"An empowered organization is one in which individuals have the knowledge, skill, desire, and opportunity to personally succeed in a way that leads to collective organizational success." - Stephen Covey
It is believed that empowering employee means giving him the autonomy to tackle the issues through his/her own creativity and innovative approach which prove to be a very confidence boosting approach. an employee enters the zone of work satisfaction and automatically his individual productivity increases many folds.
this entire exercise increases the bonding between the employee with his organization and he feels personally connected and responsible for the outcomes and growth of organization. hence it can be said that employee empowerment in a way leads to greater employee involvement and increased productivity.
What is missing in Covey's statement is the soul factor. Empowerment of the people is an exercise where people reach to feel as owners of their own processes with minimum supervision. As Naman said giving "autonomy" is excellent, but is something extra-ordinary in today's businesses. Achieving one's fulfillment and having in mind the overall or collective success of the organization is an objective that many organizations seek now-a-day. It is a difficult exercise because the right combination of leadership, culture, strategy and empathy towards people is a challenge to attain. Having such soul in Covey's statement will answer the question.
In many management literature often the employee is referred to as an asset of the organization, a tool. This would be no different than a copy machine, computer or any other asset. An author and speaker Mildred Ramsey says in her book Super Supervisor "You can't make me work". Her point is from a employee view and that an employee is only going to work just enough to keep a job, unless.... It is key that a manager or supervisor engage in strong ethical leadership skills. If one looks at a organization as a group of people working to achieve the same ultimate goal then they are essentially equals.
The mail room clerk is no better or worse than the CEO. Each job is important but each job is performed by a person. This is the point where many supervisors have failed, the employee. The employee is a person not a machine, the person has feelings. A good management team will engage leadership skills that address those emotions. Treating the employees as humans and understanding that we all have good and bad days is a key towards gaining employee involvement.
Empowering the employee is a first step towards involvement; however just handing them a job and letting them take charge of it is not true empowerment. First some conditions must be met to make it a successful empowerment. The employee must be willing to accept the task, some employees do not want empowered they just want to do their job and that is it. Which is fine as long as they get recognition for being good in their job (we want to keep a positive atmosphere).
Once we have an employee that is willing to take on the empowerment the managers role will need to be one of support. The empowered employee needs to know that management will be behind them 100% and see to it they get the tools they need to do the job. Do not let a manger empower and employee then micro mange what they do, this is destructive.
The results of the empowerment of an employee may be a success or failure, in either case the employee performed the duty and must be recognized for it. Thus if the project failed then the manager and employee can look at the process consult and try again. If it is a success then the employee can take on the next task .
The key is when empowering an employee, management MUST be 100% supportive to that process, otherwise management will destroy the employee involvement and the results will go the other direction. Employees understand success and failure of a task or project, it is how management deals with the employee that is of the utmost importance.
Moving back to the employee whom just wants to do their job and not be bothered, even they can be empowered in small ways which can increase their involvement. For example the mail room clerk, that just wants to sort the mail for each department. Maybe the clerk is very good at stacking mail in baskets, that clerk can be recognized for this and ask to teach their method to other mail room employees ( a tiny empowerment which increases involvement).
Empowerment can lead to involvement as long as all conditions are met to do so, you need a positive atmosphere, a supportive management, and a willingness to allow an employee to make a decision without micro managing them or reprimanding them if it is a wrong decision.. When all conditions are met, the road to involvement is in place.
Empowered as described by Covey is interesting but the real research done on this topic that shows real world results is the work the Gallup organization has done on the subject of engagement. Being empowered to act does not necessarily mean the employee will be engaged in their work. Words mean things and empowered, and involved does not necessarily mean engaged. Engagement is the true goal.
The Gallup research in their Human Sigma project demonstrates that for most businesses the employees are going through the motions and the company predictably shows mediocre performance in the marketplace. The companies that thrive have actively engaged employees who produce actively engaged customers who produce a 35% better bottom line.
In my 35 years experience as a manager, supervisor and CEO in the retail drug industry I have developed a simple unified theory of why employees become engaged in their work.
1. Employees want to be involved in doing something important. They must see significance to what they are doing
2. Employees want to be good at what they do. They want to feel that the work is important and that they are helping the cause.
3. They want to know that their manager appreciates what they do. If their boss acts like he doesn't care that they do the job well or that they are doing good work, they will tune out and disengage.
