Agency in Learning

This article is part of the series on behavioral design and the DUDUR method .
You can find explanations of the common concepts here: Concepts in the DUDUR method .

A Safety-II perspective on freedom to practice

“We are now rolling out player ownership.”

This phrase is increasingly heard in municipalities and organizations. Activism has become a buzzword – the idea that employees should have the freedom to act closer to the citizen or the task.
But what happens when you try to roll out agency ?

For many employees, it feels like yet another reform from above.
For leaders, this can create uncertainty: How much should I let go?
And for management, it seems frustrating when the initiative is met with fatigue – even if the intention is good.

This article is about why this happens – and how to do it differently.

Activism is nothing new

The concept of agency – which Anders Trillingsgaard has conveyed and developed in the Danish context (https://www.ukon.dk/aktorskab/) – is based on the idea that leadership is created through interaction.
It is closely related to the DAC (Direction, Alignment, Commitment) framework (https://www.ccl.org/articles/leading-effectively-articles/the-dac-framework/) from the Center for Creative Leadership, which the Danish KKC (Direction, Coordination, Commitment) model is inspired by.
The basic idea is simple: that decisions become wiser when they are made where knowledge and reality meet.

In practice, agency is therefore not about “giving responsibility”, but about recognizing and supporting the responsibility that is already being taken.
People exercise agency every day: they solve problems, adapt, and make the system work despite shortcomings.

Without those adaptations, organizations simply would not function – and that is precisely the perspective that the Safety-II approach describes ( https://safetysynthesis.com/hollnagel-safety-ii-summary/ ) .

The real problem arises when management designs for Work-As-Imagined – the idea one has of how work is done – instead of Work-As-Done , the reality people actually face.

Then, agency is reduced to an initiative, a course or a campaign slogan, instead of being based on practice.

Actorship – freedom to be professional, not freedom to do everything

When I say that I work with agency, the same thing almost always happens:
People look a little skeptical and ask: “Agency – what does it really mean?”

Then I try to explain that it's about liberation in practice – but not as in total freedom.
I'm saying that we previously had a lot of control over people, and now we're trying to give them a little more freedom to use their expertise where the tasks are solved - meaning that decisions are made as close as possible to those they affect, and with as much professional judgment as possible.

But I often feel a skepticism.
People nod, but you can see from them that they don't quite believe that the release is real.
Because for many, the word liberation sounds like a promise that doesn't hold true – like something that ends up being controlled from above anyway.

That is why I prefer to talk about more freedom for professionalism – not as something free-floating, but as an opportunity to use one's professionalism for the benefit of citizens and with consideration for the community .
It is not a question of giving up control, but of leading differently:
To create a framework where employees can safely use their judgment and act in the situation – without having to ask upwards every time.

In short:
It's not about doing whatever you want.
It's about doing what makes sense – with professionalism and responsibility as your compass.

And there is actually considerable friction in the very words agency and liberation .
Partly because they are too abstract – people simply don't know what they mean – and partly because they arouse intuitive skepticism.
Many people don't quite believe that the release is real.
So before we even begin to change behavior, we encounter the first barrier: language.

Safety-II – understanding what works

This is not just a language problem – it is also a management problem.
In many organizations, experience shows that people often communicate and design based on how they think work is done, instead of understanding how it is actually experienced and performed – a pattern that is well documented in research into Safety-II and the difference between Work-As-Imagined and Work-As-Done (see Erik Hollnagel, Safety-II in Practice , Routledge 2015, and summary here: https://safetysynthesis.com/hollnagel-safety-ii-summary/ ).

Work-As-Imagined
The way work is described, planned and thought about in systems, guidelines and management plans.

Work-As-Done
The way work is actually done in practice – with all the adjustments, prioritizations and shortcuts that make everyday life work.

A simple example:
Most of us fool each other into thinking that we naturally don't reuse passwords.
Work-As-Imagined is that we of course create unique, secure codes for each system.
Work-As-Done is that we actually have two variants of the same old password – one “secure” for the bank and one “different” for the rest – and change the number at the end when the system forces us to.

