Built clear roles, ownership, and development plans for two direct reports at Honda, developing their autonomy across a complex multi-agency environment over two years.
→ Two direct reports developed over two years. Team operating independently across 18 markets.
Problem
My two direct reports, a Delivery Manager and a Digital Specialist, had no clear development framework or habit of structured feedback, and the line between what they owned and what sat with the agency team hadn’t been properly defined.
Context
I joined Honda as European Digital Platform Section Manager with these two direct reports already in place, working inside a complex multi-agency environment spanning 18 markets.
Business objective
Build a team with clear roles, individual development plans, and enough confidence to operate independently across that environment, rather than escalating every decision to me.
Customer/user objective
Both direct reports needed genuine ownership and development, not just task delegation, so they could grow into more senior responsibility over time.
Constraints
The multi-agency environment made role boundaries genuinely ambiguous in places, so defining them required real judgement calls, not just documentation of an already-clear split.
Stakeholders
The Delivery Manager and Digital Specialist directly, and the agency teams whose relationship boundaries with my reports needed to be clearly defined.
Research and discovery
I observed where decisions were escalating to me unnecessarily and where the agency boundary was creating confusion for each report, before defining anything formally.
Options considered
I considered keeping decision-making centralised with me during the supplier transition, given the stakes, versus having my reports manage both outgoing and incoming agency relationships themselves. I chose to support them through it rather than run it myself, since stepping in would have undercut the autonomy I was trying to build.
Prioritisation
Defining role boundaries and decision-making authority came first, since neither structured feedback nor workstream ownership would land clearly without that foundation.
Delivery
I put regular 1-2-1s in place for both reports with structured feedback rather than ad hoc catch-ups, defined role boundaries and decision-making authority for each of them, and created opportunities for each to lead specific workstreams, building their accountability over time rather than keeping decisions with me.
Decisions made
Supporting rather than running the supplier transition for my reports was the most consequential decision, it was higher risk in the short term but built real capability rather than reinforcing dependency on me.
Trade-offs
Letting my reports lead through the supplier transition themselves meant accepting a higher short-term risk of mistakes than if I had run it myself. I judged the long-term capability gain worth that risk.
Business outcome
By the end of the engagement, both direct reports were operating with significantly greater autonomy than when I’d started, the Delivery Manager taking on greater strategic responsibility and the Digital Specialist building strong technical governance ownership.
Customer outcome
The wider team and agency partners could rely on both reports operating independently, without every decision routing back through me.
Lessons learned
Building autonomy means deliberately not stepping in during high-stakes moments like a supplier transition, even though stepping in would have felt safer in the short term.
What I'd improve today
I would define role boundaries against the agency relationship earlier, before the ambiguity had a chance to create friction, rather than resolving it after it had already caused confusion.