I realize this isn't flowery academic speak but it is practical and has the side benefit of being true. Gallup's work is irrefutable. People join good companies but quit bad bosses. And when they are not engaged they do sloppy, low quality work.
Good leadership is about creating an environment where your team can thrive and sadly many large employers have lost their way. They have become a house of rules trying to create policy books to tell employees what to do. The unintended consequence is that employees stop using their brains and begin going through the motions to get a paycheck., which is a recipe for disaster.
I believe we do an amazing job of teaching our pharmacy students the clinical skills they need but we need to a better job of teaching them how to use those skills to create valuable professional services that someone is willing to pay them for. Pharmacy Management Third Edition, Desselle, Zgarric and Alston has a chapter on these value creation skills which is based on The Relative Value theorem as described in a Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy journal article.
I believe leadership is about the actions that you take to begin acting like a leader. By describing what good leaders do in a way that anyone can understand I believe we have a better chance of teaching people how to lead.
I just published a trade press non-academic best selling book on this subject Titled, The Bosshole Effect, that covers this subject thoroughly and succinctly. If any of my academic brethren would like a free electronic review copy contact me and I will send you your choice of Kindle, Nook or IPad version
That is my two cents worth. Well given the length probably more like 7cents.
Well done Tom and Gregory. For the last 150 years of management approach development, the dark side of business and the most point of concern is related to the issue of appreciation of human dignity of the worker or the employee. Contemporary organizations do not know who is on board of their companies, this simple fact of not knowing the human capital working for them is a disaster by itself. Providing leadership without having empathy and appreciation makes the organization-employee relationship a faulty one. Gregory's points of view are built on the appropriate operationalization of concept that have been there for a while like the Job Characteristic Model, the recent awakening on Talent Management, etc... What is needed are brave leaders who are ready to give and take and the fact to have faith in the people.
A lot of it has to do with a leader's ability to delegate tasks and mentor employees. In effective delegation, the leader assigns duties to the right people. The chances for successful delegation and empowerment improve when the tasks in question are assigned to capable, responsible, and self-motivated group members. Vital tasks should not be assigned to ineffective performers. Also, when feasible, delegate the whole task. In the spirit of job enrichment, a manager should delegate an entire task to one group member rather than dividing it among several. Doing so gives the group member complete responsibility and enhances his or her motivation, and it also gives the manager more control over results.
The leader should give as much instruction as needed, depending upon the characteristics of the group member. Some people will require highly detailed instructions, whereas others can operate effectively with general instructions. As explained in relation to empowerment, the most professionally rewarding type of delegation allows the group member to choose the method for accomplishing the assignment.
Managers must establish checkpoints and milestones to obtain feedback on progress. A morale-building suggestion is to delegate both pleasant and unpleasant tasks to group members. A fundamental part of effective delegation is to step back from the details. Many managers are poor delegators because they get too involved with technical details. If a manager cannot let go of details, he or she will never be effective at delegation or empowerment.
Finally, as in virtually all leadership endeavors, it is important to evaluate and reward performance. After the task is completed, the manager should evaluate the outcome. Favorable outcomes should be rewarded, and unfavorable outcomes may either be not rewarded or punished. It is important, however, not to discourage risk taking and initiative by punishing for all mistakes.
Another model that is brought forward is the 7-S McKinsey model that suggests to have the appropriate mix between hard and soft skills within an organization under a well developed culture that rewards value sharing. Empowerment is a delight, not offered by just any organization, it is offered by an organization that values its people and their potential within its strategic outlook for sustainbaility.
There are really only three important skills required of a leader.
1. Coach- you must be able to teach people how to do what you want them to be able to do
2. Command- You must be able to make the decision that need to be made when they need to be made without micromanaging your team. In other words allow them to make the decisions that are appropriate for them to make.
3.Create-an environment in which your team can thrive. This is not just empowering them to do their jobs it is also making the decisions that need to be made such as reprimanding someone who is out of line, terminating people that are saboteurs and promoting the right people. And of course coaching people in a way where you improve their skills and strengthen their engagement.
Life is messy and leadership takes constant effort and attention. Applying multistep arcane academic rules to the process does not work to help a manager learn how to become a leader. Simple principles that guide action and practice under the guidance of a mentor are what works.
I agree with you Gregory. But the question to be answered is, if the person you are describing above is not found in its rightful business environment, then how can he/she practice what you are suggesting?