It's not because people are lazy or indifferent. It's because the procedures are unrealistic and static, while reality demands that you make things work.
Real people solve problems because they want to.
It's the Will-Will reflex in practice: we do what we know works – even when it deviates from the manual.

When organizations discover that people are reusing passwords, they often respond based on Work-As-Imagined :
“They don’t know – we have to make another course or video.”
This is what I call the “If-they-only-knew” reflex.

But most people already know that you shouldn't reuse passwords.
They do it because the system makes it difficult.

If we instead design based on Work-As-Done – and remove the friction – by, for example, providing access to password reminder tools, single sign-on or biometrics, then we get the behavior we actually want: people using strong, unique passwords.
Not because they have been motivated, but because we have made it possible.

This is well documented in behavioral and security research, including studies from Google and Harris Poll, which show widespread password reuse, as well as recommendations from the UK NCSC and CISA to reduce complexity through password managers and single sign-on:
(https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/security-checkup-passwords-survey/)
( https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/collection/passwords )
(https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/single-sign-on-sso)

That's the core of the Safety-II mindset: understanding what works in practice – and building on it.

(Source: Erik Hollnagel, 2015 – Safety-II in Practice)
(https://www.routledge.com/Safety-II-in-Practice/Hollnagel/p/book/9781472423085)

Transferred to agency, we see the same shift:

• Safety-I involvement:
  “Now employees must take responsibility!”
  → Communicating: You haven't done it before – now you're allowed.
  → Creates resistance and insecurity.
• Safety-II role:
  “People are already taking responsibility – let’s understand and support that.”
  → Communicating: We see you – and we want to make it easier for you.
  → Creates trust and commitment.

From course to Tuesday morning

It's easy to talk about agency at a leadership seminar.
But reality unfolds on Tuesday morning at the daycare center, where the manager stands with a sick employee, two parents at the door, and a crying child.
There – in the midst of everyday life – agency is not a principle, but a necessity.

It is therefore not enough to roll out agency .
It must be anchored in the way the work actually takes place.

Work-As-Done – reality is not the manual

Let's take a concrete example:

Work-As-Imagined
A social worker receives cases, follows the procedure, documents continuously, coordinates through meetings and acts according to guidelines.

Work-As-Done
She calls the colleague in another department directly because it's faster.
She knows the shortcuts, prioritizes according to the citizen's needs, and documents afterwards - because there is no time in the middle of the conversation.

It's not laziness. It's judgment.

And that is agency in practice.

But because it doesn't look like the manual, it is rarely recognized as such.

Leaders do the same
Line managers assess every day who is ready for more responsibility and when rules need to be bent to keep momentum going.
They protect employees from unnecessary bureaucracy.
They improvise – and make it work.
Yet it is rarely called good management because it deviates from procedure.

The central shift

If we want more agency, we need to motivate less and design more.
People already want to.
Instead of increasing motivation, we need to remove the frictions that make it difficult to exercise the professionalism and responsibility they already have.

This is precisely the essence of behavioral models such as COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation) and the Fogg Behavior Model (B=MAP), both of which show that behavior only changes when motivation, ability, and opportunity meet.

(Sources: Michie et al., The Behavior Change Wheel (2011), https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-11-813
and Fogg, A Behavior Model for Persuasive Design (2009), https://behaviormodel.org/ )

Prerequisites for agency: Why people don't “just do it”

Most people want to do the right thing if the conditions are right. I call it the “Willing-to-Do-It-Reflex.”
If they don't, there is almost always friction – something that gets in the way.

The four types of friction

When agency does not occur in practice, it typically involves one of these – and each type has both a theoretical and a human basis:

1. Opinion friction – “I don’t understand why I have to do that.”
   Is about meaning and motivation – closely connected to self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci) and Helle Hein's research into meaning creation: What makes sense to you doesn't necessarily make sense to me.

When the meaning does not feel personal or relevant, the action loses its impetus.

