Tweet This
Many people are wrong about empowerment. It's neither about softening dictatorship nor about introducing anarchy.
It seems there is not a word in the language of business that is as divisive and controversial as the word empowerment.
Traditional management literature is full of empowerment tips, principles and practices. Workers should be empowered by managers so that they take on more responsibilities, feel more committed, and be more engaged, some experts say. The return on investment of this-thing-called-empowerment is that more productivity can be squeezed out of ordinary employees, if you handle this well. Let's call this group the dictators. They decide who is empowered, and who is not.
Modern leadership dogma often swings in the other direction. A new generation of experts suggests that workers are already empowered by default. There is nobody needed to grant them powers. In this view, there are no managers, only leaders. And these leaders merely inspire workers with goals and remove impediments for them to exercise the powers they already have. Let's call this group the anarchists because they have total faith in self-organization to make things happen.
I say both the dictators and the anarchists are wrong.
empower \im-ˈpau̇(-ə)r\
- to give official authority or legal power to (by legal or official means) / to invest with power
- to promote the self-actualization or influence of / to supply with an ability
The dictionaries seem to agree on two meanings of the word empowerment. The first one has to do with authority; the second one is about ability.
An example of the first meaning is that I authorized (empowered) a team member to take control of our company's bank account. It wasn't easy. The bank imposed so many checks, restrictions, and validations that I was tempted to simply give this team member my own password. But I persisted, heroically.
An example of the second meaning of the word is that I help my team members with their ability (empowerment) to manage our social media marketing. Simply giving them access to the corporate accounts may not always be enough. All professionals, including managers, can use help and coaching to explore their full potential.
The dictators know and understand only the first meaning of the word empowerment (authority). The anarchists favor only the second meaning (ability). I am convinced we must use both.
The Purpose of Empowerment
When you read why people should be empowered in a business context, the usual reasons given are motivation, engagement, productivity, self-actualization or happiness. I believe these are all fine goals, but they are not the primary reason.
According to scientists, an organization is a complex adaptive system. Some describe it as an "information-processing system", others as a "decision-making machine". What matters is that survival of the organization depends on a countless number of decisions based on available information. The problem with complex systems is that they cannot be properly managed from one point in the system. In an ever-changing environment, it has the best chance to survive when management is implemented through distributed control. The human brain, your immune system, the Internet, and global government are all examples of distributed control. If there is a central command at all, it should do as little as possible. (In that sense, the United Nations seem to be a great success.)
In systems science, the Law of Requisite Variety suggest that central control of a complex system doesn't work, because the central node of a network cannot possibly contain all information that is needed to make good decisions everywhere. In political science, the Subsidiarity Principle is often suggested as a solution to this very same information challenge: social problems should be dealt with at the most immediate (or local) level, because the solutions will be better.
The conclusion is evident: to have any hope of long-term survival, every social system must implement management through distributed control, by ensuring that people who have the best information, at a local level, make their own decisions. Motivation, productivity, self-actualization, and happiness are all very nice, but there won't be any organization left to be happy in when central command fails while it's hoarding all the power.
That's why I often say: as a manager, I don't empower people to please them, I empower them to make better decisions than me.
Empowerment, The Wrong Way
With the organization's survival at stake, one of the primary goals of managers is to implement distributed decision-making. The possible ways of doing this are as rich and varied as there are species in a rain forest. Sadly, many traditional managers err on the dictatorial side of the spectrum. They see empowerment mainly as delegating authority. They don't allow anyone in an organization to do anything except for things that have been delegated to workers explicitly. Indeed, lack of motivation and productivity are often a direct result. But even more important is the bleak outlook on the organization's future performance. There is a reason dictatorships have a tendency to disappear in the global political landscape.
On the other hand, some modernist gurus err on the "anarchist" side of the spectrum. They claim that anyone can do anything in a modern business. There is no central command and there are no central decisions. They see empowerment mainly as nurturing ability. OK, this could work, but without any constraints imposed on the self-organizing system, you have no idea what to expect. It will all depend on the emerging culture and abilities of the people. They could very well decide to turn a software business into a catering service if this is more to their liking. Personally, I believe in minimalist government, not in anarchy. There is a reason anarchy has a bad reputation around the world.
Empowerment, The Right Way
Dictators tell people, "You are not allowed to do anything except what I authorize you to do." Anarchists tell people, "Go ahead, do whatever you want!" Neither approach is sensible. The logical choice is to say, "You can do what you want except for the areas where I place some restrictions."
The management charter of a division should paraphrase the U.S. Constitution, by stipulating the reservation of authority: “All authority not expressly and in writing reserved to higher management is granted to lower management.” This is the opposite of the old Prussian idea of a citizen’s rights: “Everything that is not expressly commanded is forbidden.”
- Peter F. Drucker, Management: Revised Edition
This reservation of authority satisfies the Law of Requisite Variety: decisions in the network can be made where they make the most sense, except for a few types of decisions that a central node reserves for itself. It also aligns with the Subsidiarity Principle, because problems can often be dealt with directly at the local level, without the need for anyone's permission.
Empowerment of the Organization
The people working with me have much more power to run our business than in most other organizations, because they can do whatever they want except when I specifically told them, "Don't touch this please, thanks." I have reasons for controlling access to bank accounts from one central location. At the same time, most (but not all) of my efforts are concerned with nurturing self-actualization and happiness of the team. I apply the second meaning of the word empowerment (ability) except where I have reasons to apply the first meaning (authority).
The team members say they find this motivating and I believe it makes them more productive too. Most importantly, they (usually) make better decisions than me, which makes the organization more resilient to change and more agile to cope with a challenging environment.
I often say that, as a manager, I don't manage people, I manage the system. Maybe this also applies to empowerment: I don't empower our workers, I empower the organization.
