time, specific feedback can also help employees develop stronger internal standards. They become better equipped to recognise effective work without constantly seeking reassurance that somebody else approves of it.
Give people meaningful responsibility and appropriate freedom to exercise it. Invite disagreement and recognise considered judgement, including sensible risks that do not always produce the hoped-for result. When someone asks for your view, consider asking for theirs first, in a warm, curious tone of voice:
“What is your assessment?”
“What evidence have you considered?”
“What do you recommend?”
The purpose is not to withhold help or catch the person out. It is to encourage them to examine the evidence and articulate a considered recommendation before deferring to yours.
Where appropriate, let them act on that recommendation and learn from the result.
Autonomy does not mean removing legitimate oversight, ignoring risk or asking people to make decisions beyond their authority or expertise. It means giving them as much genuine scope for judgement as the situation reasonably allows.
Confidence in our judgement grows partly through having opportunities to use it.
Good leaders can acknowledge contribution generously without making themselves the sole source of confidence, judgement or permission.
How to build confidence without creating dependency
Reducing approval-dependency does not mean giving employees less support, recognition or feedback. It means providing them in ways that strengthen clarity, competence and autonomy.
Individuals also have responsibility.
As I explored in Part 1, they can learn to assess themselves honestly, remain open to evidence and feedback, and trust their own judgement without assuming they are always right.
But the environment needs to give them space and opportunities to practise.
Individual development and leadership practice need to work together.
Can employee training reduce approval-dependency?
Training can help individuals develop confidence, stronger internal standards and greater trust in their own judgement. But it cannot compensate for management practices or an organisational culture that continually reinforces dependency.
Make Your Mark for Teams supports the individual side of that equation. It helps employees develop a stronger internal foundation for confidence, assess themselves constructively and communicate their thinking with greater confidence and clarity. The programme is independently CPD-certified.
It cannot, on its own, change an organisational culture or the way people lead. But combined with an environment that encourages independent thought, constructive challenge and appropriate autonomy, it can help them make fuller use of their judgement.
If you want to help your people become less dependent on external approval and more confident in exercising their own judgement, book a call with me to explore whether Make Your Mark for Teams could be a good fit for your organisation.
The Business Voice Coach
Sources
Martin S. Hagger and Kaylyn McAnally Star (2026), Self-Determination Theory and Workplace Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis, Stress and Health. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.70151
Amy C. Edmondson and Derrick P. Bransby (2023), Psychological Safety Comes of Age: Observed Themes in an Established Literature, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-055217
Edward L. Deci, Anja H. Olafsen and Richard M. Ryan (2017), Self-Determination Theory in Work Organizations: The State of a Science, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108
Comments