In school contexts, we talk about relational competence – that meaning is created in the relationship between teacher and student (Louise Klinge).

(Both Helle Hein and Louise Klinge point out that meaning is not only found in the task, but in the relationship – it is through relational trust and shared purpose that commitment and responsibility grow.)

(Sources:
– Ryan & Deci, Self-Determination Theory (2000), https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/the-theory/
– Helle Hein, Motivation – Motivation theory and practice (2013), https://hellehein.dk
– Louise Klinge, Relationship competence – Teachers' and educators' professional relationship competence (Hans Reitzel 2017), https://hansreitzel.dk )

1. Safety Friction – “I’m unsure if it’s OK or what will happen if I fail.”
   → Linked to psychological security, which Amy Edmondson has researched for many years.
   Many organizations have tried to solve problems with knowledge – but discovered that it didn't help because people were still unsure about taking action.
   Safety comes before learning.
   And without security, you don't dare use your judgment.

(Edmondson shows in his research that teams with high psychological safety learn faster and make fewer mistakes because they dare to share doubts and experiences openly – see e.g. Edmondson, A. (1999): “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383, https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999 ).

1. Can-friction – “I can’t right now” or “I don’t quite know how.”
   → Not just about knowledge.
   It's about whether you can , have time , are reminded of it and have the right framework .

This is the type of friction that organizations have traditionally tried to resolve:
“If people don’t do it, we have to give them a course.”
But often management stands by and pours out more courses, while employees say they don't have time - and in reality it may be about something completely different.
Maybe the task doesn't make sense.
Maybe it just doesn't seem realistic.
Therefore, you are wrong if you think that everything can be solved with the can friction alone.

1. Hassle Friction – “It’s too much trouble or takes too long.” / “It’s not worth the effort.”
   → Often overlooked, but often the hidden brake on behavior – associated with Kahneman's theory of System 1 and System 2 thinking , where our brain chooses quick solutions when the task requires too much mental energy (Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow , 2011, https://www.danielkahneman.com/ ).

When something requires too much cognitive effort, we choose the easy way out – and even small irritations can have a major impact on behavior.
Many procedures are designed as if people have unlimited time and patience.
But in practice, complexity quickly becomes an invisible brake.

Frictions are rarely something people say out loud.
They are felt as small emotions – doubt, fatigue, reluctance or discomfort – which individually seem insignificant, but which, taken together, can paralyze action.
Therefore, frictions should be taken seriously, even when they only appear as a gut feeling.

When you “roll out agency”

When management says:

“Now you have to take more responsibility!”

…then employees can think:

“Didn’t we do that before? And what if I take the wrong responsibility?”

The message is intended as liberation, but is experienced as yet another reform.
People don't hear freedom – they hear risk.

And this doesn't just apply to employees.
Leaders also experience friction, but rarely talk about it:
“How much can I delegate?”
“What if the employee makes a decision I would have made differently?”
“Is it still my responsibility if things go wrong?”

If these questions are not answered, agency will never be secure.

Brilliant Basics – rye bread before the vet's night snack

You cannot take responsibility if the foundation is shaky.
Brilliant Basics – a concept that Morten Münster has made famous in Danish organizational development – is about getting the basics right before talking about change.

These are the practical and mental prerequisites that must be in place before professionalism can flourish.
Or to put it in everyday Danish:
You need to have rye bread and liver pâté in the fridge before you start decorating with the vet's nighttime food.

Brilliant Basics is about freeing up energy and resources: If people have to spend time every day finding logins, documents or decision-making paths, their energy goes towards survival – not improvement.

A simple question opens up insight:

“What are the five things that MUST work for you to do your job well?”

When you collect the answers, you get a clear picture of the actual barriers.

Often the solution is banal - but the effect is great.

