Contents

 

The Age of Empowerment

The following article was written for a client publication in response to a conflict between management and line employees both demanding "empowerment", but meaning quite different things.

The end of empowerment

One of the current concepts in management is empowerment . It is variously described and espoused by strange bedfellows. When carefully defined, however, the concept provides much less than meets the eye. In many cases empowerment merely shifts management responsibility to willing workers who then work in a frustratingly ambiguous environment.

Empowerment is supported by four constituencies:

The thesis of this constituency is that by giving wide decisions lattitude to managers and employees, one liberates a latent capability to exercise good judgment and the motivation to execute on decisions that one has made oneself.

A constituency of more senior managers exeriences frustration in getting lower-down managers to execute strategies. Tired of excuses, managers delegate (or abrogate, depending on your point of view) the authority to make the key decisions to the recalcitrant levels of management or front-line employees. This empowerment is accompanied by full accountability for results.

Line managers (usually mid level managers) are eager to receive empowerment. They feel that goals that are traditionally delegated to them come with too many constraints, and that they can achieve more with greater discretion and less oversight. To them, empowerment often means being able to run autonomously, redefining charters as the situation requires.

Lastly, there are people with memory. In many companies there were periods of management excess. Central corporate staff groups would write voluminous rule and policy guides that everyone was obliged to conform to without question. Daily absurdities abounded. Front line intelligence was routinely overlooked in the preservation of the controlled bureacracy. People who experiences this become fierce supporters of empowerment programs.

Strangely, the common solution betrays contradictory viewpoints. Senior management endorses the idea to motivate front line management; front line management endorses it to get rid of the yoke of control. A happy truce endures even though each party believes the program is the solution to the other party's inadequacies.

Our thesis is that when more closely reviewed, the concept is flawed from any point of view, and that unbridled license is not in either the company's or the employee's best interest.

Revisiting Occam

Our culture has an affinity for Occam's Razor; the simplest explanation is the most likely to be true. Nature, however, abhors simple explanations, making them available primarily to the gullible or to those in the pedagogical trades. To wit, you will find genetic codes wherein two genes have some biological expression, but also inhibit the expression of each other. The net effect is no expression. Enter a third gene that has the simple effect of inhibiting one of the original genes, which indirectly causes the expression of the other original gene. Our logical conclusion from observation is that the new gene has an expression rather than the true complex causal loop that exists. Nature has a sense of humor.

Our cultural sensibilities, whether it is the aesthetic for simplicity or some other human fashion, will forever blind us to a world defined by rigid physical laws and complex biological ones. Consider the case of asparagus. We know that eating asparagus has a very rapid influence on the odor of urine. For many years, the general observation of scientists was that this peculiar effect did not occur in the whole population. After feeding asparagus to many people and then discharging them to the loo, they found that some people consistently "stank", and others not. Therefore the theory of the "stinker" gene.

This theory held sway until a slight modification of the experimental design. Each subject submitted a urine sample to the experimenters, who proceeded to analyze it. By virtue of several people analyzing each sample, they discovered that everyone stinks, but some people are incapable of smelling the offending vapors. The paradigm that causes premature closure was modesty; one's bodily fluids should not be shared with strangers. The learning was the subtext; we still don't know the reason for the asparagus effect. We do know that modesty is a barrier to learning.

This is all prologue to a response to a discussion on empowerment. I believe we have a human aesthetic that gets in the way of clear analysis of behavioral systems. That aesthetic is the belief in the value of free will and choice. We hold this egalitarian value quite strongly, even in the face of other cultures that subordinate it to harmony, loyalty, or efficiency. Our belief in the value of awarding choice to employees creates a paradox.

Rather than treat the subject as an element in the domain of organizational behavior, I'll take it from the mundane point of view of an industrial engineer (which I am not).

Definition

When we use the term "empowerment", we typically refer to a category of permissions we give an employee to engage in constructive behavior not specifically prescribed by his or her job definition, standards, or company policies. We do not empower the bus driver to pick up passengers at each stop, that is a basic job requirement. We might, however, empower that driver to not stop or to deviate from the route under a category of circumstances that include life-threatening emergencies. We communicate a value to the driver that there are some thing that are more important than timeliness and predictability, including public safety. Thus, the driver is empowered.

The general domain of empowerment is that which is not specified in the basic procedures of the organization (by definition). We can specify categories of empowerment, such as:

There are probably more or better categories; these are just illustrative.

When companies issue statements valuing and promoting empowerment of employees, there is normally the explicit association of the set of permissions with a set of constraints, such as that the behavior have positive outcomes or not violate a set of superordinate principles.

The contradiction

Here's the rub. As we clearly define these categories of permissions and their constraints, we begin to construct a superordinate set of rules of contingencies that are themselves policies and procedures. If the employee does not follow the superordinate rules, he is as culpable as if he had violated a basic work procedure. Going back to our bus driver, if there were a life threatening situation on the bus (say a heart attack), and he merrily went about his route, we would hold him fully responsible for the consequences of not having broken the basic rules. The prosocial behavior is no longer optional, but prescribed as a contingency for a possible situation. There is no choice, the driver must do the right thing. It is no longer a "permission", but a responsibility equal to (or greater than) the responsibility of following the ordinary rules of operation.

