Don’t Say That Word

Empowerment seems to be one of those buzzwords that makes people crazy. It is as though the word itself is ascribed with the power to change people in an instant – and I am not necessarily suggesting change in a positive way.

Employees can get a whiff of “empowerment” and be guilty of interpreting it as a license to do just about anything. After all, if you have been empowered, it means that an enlightened boss has finally seen the merits of allowing you – the employee – to make your own decisions, work at your own pace, and create new and improved ways of doing your job (Note: improved from your perspective, not necessarily the company’s perspective).

On the other hand, I can mention the word empowerment to a group of managers and I am likely to get a number of reactions…all bad. Some will roll their eyes, others will look like they just went three rounds with Chuck Liddell (see AP picture above), and others may be seen running and screaming out of the door. I’ve often thought that an effective way to avoid working with a difficult client would be to insist that I can teach their managers how to “empower” the employees.

The word empower is translated in a variety of ways: 1) to give official authority or legal power; 2) to delegate authority; 3) to equip or supply with an ability; 4) to enable or permit. As you might imagine, without an alignment of understanding and an agreement on the desired results, “empowering” employees could lead to confusion and disgruntled employees when the intent was to increase productivity and engage employees.

To give you an idea of the potential for misunderstanding, here is an excerpt from a Human Resources website:

When thinking about empowerment in human relations terms, try to avoid thinking of it as something that one individual does for another. This is one of the problems organizations have experienced with the concept of empowerment. People think that “someone,” usually the manager, has to bestow empowerment on the people who report to him.

Consequently, the reporting staff members “wait” for the bestowing of empowerment, and the manager asks why people won’t act in empowered ways. This led to a general unhappiness, mostly undeserved, with the concept of empowerment in many organizations.

Think of empowerment, instead, as the process of an individual enabling himself to take action and control work and decision making in autonomous ways.

“Enabling himself” to make decisions? I don’t know about you, but I’m not giving that idea too much chance of success…

“Why did I make that decision on my own? Well, because I have decided to enable myself to take action and control my work and decision making. No, actually, I don’t believe we have talked about it before, but I wasn’t about to wait around for you to empower me – I empowered myself!”

Uh huh.

Contrary to the thoughts above, empowerment is not achieved unless there is agreement between the two parties – in this case, the manager and the employee – of what exactly you are empowered to do. Without specific parameters, one or both parties are sure to be disappointed in the results. At the same time, empowering someone to do something requires allowing them to do it – even if they make mistakes. Failure is often the best tool in teaching if it is approached properly.

Briefly, two important factors related to employee empowerment are: 1) level of authority, and 2) boundaries and conditions. Level of authority indicates how a decision can be made by an employee. For instance, in a new task where an employee has limited experience, the level of authority might be to ask before making a decision (Level 1). In a project where the employee has extensive experience, is quite familiar with all variables, and has demonstrated the successful ability to make decisions, the level of authority might be to make your own decision based on your best judgment (Level 4).

Other levels of authority might include making a decision but informing the manager afterward (Level 3) or checking with one or more team members before making a decision (Level 2).

Boundaries and conditions set the parameters for making decisions. A very good example is the military “Rules of Engagement“, which will dictate where, when, against whom, and under what conditions deadly force may be used. Often, when setting boundaries and conditions, a set of “non-negotiables” may apply. These are situations where the decision is predetermined and is not negotiable. For instance, a sales rep may be told that she cannot ever offer a discount beyond 20%, or a hazardous materials driver knows that he may not legally transport materials that are not properly labeled or secured.

Empowerment is not a concept to be scared of or dismissed out of hand. In fact, a high-performance organization will have “empowered” teams and employees. The difference is that there will be a mutual understanding all around of exactly what that means.