Onboarding – where agency begins

The first few weeks in a job are crucial.
Research shows that good onboarding has a significant effect on retention, engagement and the quality of work – especially when it combines clear frameworks with learning in practice.
(Sources: Bauer & Erdogan, The Effectiveness of New Employee Onboarding Programs (SHRM Foundation 2011), https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/organizational-and-employee-development/pages/onboarding-key-to-retention.aspx;
Josh Bersin, Learning in the Flow of Work (2018), https://joshbersin.com/2018/06/learning-in-the-flow-of-work/.)

Here, new employees learn how the work actually works.
If they are only introduced to Work-As-Imagined, they quickly discover that reality looks different – and lose trust in the system.

A good onboarding for participation must show both the rules and reality – and create four connected prerequisites:

1. Brilliant Basics – the practical
   Systems, procedures, key people.
   “Here is the foundation – so you can use your expertise later.”
2. Work-As-Done – the actual
   Shadow experienced colleagues.
   See how they handle exceptions and use judgment.
   Talk honestly about work-arounds – not just about the ideal.
3. Actorship framework – what is permitted
   Specifically: What do you have to decide for yourself? When should you coordinate? When should you ask?
   “You have to plan the citizen visits yourself and adjust the daily schedule.
   You must coordinate when cases cross departments.
   You need to ask if the decision has financial or legal consequences.”
4. Psychological security – the enabling factor
   “You're going to come across things that don't make sense.
   When that happens, say it out loud.
   Your questions are feedback, not errors.”

None of these works alone.
Brilliant Basics provides direction, Work-As-Done provides realism, Actor Frameworks create clarity – and psychological security makes it possible to use it all in practice.
Together, they form the prerequisite for participation to grow.

Onboarding as a common foundation

When onboarding works, it not only makes new employees feel comfortable faster – it raises the quality of the entire organization.

There are two levels of onboarding:

• The common onboarding , which is about the basics:
  how to get your salary paid, what rules apply to vacation, maternity leave and illness, how to log into the systems, etc.
  It's all practical knowledge that removes uncertainty and enables people to act competently more quickly.
• The local onboarding , which is about the professional practice in the individual unit.
  Here you learn how the work actually happens – how to collaborate, prioritize and handle exceptions.

Both parts are necessary.
But the important thing is how it is done: receiver-oriented, not sender-oriented.
Onboarding shouldn't be a digital employee handbook.
It should give people what they themselves experience, what they need when they start somewhere new.
The more uncertainty we remove at the beginning, the faster people will be able to use their expertise – and the faster they will become real actors in their work.

Some municipalities are concerned that a common onboarding across municipalities will feel like a central “rollout”.
But it doesn't have to be that way.
On the contrary, a common, easily accessible onboarding foundation – e.g. small videos, short checklists and micro-modules – can create coherence without removing local freedom.
It just requires that the material is produced from the recipient's perspective and shows real employees from different administrations.

And even if it starts with the new employees, it can slowly spread.
When the material is available in small, modular pieces, it can also be shared with existing employees – as they need it.
You shouldn't overestimate how many people click in "just because".
But the mere fact that the material exists, that it is easy to find, and that someone starts using it, sets a movement in motion.
This is how an organization becomes more learning – not through large systems, but through small, meaningful steps.

Onboarding as a help – not as a task

When producing onboarding material centrally, it should be seen as a help, not as a new initiative that someone has to “implement”.
If the leaders think, “Oh no, not another video I have to watch,” then you have already lost.

The goal must be for leaders to think:

“Great – it saves me time and my new employees get up and running faster.”

Onboarding should feel like a relief, not a duty.
Therefore, what is produced centrally must be simple, concrete and applicable – something that managers and employees themselves experience as relevant in their everyday lives.

And it's important to remember that learning – even when it's something positive – costs energy.
It requires focus, time and energy to learn new things, especially when it doesn't feel necessary right now.
That's why we need to design onboarding as something that helps people get started, not as something they have to fight through.

The best learning doesn't feel like teaching.
It feels like help to succeed.

When good intentions meet everyday life

Many organizational initiatives begin with good intentions.
You want more responsibility, more trust, less control.
But sometimes the result is the opposite: confusion, resistance, or indifference.

