Teach a Man to Fish
Empowerment, a concept that on one
hand, according to Whetten and Cameron (2011) is meant to unleash the power of
a “pull strategy” so as to provide the freedom workers need in order “to do
successfully what they want to do, rather than getting them to do what you want
them to do” (p. 443); yet, on the other hand, as noted by Forrester (2000), it
is nothing more than “the stepchild of a grand heritage” that has been
dissected by minds such as Lewin, McGregor, Lawler, and Block only to be
finally declared by Argyris as “a loser as an organizational strategy” (p. 67).
As with any subject with such contrasting views, the reality rests somewhere
between the two. While Whetten and Cameron (2011) promote the advantage of
empowerment, which are akin to the ‘teach a man to fish and you feed him for a
lifetime’ philosophy, one with which I agree, Forrester (2000) recognizes some
men are quite content with being given their daily ration of fish, many of whom
I have seen; however, he does believe the documented difficulties with
empowerment stem from “six common missteps” during the implementation process
(p. 68).
Although empowerment has been
studied and promised organizations “more focused, energetic, and creative work
from employees” (Forrester, 2000, p. 67), “its actual practice is all too rare”
and employees are still left feeling alienated and powerless (Whetten &
Cameron, 2011, p. 443). Empowerment was meant to be the vehicle through which
workers gained self-confidence and energy in order to make decisions about
their particular tasks in order to provide a more effective functionality to
the overall organization (Forrester, 2000; Whetten & Cameron, 2011). The
struggle, as noted by both sources, comes from the root of the word itself,
power. Additionally, both sources articulate the various dimensions of
empowerment so that managers can have a better understanding as to how to
implement this strategy and have it be successful (Forrester, 2000; Whetten
& Cameron, 2011).
Forrester (2000) notes that when a
company decides to implement empowerment, the flattening process occurs too
rapidly such that a group of people once charged with and compensated more for
making certain decisions is hurriedly swept away enriching the lives of the
people below with more “time-consuming duties” and with less time to “carry out”
these demanding operations, often without added training (p. 68). Whetten and
Cameron (2011) define this inhibitor as “attitudes about subordinates” and note
that more often than not, the workers below the level of managers who were
swept away are “already overloaded and unable to accept more responsibility”
(p. 462). Likewise, they have not received any additional training, neither is
any contemplated; and, some of these workers may very well be described by
McGregor’s (1960) Theory X, wherein these
workers try to avoid work and do not show any initiative with their job (as
cited in Whetten & Cameron, 2011, p. 462). Whetten and Cameron (2011) and
Forrester (2000) both agree an understanding of psychological dimensions of
empowerment is crucial to a successful implementation; however, Forrester
(2000) believes the current approach fails to consider all five dimensions.
Self-efficacy, self-determination,
personal consequence, meaning, and trust, when used in concert, lead to both
improved performance for the organization and the individual (Whetten &
Cameron, 2011). Forrester (2000) believes managers narrowly focus and
oversimplify self-efficacy and the intrinsic rewards of competency and
confidence that follow. This limited application leads to “a stream of words”
that finds its way on to posters placed along walls of hallways, become catchy
slogans, or offer sage pontifications of “what a dedicated team can accomplish”
(Forrester, 2000, p. 69). Unfortunately, words alone can do little to affect
enduring principles like an employee’s sense “of the world and how it works”
(Forrester, 2000, p. 69). This is why the other four elements, feelings that
refer to “having a choice”, producing a result, valuing a purpose, and
believing in fair treatment, help translate empowerment into more than a buzz
word on a break room poster (Whetten & Cameron, 2011, p. 448).
Empowerment requires managers to
relinquish power; and, according to Forrester (2000) senior management often
does not understand what it is they are asking. Those being asked to “let go of
the reins” (Forrester, 2000, p. 70) or share power “often have a high need to
be in charge” (Whetten & Cameron, 2011, p. 462). Likewise, those to whom
power is to be given, as noted by Block (1987) simply do not wish to “take the
reins” (as cited in Whetten & Cameron, 2011, p. 461). Some men want to
learn to fish while others do not. The questions, according to Forrester (2000)
then become do we want to empower employees and do we want to increase their
ability “to get what they want for
themselves and the organization” (p. 74)? If the answer is affirmative, then
costs have to be considered. How much will it cost to unleash this promised “focused,
energetic, and creative work” and is there truly a reserve of creativity yet to
be “uncorked” (Forrester, 2000, p. 74)?
Whetten and Cameron (2011) believe
uncorking creative power is worth the investment as it leads to increasing a
manager’s discretionary time, expands knowledge and abilities of employees,
creates and exhibits trust between management and the workforce, increases
employee commitment, improves decisions, provides for efficient and timely
decisions, and helps coordinate work with managers and workers. Forrester
(2000) observes that far too often questions are not considered and empowerment
programs lead to nothing more than an expensive, problematic, complex, and long
process that results in “causing further cynicism among the employees who feel
the most helpless” (p, 74). Although both sources weigh the pros and cons of
empowerment, each agree empowerment is a viable approach when implemented in a
methodical manner.
As I reflect, both the text and the
article recognize the days of dictatorial leaders do not produce an environment
that fits with employees’ work-life balance and/or eliminating stress at work.
I do; however, believe there are some employees who are exuberant when given
the opportunity to take the reins through empowerment. There are also those who
are quite comfortable with the “dependency and submission” encourage by
bureaucracies and will resist empowerment by as much as thirty percent (Whetten
& Cameron, 2011, p. 451). Therefore, it becomes a balancing act for
organizations and managers to decide if empowerment is the answer; and, if it
is; then, management must be willing to relinquish, reward, and recognize the
benefits of empowerment and how it contributes to the company’s overall
success.
References
Forrester, R. (2000). Empowerment: Rejuvenating a
potent idea. The
Academy of Management
(3), 67-80. Retrieved from
Whetten, D.A.,
& Cameron, K.S. (2011). Developing
Management Skills. (8th ed.). Upper Saddle
River,
NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment