Empowerment One of the Catch

Empowerment

One of the catch phrases of contemporary work systems is employee empowerment. (Weissberg, 1999, p. 1-2) Employee empowerment is defined as a concept by which employees and the groups in which they work feel that they have a voice and influence in decisions that are made by those above them. (Weissberg, 1999, p. 18) it is also clear that creating employee empowerment has as much to do with manipulation, i.e. coercion as it does with real empowerment by individuals in the workforce. The standard top down model, at the risk of sounding Machiavellian, is likely still very much in place, cornering the market on real decision making and eventual actions. Though and individual may have a sounding board it is unlikely that all employee suggestions voiced will be given the credence the system employs as a guise to elicit the ideal of employee empowerment, which can surely be adopted as a motivational tactic and even a system standard, but must be looked at in the light of what it is, a psychological system of persuasion to elicit employee motivation. Employee motivation in turn, can elicit outward acts of commitment, regardless of the real nature of commitment. Power is still held in a specific area of the system, regardless of the nature of the institutional values regarding empowerment.

Power is also exercised when a devotes his energies to creating or reinforcing social and political values and institutional practices that limit the scope of the political process to public consideration of only those issues which are comparatively innocuous to a (Bachrach and Baratz, 1970, p. 7)."These authors drew upon a respected sociological idea, the "mobilization of bias," put forth by Schattschneider (1960). The mobilization of bias is the fundamental rationale behind every form of social and political organisation and institution. Organisations present this mobilization in the form of.".. A set of predominant values, beliefs, rituals, and institutional procedures ('rules of the game') that operate systematically and consistently to benefit certain persons and groups at the expense of others" (Bachrach and Baratz, 1970, p. 43)....Lukes (1974, p. 17) points out that the above discussion reinforces classic dimensions related to different forms of power, including influence, coercion, manipulation, authority, and force.... The exercise of power can only be identified where there is conflict over an issue. Therefore, Lukes introduces a perspective that addresses both actual and latent conflict situations and behavioral and structural expressions of power as forms of "significant affecting" the actions of individuals or groups by others. Such expressions may act to even "promote the selective perception and articulation of social problems and conflicts" (Lukes, 1974, p. 45). (Pigg, 2002, p. 107)

Regardless of the good intent of the organisational system the system is seeking a way to coerce individuals into fulfilling he wishes of the system heads. It is not necessarily a negative thing to do, and in the interim voices may be heard and ideas furthered that would never have been thought of before but like all ideals employee empowerment is a system standard employed to motivate.

Creating a system where employees are regarded with a high level of respect is a consistent desire of many leaders, yet its the perception that holds the greatest importance, rather than the reality of the commitment the employee feels for the system. The perception of employee empowerment can make the difference between increased productivity and level outputs as well as between employees seeking to stay at all costs or leave at the least provocation. Keeping employees working for greater lengths of time is especially important with regard to highly skilled work, as well as in a small firm, where the loss of one skilled employee could seriously hinder a system. One type of organisation that works well in this type of situation is a "flat organisation model" where members of the team have real authority to make changes when they are needed. (Sanchez & Heene, 1997, p.21) Flat organisation models have been favored in the most recent past, as those which empower employees to seek excellence in production and create team systems that offer better production and possibly better innovative systems, as hierarchical models tend not to allow those with hands on experience the opportunity to elicit change, possibly in a manner that would increase production, as a result of the skill set of the individual low level members of the team. Yet, it must be remembered that the real decision making will be done at the hands of those in the greatest situation of power, and only some, not all decisions can be delegated to others and the larger the system the truer this maxim becomes.

The preparation of a group of employees to transition from a hierarchical organisational style to a flat organisational style is crucial, and is based on developing a system where the majority of individuals feel as if their voice is equal to that of others who hold similar positions to them. Yet, again it must be noted that a truly flat organisational system is impossible in very large systems. Previous systems of elevated psotioning, i.e. middle and upper management systems are particularly likely to be challenged by a move toward a flat organisational model as if such were truly implemented then their jobs would likely be seen as redundant and they would by perception accept termination or demotion as the likely outcome. In a larger firm it may not be possible to develop a pure flat organisational model as the need to make decisions and implement change may need to be done at a higher level. In this case a quasi-flat system can be initiated but some of the existing structure of management must be maintained to ensure that there is at least one person who is aware of all levels of business activity, as when it is complicated by diverse activities all members of the team may not be fully aware of all aspects of production. (Foss, 2005, p. 162)