This typically happens when you design for Work-As-Imagined – the way you imagine the work to be done – instead of Work-As-Done – the way it is actually done.
Because what looks logical on paper rarely fits the complexity people navigate on a daily basis.

And it doesn't just apply to acting.
This applies to almost all change initiatives: inclusion, well-being, learning, digitalization, safety.
When the solution is based on an idealized notion of work, instead of the practice in which it should live, friction arises.
And the longer the distance between Work-As-Imagined and Work-As-Done , the greater the resistance.

The SAFL model – from intention to action

The SAFL model is an extension of Morten Münster's AFL model ( Behavior, Friction, Solution ).
I put an S in front because all behavior happens in a situation, and it makes it easier to find and define the behavior.

The model is not used to describe the behavior that already exists, but to define the desired behavior – and find the frictions that stand in the way of it.

An example from everyday life:

Situation: A colleague calls in sick to a colleague. The manager is not at work.
Desired behavior: The employees who are at work assess themselves whether to call in a substitute - without asking the manager.
Frictions:

• They don't know how to do it (Can-friction).
• They don't dare because they are afraid of making a mistake (security friction).
  
  

Solutions:

• Create clear guidelines for when and how to hire a temporary worker.
• Create psychological security: show that it is okay to act within the framework.
• Use onboarding to show examples of good judgment in similar situations.

This is where the SAFL model shows its strength: it translates a desire into concrete behavior and makes it possible to remove the actual barriers – instead of assuming that people “just need to want it a little more”.

When leaders have friction but don't show it

Friction doesn't just exist among employees. Managers experience it too – but they talk about it less often.
It doesn't always feel "leader-like" to admit that you have doubts or that you think change is happening too quickly.
Many leaders have grown up with the expectation of eliminating problems, not having them.

That's why they may not say out loud that they are unsafe or that the pace feels too fast.
Some will even fail to mention it because they want to appear proactive – or because they hope for a promotion.

But frictions don't disappear through silence. They just become invisible.
And invisible frictions slow down behavior more effectively than any rule.

The Tempo Paradox

Changes rarely happen too slowly – they happen too quickly in relation to the security people feel.

I usually illustrate it like this:
I am afraid of both heights and water.
At some point I decided I wanted to overcome it, and I ended up jumping off a three-meter seesaw.
But if someone had been standing behind me and pushing, I would never have jumped.
I had pushed again.

This is how behavior works: pressure breeds counterpressure – a phenomenon that in psychology is called psychological reactance .
When people experience their freedom being restricted, an unconscious need to regain control arises – and the result is resistance rather than action.
(Source: Brehm, JW (1966), A Theory of Psychological Reactance , New York: Academic Press; see also overview here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8091958/)

We can remove frictions at a high pace – but those who must act must be able to do so at a pace they feel comfortable with.

You can't force trust or judgment.
You can create the conditions for them to arise.
When friction is removed, things actually go faster – but only because people themselves press the accelerator.

KKC – a common language, not a ready-made recipe

Many leaders have encountered the KKC model (Course, Coordination, Commitment):

• Course: Where are we going?
• Coordination: Who does what?
• Commitment: Are we in agreement and committed?

It is a solid and well-thought-out model.
The basic idea – that leadership is created through interaction, and that clarity about direction, roles and commitment makes collaboration stronger – makes sense in virtually all contexts.

In reality, Anders Trillingsgaard wants the same thing with KKC as I am trying to do with the friction perspective:
to make it easier for people to succeed together.

We just describe it from our own perspective – he focusing on the interaction between people, I focusing on the frictions that arise within people when they have to act in practice.
The intention is the same, and therefore the models fit together well.

But as with many models, the risk lies in how they are used.
When three words from a complex field of research are condensed into a management formula, the nuances can easily be lost.

And if you believe that the model should be followed slavishly, it can end up removing the very judgment and authenticity that good leadership is built on.

Skilled leaders already work with direction, coordination, and commitment – just not always in the same order, with the same words, or in the same structure.
They use their experience and relational understanding to find the balance that suits the situation.