As the company clarifies the conditions and domains of empowerment, it actually extends the bounds of the domain of rules, and actually reduces the range of empowerment. These additional categories of behavior are not optional, they are as required as the daily procedures are. Hence the contradiction: The greater the domain of empowerment, the less actual empowerment accrues to the employee.

There is little choice in the matter, although there may be judgment in creating on-the-fly processes (Which route should the bus driver use to get to which emergency hospital?). The true implication is that there is little discretion allowed to an employee except in creating a method for a situation where a method did not previously exist. Even the creation of on-the-fly process can be governed by guidelines or rules (The bus driver is not allowed to risk the lives of the rest of the passengers by running red lights en route to the emergency room), further constraining the illusion of free choice.

When the set of superordinate constraints is not made clear, such as in the dictum, "Make any decision you feel will benefit the business." The ambiguity creates frustration and perceived risk. The employees know that "any" is not a real permission, but don't have evidence of where the real boundaries are. They appropriately shy away from the risky domains. When clarified, the boundaries simply define a new set of resonsibilities.

Empowerment is a myth; there are only rules, contingencies, and standing policies to arbitrate among rules when they conflict. This is not to relegate the lot of homo subordinatus to that of automaton, but to point out the inherent contradictions in the topic of empowerment. Leaving out philosophical implications, the organizational utility of the concept of empowerment is minimal.

The paradox: the more empowerment the less empowerment.

Empowerment is a fashionable term in the popular business literature because is apparently addresses many organizations' inabilities to respond to customers and markets and to generally engage in efficient common-sensical practices. Companies find themselves constrained by bureaucratic systems and larded up structures, and unable to get products out or sales in the door. A common sensical prescription to this morass is to give blanket permissions to employees to "do the right thing", even if it breaks the written rules. Heroic volumes are written about companies such as Nordstrom or Scandinavian Airlines where employees routinely engage in spontaneous behavior benefiting customers, even when the particular situation has not been prescribed in company procedure. 1

Such examples are espoused, imitated, and prescribed in articles, speeches, and training programs. Following the prescriptions of management gurus, managers give blanket "empowerment" to employees (we have even encountered training programs that purport to teach managers to do this), including permission to violate management-written procedures in the interest of constructive results. This has two general consequences:

  1. The creation of a superordinate rule set. Following the logic stated above, the terms of empowerment are nothing more than a general rule set to which employees are expected to comply. As a rule set, employees are likely to find themselves criticized when they do not take advantage of the new class of permissions. It is merely the migration from an outdated set of rules to a set that makes sense in the current business environment.
  2. Interacting layers of rules. There are layers of rules that may contradict and paralyze employee initiative.

The rules of empowerment often make specific derogatory reference to the preexisting rule set. This creates the potential for two rule sets to coexist and be contradictory.

The basic rules and procedures of a company may cause a specific behavior system to be stable and self-replicating (such as sandbagging of performance objectives to name a common outcome of standard procedures). A new "empowerment" is introduced, which specifically requires employees to challenge rules, set stretch targets, become "market driven", etc. The employees, behaving quite rationally, compare the two rule sets:

Example: A fast-growing company experiences many quality failures that jeopardizes key customer relations. The company creates a position of Vice President of Quality, and begins teaching and preaching the virtues of prevention, process control, etc. The quality problems of the company continue while espoused allegiance to quality principles is high. The company hires a new Chief Operating Officer who simply requires the use of Hoshin Planning, and regular formal reporting of targeted process improvement activities. There was simply no way to avoid using quality methods without risking a "spontaneous public performance review".

In this company both the rules of quality and the contradicting rules of self-aggradisement coexisted before and after the arrival of the new COO. He did not root out the policies and procedure that blocked his quality agenda, he just neutralized their influence by his strong presence.

Having both sets of rules in the system, in addition to creating an ambiguous work environment, means that minor events may cause the switching of one rule set to the other. Neither rule system is stable. In the case of this example, distant plants worked under the old rule set, as they were not as carefully watched by the COO. When the COO promoted a general manager from one of those distant plants to a high corporate post, it was widely seen as endorsement of the old behavior pattern. 3

Most commonly in the case of conflict, the employee will hedge his or her bet and try to present appearances of conforming with whichever rule set a situation calls for. When employees become overtly aware of the contradictions in the system, they tend to become cynical (and post Dilbert cartoons on their office doors.)

In the common parlance of empowerment, rules should not suppress employees' best judgments. Often couched in the phrase, "The employee is the best expert on how to do his or her job", empowerment recognizes the employee as a rational sentient being. This is considered a major leap forward in enlightened management.

Such high-minded philosophy is not without its contradictions, however. Frederick Taylor, the father of industrial engineering, clearly demonstrated that employees, when left to their own judgment, will often work very hard, but inefficiently. In his studies, the employees worked too hard, in fact. A greater perspective was needed to make sure that the system worked efficiently and effectively; that perspective, according the Taylor, was the province of the process designers.