To help transition a firm into a flat model of organisation, a management team must make those at the bottom believe that they will have authority to address concerns and make changes without the standard system of informed consent, where decisions go through a chain of management on a suggested basis and are then decided on based on the understanding of the system by management. The employees must believe in the team philosophy to potentially reduce the level of concern they have with seniority issues, by understanding the fact that each employee on the line is able to recognize and implement change through an individual or group effort, if the whole of the group agrees with the need for the change. (Sanchez & Heene, 1997, p. 21) team model may be the best ideological structure, as individuals will feel empowered to help the team by streamlining production through their own inside knowledge of the system, how it works and how it can be tweaked to produce better results. Those who have been traditionally seen as middle management will be eliminated, either through leveling or elimination, and this may be the most difficult of the transition, as such individuals may feel ownership to their previous authority, and have a difficult time with the idea or reality of demotion. Some middle managers may in fact sustain a crisis of loyalty and actually leave based on the fear of change. (Della Rocca, 1992, p. 54) Upper management must still be in place, and again the firm size is the greatest determining factor as to the ability of an organisation to transition to a flat system. If the firm is large the flat system must be altered to offer some middle management so as to allow for multi-factorial production to be integrated. The quasi-system must ensure that there are at least a few individuals who understand the whole of the organisation, in the sense that different aspects of production work together in a streamlined manner. Without such links between core systems the systems may become to independent and create production lags and system breakdown as a result of lack of knowledge of important functions of each as they work together. (Foss, 2005, p. 162)

Those at the lower levels must be prepared by engendering an understanding that they now have the authority to make changes and develop systems that better meet the needs of production. They may need reinforcement and multiple meetings to develop a natural flow in the manner in which they feel comfortable offering suggestions regarding production or organisation. Employees must feel empowered to explore possibilities that can help systems run more effectively especially when such events do not actually occur. (Della Rocca, 1992, p. 54) This is especially true with long-term employees who have been present for more traditional systems that tend to stifle their ability to offer suggestions, and engender a feeling of lack of personal control, which may be relied upon as a crutch to maintain the status quo, rather than to help develop innovation and change. What management does still exists must maintain an open door policy, so as to help lower level employees transition and communicate concerns but again managers are likely to have a clear idea that this is a behavioral manner of influencing actions. (Tyler, 1997, p. 323)

Though the transition to flat organisation may benefit most organisations, it is still a transitional situation that requires special understanding of employee empowerment as well as interactions. Smaller firms of coarse will find this transition easier while larger firms may need to create quasi-flat systems that better serve multi-factorial production systems and require the system to work together in a streamlines fashion, without one area of production causing unintended problems for another. Employee empowerment is clearly one of the biggest reasons why employees express happiness and comfort within a system and therefore create active retention and motivated work. (Weissberg, 1999, p. 46) a flat organisational model may be the right way to create such empowerment, as long as the transition is done effectively and communicated well to all levels but it must also be clear from the perspective of managers that final decisions will be made at the top to maintain control and appropriate power distribution. (Foss, 2005, p. 162)

Employers and mangers must not only recruit and train qualified individual employees but more importantly they must motivate the individuals to then work productively in the given environment. A healthy bottom line is therefore a symptom not of business success but of effective employee motivation and motivation is at its core coercion. (Weissberg, 1999, p. 46) When employees are not motivated to do the work given them, for any number of reasons even a strong business idea or model will not save the business from eventual failure. The employer must meet employee expectations and therefore retain and effectively use this human capital to demonstrate success and the perception of employee empowerment may be the key to this in many organisations, as the story line goes employees who feel they have a voice in the system will be more likely to create innovation and be highly motivated to produce. (Maddock & Fulton, 1998, p. 106)

Leadership concepts in general have transitioned to a teams approach in the many nations and the implementation of such an approach, from theory to practice have proven difficult in some areas, as the traditional hierarchical system was difficult to eradicate, as it was based upon many years of progress and political motivations. Many would also argue that some form of the traditional model must be retained for order and productivity to occur. (Silver 2003, pp. 35, 257) (Anderson 1995, p. 284)

The potential leader must sharpen the skills of quiet negotiation by being able to appear as a cooperative team member in the harmonious adjustment of various opinions. Ultimately the leader's opinion may prevail in the final decision. In other words, although the leader's influence was the dominant factor, the supporters must not feel that their opinions were ignored in the final decision-making process.