From a Safety-II perspective, it is therefore not about implementing KKC, but about understanding and supporting the practices where leaders already create clarity, coordination and commitment.

And here KKC is closely related to the SAFL model.
Where KKC describes the organizational conditions for people to act together, (S)AFL describes the psychological and practical frictions that determine whether they actually do so.

• Course is related to opinion friction – when direction is unclear, people lose momentum.
• Coordination relates to ability friction and confidence friction – when roles are unclear or people don't dare to act, collaboration comes to a standstill.
• Commitment grows when frictions are removed and people experience that they can and dare to succeed.

Seen through the lens of friction, KKC becomes not just a management model, but a diagnostic tool:
When the course is unclear, we see friction of opinion.
When coordination lags, we see friction in ability and confidence.

And when commitment is lacking, it is rarely about motivation – but about the prerequisites not being present yet.

In this way, KKC and (S)AFL become two sides of the same coin:
KKC creates the language and structure for leadership in interaction, while (S)AFL shows how to remove the real barriers in practice.
Together, they make it possible to understand and strengthen the reality where agency is already exercised every day.

“Jane from the municipality”

When you sit inside the city hall, it is easy to think that the municipality is one unified organization.
But in practice, the municipality consists of many local realities.

A project manager once told me that she was on a home visit with a social worker.
When they entered the citizen's home, the social worker introduced her as:

“This is Jane – she’s from the municipality.”

That really says it all.
For those of us who sit centrally, it feels as if we are all the municipality.
But in practice, the "municipality" is someone else – often someone at city hall.

Therefore, there are also very different forms of agency.
At city hall, the framework is often more free, and employees can make many decisions themselves.
In elderly care, schools and daycare centers, the reality is much more regulated – with medication, documentation requirements, safety procedures and strict standards.
Here, acting requires courage, judgment and local leadership, because you operate within narrow boundaries where mistakes can have major consequences.

When talking about "release" in the municipality, one must therefore remember that it is not the same everywhere.

Freedom to be professional means something different in elderly care than in administration.
There is not one reality, but many local versions of agency.

Change Constipation – When New Initiatives Feel Like Old Ones

When you move between the different parts of a municipality, you can feel the difference in how changes are experienced.
From the perspective of the board of directors or city hall, new initiatives are about development and direction.
But in practice – in daycare centers, schools or elderly care – the same initiatives can be experienced as repetitions.

It is rarely resistance to change.
It's fatigue.
Fatigue over reforms that come and go, all of which begin with the best intentions.

For employees, it may feel as if management as a whole is moving in a circle:
First, you tighten up and centralize.
Later, we talk about freedom and trust.
And then the cycle begins again.

Even when directors and politicians are actually new, they are often experienced as new people in the same roles.
For most employees, it is completely irrelevant who is the municipal director or who is in charge of welfare and care.

It just feels like "management" is once again coming up with a new initiative to make them run faster - all in the best sense, but still with the purpose of getting more out of less.

But for employees who have experienced many shifts, it can feel like...

The management has come full circle – and ended up back at the starting point.

It creates a sense of repetition and a certain tired irony: “Now they just call it something else.”

Therefore, it can quickly feel untrustworthy, even if the intention this time is sincere.

I once said this during a workshop where I was sitting over lunch with a municipal director.

I said, a little too honestly perhaps, that it would probably be the most empowering thing he could do if he stood up in a short video and said:

“Sorry. We've tightened things up too much. It was with the best intentions – but we know it's been tough.”

He laughed and said that it wasn't him – he was new.

He was right, of course – but the employees didn't see the difference.

When you sit out in practice, it is still the “municipality” – or for some, the “management” – that speaks.

Many still remember the elementary school reform, where teachers' working hours were meticulously regulated.
Teachers' opportunities for agency were reduced – and this hit particularly hard in a subject group that had traditionally had great freedom to use their expertise.

When you talk about “freedom to be professional” years later, it can be hard to believe that this time it means something different.

