Adaptive leadership and delegation: why top management declares autonomy but holds on to decisions

Principle and practice 

The InSummit 2026 survey shows a gap. Almost all respondents name, as a trait of the adaptive leader, the ability to build an organization that decides even in their absence. A large majority, however, wants to keep decision-making power for themselves, and a very high share want to keep the information too. It is the image of the bicycle with the training wheels off and a hand still on the saddle: delegation becomes apparent, people learn to ask rather than decide, and the decision level never moves down. Delegation without information is like handing over a bicycle that doesn’t work. 

The roots are historical. For twenty years the prevailing model was directive and hierarchical, with bureaucracies designed to keep control of what happens below. In a stable context, preventive control worked; today it produces slowness. 

What works 

The experiences shared during the event point to a few consistent choices. The first is accountability down to the last level of the organization, within a clear vision restated continually, in an environment where mistakes are allowed. Top management explains and re-explains where the organization is heading, and accepts that people’s decisions will not always match the ones it would have made. Deciding imperfectly, together with the team, is worth more than waiting for certainty, because not deciding is a decision anyway. Direction matters for another reason as well: according to Istat, among Italian companies using AI, the share naming no business purpose rose from 15.5% in 2024 to 33.4% in 2025. 

A technology company made the benefit of transformation tangible by giving people back part of the productivity gained through AI, with one working day less. An infrastructure group assigned the tools only to those who had completed training and tests, and technicians with no IT role built agents of their own within a defined perimeter. 

The second choice is deciding horizontally. In a media company organized by silos, leaving a match free-to-air or pay-per-view involves subscriptions, customers and advertising together. For years the decision ended up with one person, often in favor of whoever argued best. A horizontal mechanism sets out who takes part, by what criteria and who closes. A software company then showed how to challenge traditional estimates: a product estimated at three years was rebuilt in eight weeks by a small team, shifting the threshold of what the organization considers possible. 

Measuring delegation 

An organization produces what it measures, and KPIs on results alone do not make visible how decisions are made. Indicators are needed on three levels: the capacity to make mistakes and learn, the share of decisions taken where they arise without escalating, and the level at which decisions are made, with declared decision rights. Middle management is where delegation jams, and top management counts as much as the rules: if it overturns intermediate decisions, the organization learns that asking is the safer course. 

Generational turnover makes delegation urgent: a group with a significant share of managers about to leave renewed much of its top team within twelve months to set the organization in motion, and the middle layer proved the hardest part. The external scenario calls for it too: in an uncertain world risk is spread by diversifying markets and technologies, and a top team that concentrates every decision covers only a few directions. 

Cultural change is a medium-term matter, a horizon that markets and politics tend to overlook. In the 2008-2009 crisis, the largest and most procedure-bound organizations, which listened less to the outside world, were the first to fall. 

The courage to let go 

Someone teaching a child to ride a bicycle starts with training wheels, then removes them and keeps a hand on the saddle. The step is right, provided the hand comes off sooner or later. In organizations the hand often stays where it is: top teams say they want structures able to decide on their own, and meanwhile hold on to decisions and information.