(Duke, 1991, p. 22)

The team approach is an essential element to all leadership application as it allows for the development of perceptual employee empowerment, which leads to greater employee motivation. According to Duke in his full length book discussing the transitions of leadership over time, much has changed in the culture of leadership and, "...future leaders of America and Britain are receiving an education that prepares them to become effective leaders at both the domestic level, either regionally or nationally, as well as the international level." (Duke 1991, p. 145)

The value of passion and experience in leadership is discussed by Peck. Peck also stresses the importance of being able to apply theory to practice. Peck, clearly states that with all the other aspects of leadership aside what is probably most important, in addition to creativity, knowledge and experience is flexibility, or the ability to rework the team as many times as it takes to come up with the best possible team situation and eventual outcome. Lastly, Peck offers three bits of advice, * Use passion as the driving force. * Select people who believe in your vision and goals. * Don't be the lone ranger. Motivation is therefore associated with management choice of team and team structure as well as ultimately the members of the team itself. (Peck, 2003, p. 50) the idea that managers must be reminded, even in this "team focused" culture to not be lone-rangers is the essential point of understanding that empowerment is coercion and only so much real power is actually given away. Though the article could be seen as simplistic its points are foundational for team leadership as it defines the need to set goals, based not only on the needs of the organisation as the leaders sees them but also as the other team members see them.

The current trend in government and large employment systems, to adopt new (empowerment) business practices rather than relying upon old bureaucratic, hierarchical models is particularly interesting as it reflects a pervasive culture of dogmatic change, but again one must note who really makes the final decisions. (Saint-Martin, 2001, p. 573)

In one of the most interesting articles I have read in years Bill Trahant discusses one of the greatest problems facing governments of all types, How to best "develop effective and motivated federal employees." The problems facing federal agencies have a great deal to do with the multi-level agendas that govern their work.

That's a critical question for government human capital (HC) professionals because of the pressures their agencies face to comply with the HC requirements of the President's Management Agenda, the Chief Human Capital Officers Act, and the Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework. They also need the answer to attract and recruit a new generation of workers to federal government service and energize them to perform to their fullest potential in the years ahead. (Trahant, 2007, p. 53)

Government agencies are pressured by many outside forces, many who have differing opinions about the goals and the best ways to meet them. Additionally traditional industry is one that is driven by profit, while government agencies are bellied to be driven by altruism but must still compete for skilled workers in the broader community. (Walsh, 1978, p. 12) Lastly, government pay is frequently an issue with regard to the acceptance of appointments by skilled employees. When an employee can frequently seek employment outside the government at much higher rates of pay it becomes difficult for the government organisation to compete, emphasizing the altruistic civic social responsibility of the organisation recruiting employees has traditionally been the offset for such organisations, and yet in the modern world this may not be enough, especially in traditional areas where people can perceptually make a great deal more money than they would if they were in the private sector doing a similar job. (Saint-Martin, 2001, p. 573)

Trahant's article is one that stresses the importance of creating a situation for employees that empowers them to motivation and innovation, almost despite the traditional hierarchical distribution of government with all its traditional restrictions. The movement of government to pure business models, rather than traditional models is suggested in this work, when Trahant discusses the importance of the empowering employees, beyond hierarchic models. "Organisational success no doubt depends on committed and motivated employees, but our research shows that organisations need to look beyond commitment and seek to build employee engagement, enablement, and integrity." (Trahant, 2007, p. 53)

Engagement happens when an organisation gives a committed workforce "line of sight," a clear view of what they need to do to succeed in their daily jobs -- the actions they take and choices they make -- to help their organisation achieve success. Enablement as borne out by both the Work USA[R] 2006/2007 and 2004/2005 reports, successful organisations also show enablement, which includes giving employees the formal training and resources they need to be effective, setting reasonable workloads, giving employees a say in how their work gets done, and assigning enough colleagues to perform the required work. (Trahant, 2007, p. 53)

Trahant offers a set of suggestions that will help any organisation to empower employees, and offers inference that bureaucratic organisations in government would benefit greatly from this standards restructuring:

Research findings show that organisations that create a solid culture of enablement are more likely to use specific HC practices to empower employees to succeed in their everyday jobs:

Actively seeking employee suggestions and opinions

Acting on employee suggestions

Considering and involving employees in decisions

Investing in continuous improvement, encouraging employees to suggest better ways to accomplish objectives, and generally doing a good job improving efficiency. (Trahant, 2007, p. 53)

Trahant also points out that with this empowerment movement employees at every level will be more invested and motivated to do the work, as their investment is personal as well as professional. In a new organisation such as the NCHM this would greatly benefit the whole of the organisation, as it would serve as a model for change in older systems.