The point is not that management should apologize for everything that has happened before – but that sometimes it requires a glimmer of self-irony and a small concession to create credibility.

Morten Münster has called it change constipation:
When good intentions accumulate in the system, but are not allowed to move into practice.
Not because people are against it, but because they have seen too many promises replaced by new versions of the same thing.

(The phenomenon is also well-known in research, where it is called change fatigue – a state of exhaustion and resistance that occurs when employees are exposed to many simultaneous change initiatives. See, for example, Bernerth, J. et al. (2021): “Change Fatigue: Development and Initial Validation of a New Measure” in Personnel Psychology, as well as a review article here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8708038/.)

Adjustment, not change

When organizations have experienced many reforms, one must be careful about talking about change .
For most employees and managers, there is no need for another new initiative, but for an adjustment to what already works.

Activism is not about starting over.
It's about seeing everything that already works – and building on it.
Instead of “rolling something out,” we need to support what sprouts from within.

We are not inventing a new way of working.
We are reinforcing what employees and managers already do well.
To make it easier to act with professionalism and judgment where the work actually takes place.

This does not require a new strategy, but a changed approach:
from controlling to understanding ,
from implementing to adjusting ,
from telling to listening .

When we do that, our shoulders slump.
People feel that it's not about changing them, but about helping them do all the good things they already do – and giving them slightly better conditions.

This is how you get energy in an organization:
not by picking up the pace,
but by removing the things that stand in the way of it being able to flow.

From plan to practice

When I say that agency should not be "rolled out", it does not mean that you can simply train the leaders in KKC and then let them implement it locally.
This means we have to do it in a different way.

Because of course you have to work with it – just not as a classic reform, where a new concept is sent out to the organization through PowerPoints and schedules.

Executive boards and leadership teams have an important role in supporting the process.
They can provide resources, create common direction, and help uncover Work-As-Done locally – one administration at a time and at a pace that you can keep up with.
It doesn't require large projects, but a willingness to listen and adjust along the way.

1. Understand reality

You understand reality by looking at Work-As-Done – how the work is actually done.
This is where you discover what already works and where there is friction.

When you help managers and employees describe reality, you also help strengthen Brilliant Basics : the practical and organizational frameworks that make it possible to use professionalism and judgment.
Brilliant Basics is not about inventing something new, but about removing what stands in the way of good things happening.

2. Create onboarding that brings the foundation to life

Once reality is understood and the foundation works, it must be made usable.
This is where onboarding comes in.

Good onboarding makes Brilliant Basics concrete in the reality that employees must act in.
It shows both the rules and reality – and makes it clear what you can do, what you must do, and where there is room for judgment.

The municipality can support this centrally by making the common elements – systems, rules, employment conditions and practical procedures – clear and easy to access.
And locally, you can adapt it to fit the everyday lives of people.
Onboarding is where the foundation comes alive.

It may seem a bit counterintuitive to say that you shouldn't motivate – and that you don't necessarily need to talk about agency to make it happen.
But if the framework is in place and the basics work, it will happen by itself.

It may also seem illogical to start with the very practical – onboarding – when the goal is something as complex as judgment and professional freedom.
But if the basics are not in control, nothing else can grow.
You cannot build a superstructure on an uneven foundation.

You need to have rye bread and liver pâté in the fridge before you start decorating with cheese for the vet's night snack.
Brilliant Basics is the foundation that allows judgment and professionalism to flourish.

Final reflection

Organizations can move quickly – but only if people feel they are being held, not pushed.
If you want something to go fast, you have to slow down the perceived speed.

External pressure – from citizens, politicians and the media – to deliver quick results can tempt people to adopt uniform solutions.
But in reality, liberation requires the opposite: patient adaptation.

The more we remove friction, the faster it goes – not because we're telling people to hurry, but because they become confident enough to act.

Ultimately, the Safety-II approach is about respect – for the professionalism, judgment, and responsibility that people already exercise.
When we support it instead of managing it, we get organizations that don't just react – but reflect.

More freedom for professional collaboration – for the benefit of citizens.