While Taylor's social philosophy (labor is a dumb brute class) is ritually reviled in management circles, his behavioral observations have received support, even from his detractors. Without benefit of analytic tools and data, the autonomous worker will not naturally fall into the most efficient or effective system. The autonomous worker will do his or her best, from the perspective of the task at hand, and pursue real or perceived rewards. This normally doesn't add up to the smartest way of doing things for the whole system.

Example: Scandinavian Airlines, under the leadership of Jan Carlson, formalized a concept of a "moment of truth." Such an event was a situation in which the airline's immediate response to a customer need could strongly influence customer satisfaction. Employees were widely empowered to do anything in their best judgment to keep a customer happy, including violating company rules and procedures. Commonly cited examples of employee initiative included spontaneous purchasing of refreshments for passengers awaiting delayed departures.

While such employee initiative no doubt bolstered employee morale and impressed customers, the cumulative effect of such random and uncoordinated acts includes:

The late W. Edwards Deming, while granting the motivated and educated worker more powers of reasoning, also concluded that employees typically do not have sufficient information or control over processes to do much more than "try harder". Given the systems that many employees find themselves in, Deming demonstrated that a frequent outcome of autonomous judgments is superstitious behavior and the introduction of process variability.

In one recent study, two industrial situations were compared, one with highly autonomous (empowered) work teams with large job purviews, the other with more constrained (rule-bound) with smaller job purviews and very tightly described rules of empowerment. The researchers compared efficiency, effectiveness (quality), and worker morale. Counterintuitive to the theory of empowerment, the more rule-bound work environment produced better product, more efficient work, more worker-generated improvement, and better morale .

When you pit the rule-bound against the empowered work environment, the rule bound wins (provided the rules are smart). When you treat them superficially, as bureaucracy versus empowerment, you typically get two adverse situations: bloated management on the one hand and chaos on the other.

Although typical popular literature puts these two approaches in opposition to one another, smart rules embed them into a reinforcing loop.

I would define the smart empowerment system in a somewhat hierarchical fashion, although it likely works rather dynamically.

Rules

Every work activity has a standard process . The process should be recorded and executed as similarly as possible across individuals and organizational structures.
  1. Every process has measures that track results and key process control indicators.
  2. For important "failure modes", contingency processes are specified .
  3. Every process has an owner who is accountable for process integrity and performance. The owner, together with users/participants in the process, constitute a process improvement team, functional affiliation is irrelevant.
  4. Team members are accountable for collecting data, periodically analyzing it, and developing testable improvements that will yield improved results or efficiencies and/or remove failure modes.
  5. A process has a performance target which lies outside of the current expected performance range (determined analytically, or by assignment).
  6. Each team member is responsible for understanding the primary purpose of the process and how it influences other processes.
  7. If ever a process demonstrates a high likelihood of failing, employees are individually and severally responsible for enacting the appropriate contingency to avert the failure or eliminate the effect of failure. If no such contingency exists, team members will create such process deviations with all due diligence and without waiting for management direction.
  8. All processes will support a company set of value-rules . Those that do not have an automatic (and reviewed) accountability to bring the respective processes within conformance.
  9. Decisions are ideally made by those with data and appropriate analytic methods, as close to the process activity as possible; Circumstances exist, however, that require senior managers to make decisions without full consultation of process teams.

While good decisions are typically make with wide participation, empowerment is not:

While the above definition sounds legalistic and a bit formulaic, it does embed the concept of sound and systematic process control with structured and directed employee-initiated responsiveness and improvement. The need for a special empowerment initiative is precluded by defining process control in a way that reduces the likelihood of bureaucracy.

The notion of empowerment is, in its logic, self contradictory. The proponents of the concept come from two schools: egalitarians and results-oriented managers. The egalitarians believe that self-determination is inherently a good thing; as such good outcomes should follow. The results managers are merely frustrated with the failure of corporate rules, systems, and initatives. They want to give simple accountability for performance to the employee, and hold the employee accountable for finding the best approach.

For both of these groups, however, disappointment is likely. The egalitarians will find that the new permissions are less than meet the eye; and the employees may find themselves amidst frustrating contraditions. Employee morale is likely to decline. For the bottom-line managers, disappointment will come when employees do not fully embrace the concepts, mistrust management, or merely work less efficiently. For this group, empowerment is often a proxy for management lazines. Managers have a responsibility for designing work processes and supervising their use. When prcedure becomes bogged down, they abrogate responsibility to update the process. They merely hold the employee accountable for the results, and decorate this abrogation with a trendy term. These managers should do their jobs. These managers should remember the asparagus lesson; even though they do not detect an odor, others can.

 

0

When looking more closely at these examples, there is extremely wide variation in the actual amount of autonomy that employees possess.

1

This is the subject of game theory. There are many demonstrations of this judgment, such as the "prisoner's dilemma" that predict a high likelihood of a person engaging in behavior that has negative personal or group consequences.

2

I substitute the "quality" value set for the "empowerment" value set in this example. The the quality rule set operates the same as the empowerment rule set in that it is an overlain set of rules and values. It is often the case that quality and empowerment are bundled creating contradictions of a larger magnitude.