Trayhant utilizes the example of the kind of employees that the government, and all its competing organisations will likely be employing in the future, and they are very different than older employees:

Generation Y'ers, who were born between 1977 and 1994, are more independently minded than their baby boomer predecessors. They're less interested in working in traditional hierarchical organisations, less inclined to be married to their jobs, less motivated by money than other generations, and more focused on doing meaningful and challenging work while finding an appropriate life-work balance. As such, learning how to enable them at work will be crucial in making them into effective and engaged employees. (Trahant, 2007, p. 53)

Lastly, Trahant stresses the importance of fostering integrity, especially in the public sector, where much of the public opinion, with regard to bureaucratic integrity has waned as popular media frequently emphasizes integrity failings within the existing and past systems, marking it as the reason for countless misappropriation of funds, as well as in other failings to the public. Without this aspect of motivation, and the existence of high levels of integrity within the system there is a clear sense that the government will continue to be curtailed in efforts to provide public services. In the case of employee motivation, especially with regard to the generation Yer's that Trahant speaks of, there is likely to be a clear challenge for recruitment as well as retention, as such goals seem to be intrinsic in the generation and even the larger marketing industry is beginning to feel this stress as it alters its tactics to include civic social responsibility as an aspect of its provision of messages to the public. The public arena has traditionally had an advantage in that the overall goals of organisations have been, in the past seen as civic and altruistic goals, but with popular press on failings this has been questioned and will serve as an obstacle for the framers of change.

Employee integrity is the next factor (after commitment, line of sight, and enablement) that contributes to overall employee effectiveness. When employees understand and live up to their organisation's values and expect others to do the same, it engenders this type of integrity, which is indicated by employee confidence in senior management and their belief that the information they receive from top management is accurate and truthful, their organisation acts with honesty and integrity, and senior managers respond to unethical behavior.

Employees who report high levels of organisational integrity have a much more positive view of how well their organisations solicit and act on employee suggestions. Therefore, to build trust, organisations should focus on sharing information and involving employees in decision making, when possible and appropriate. (Trahant, 2007, p. 53)

To elicit highly integrity-based work environments Trahant stresses that there must be a clear action and reaction among leadership, as traditional closed door policies must be restructured to allow for leadership transparency and high integrity examples, even from the very top of an organisation. (Trahant, 2007, p. 53)

Coming from the perspective of a behaviorist the workplace needs to be one that elicits desired behavior through reward management, and such has driven concepts of teamwork, employee empowerment and the workplace as a community. Mangers who understand these principles seek to realign the workforce, especially in troubling times of transition, to meet the needs of the individual employee as well as the group through positive reinforcement peppered with minor threats of sanction if behaviors become unwanted.

Our century has been weaned on relativism -- the denial of ethical absolutes; on pragmatism -- the belief that something is right if it works; on positivism -- the equation of knowledge with observable experience; and on behaviorism -- the interpretation of human actions as totally predictable. (Hoffman & Fedo, 1994, p. 145)

If actions are totally predictable, by the standards of behaviorism than the manager that most effectively seeks to predict and them manipulate the workforce to behave in a manner that best creates success in production is the most effective. This has spread to the idea that through motivational leadership the manger and the workplace become one that best meets the needs of employees, so such employees are freed from the psychological strife that a goal that is misaligned from that of the individual is one that the workplace finds most important. (Hoffman & Fedo, 1994, p. 145) This motivational leadership creates a situation, where the individual is seen as an important factor in workplace development, aligning even the most abstract goals of the organisation with those of the individual employee. If all else fails, the motivational manager can even go so far as to create subsystems in the work culture that reward the individual and the group, extrinsically.

Some examples of such motivation are informal and formal reward systems that on the surface provide no real business incentive but provide for the individual the desire to be at work, and be engaged in positive behaviors. These subsystems, can be anything from casual Fridays, to community picnics and parties. (Franklin, 1998, p. 2) They can also take the form of employee groups that stress health and wellness, i.e. lunchtime walking groups or informal resource groups that assist employees in seeking health care or stress reduction systems. Such social motivations can encompass only work issues or can be holistic in the sense that such events and groups include family and community in the mix to build a more behaviorally sound workforce, with many of its needs being met by the workspace community, and others being supplemented by it.