It may work if that person is the one who makes the calls, and therefore the rightful business environment is guaranteed or simply having the right company and institution which has evoluted to become the place to reward managers and leaders characterized as you stated.
Certainly the culture of a large organization can not be changed by one person overnight. But lets just assume for a minute that you work for an academic institution that values tuition dollars and net profit over quality educational outcomes.
It is unethical in my opinion to cash a paycheck from an organization and then intentionally do a crummy job.
if you believe that quality outcomes actually determine the long term health of the program you have one of three possible choices.
1. Be quiet and do what you are told even though you don't agree with it.
2. Find a job at an institution that has the philosophy you admire
3. Stay at the institution and work to make it better.
Read Chip and Dan Heath's books Switch and Made to stick for great examples of how one person can make a difference.
If you are going to accept the pay check ultimately you have to do things the way the employer wants you to do them. If you can not stomach what they tell you to do you should change jobs as soon as it is practical for you. becoming an employee who refuses to play the way the company wants you to play is a losing game and will reflect poorly on you.
Doing a great job despite the lousy leadership will reflect positively on you and you will be able to sleep at night. Pick your battles and act with honor.
The last statement summarizes all. I agree. This is the state of many around the world especially in developing countries. However, the risk in developing countries is that even with the aforementioned attitude, on the long term you will be fought! Why! your fault is flying away from the flock.
But, certainly, bravery is needed to make a stand.
By the way Gregory, please access my questions and you will read a very interesting dialogue about a similar situation. Question One in specific.
I have to agree with both of you Greg and Hussin. A couple thought that has crossed my mind in reading this set of posts first an organization will have to provide an environment that allows a employee to grow with empowerment. Two coming from a career with a union background one of the bad things that happens is peer pressure also knocks down an employee. I have experienced the second one for myself, when I hired on to a fire department I wanted to do the best job I could. However very quickly the union brotherhood pressured me to be status-quo. If I did not do so it would make a long and difficult career as you would lose any support and respect of your union. No one can say this is not true I was there I experienced it and it took years to regain the respect of much of the union.
Yes only if it was a real empowerment,i mean there must be real outcomes n can be measured after period,n it must be comprised with the statues of workers before and after .
Tom , your example comes very strong to reflect what strong cohesion could cause within teams. They set the pace according to their internal culture set for the group. It will be extremely tough to survive going against. However, such a situation is also governed by the set organizational culture. Organizations have to be very cautious not to fall into such a trap as mentioned by Tom.
Yes!! Empowerment facilitates involvement. Organizations become much more intelligent. But it necessitates balance. Some individuals may fall into over-empowerment trap. Empowerment should be parallel with individual's personal progression. Personal progression without enough empowerment and over-empowerment without personal progression cause trouble both for individual and organization.
Ufuk, That is correct in my belief. I think empowerment is also a tool to develop personal responsibility within an organization and thereby you would not want to overload a person that is not ready for a lot of added responsibility. I think another way to think of this is helping employees build leadership skills.
Tom, It is not only a tool for loading employees with maximum burden of responsibility within an organization it is also a tool for making employees feel better, happy and more powerful in order to make them self sufficient, self ignited, initiative taking as if they are the owners of organization.
People talk about employee empowerment in many different ways, but the basic theme remains: give your employees the means for making important decisions, and making those decisions the right ones.
The results, when this process is done right, are heightened productivity and a better quality of work life.
Employee empowerment means different things in different organizations, based on culture and work design. However, empowerment is based on the concepts of job enlargement and job enrichment.
As these examples show, employee empowerment requires:
•Training in the skills necessary to carry out the additional responsibilities.
•Access to information on which decisions can be made.
•Initiative and confidence on the part of the employee to take on greater responsibility.
Employee involvement is not the goal nor is it a tool, as practiced in many organizations. Rather, it is a management and leadership philosophy about how people are most enabled to contribute to continuous improvement and the ongoing success of their work organization. Employee involvement means that every employee is regarded as a unique human being, not just a cog in a machine, and each employee is involved in helping the organization meet its goals. Each employee’s input is solicited and valued by his/her management.
Employees and management recognize that each employee is involved in running the business.
Well presented Hasan. I agree with you. So, there is a big responsibility to identify the appropriate governance in an organization and at the same time assess the leadership attitude towards his/her constituencies. You remind me of the learning organization and the quest to sustain human capital.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology