Spirit of Organization

The word “values” has different meanings for different people in different contexts. In this post, I’m using it to describe deeply held beliefs about ultimate desired outcomes and how to achieve them. People hold values at different levels. Chris Argyrus (1996) described this difference as “espoused values” versus “theories in use.” An espoused value is “the theory of action which is advanced to explain or justify a given pattern of activity” (p. 13). A theory in use is “the theory of action which is implicit in the performance of that pattern of activity.” Another way to say this is that people, and organizations, often proclaim one set of values that they are supposed to follow; but their actual behavior may exhibit another set of values, the ones that are really driving their actions.

I drove past a church building one Saturday in the early evening and read the name on their sign. It was something like “The Friendly Christian Church.” The church building had a circular driveway in front and at both ends of the driveway there was a chain extended across the entrance that had a sign hanging from it that read: “No Trespassing.” While most churches do not display such blatant inconsistency, they do often project one idea with their words–Such as “God loves all people” and “Jesus forgives sinners”–while their gestures and treatment of those outside their fellowship is something quite different.

People rarely, if ever, achieve a complete integration between what they say and what they do; but the closer they get to that goal, the more likely they are to become high-capacity individuals who accomplish great things for their organizations, churches, and society. When this happens, we might say that a person’s soul is in alignment; their actions are consistent with what they say and believe that they believe.

I’m not talking here about hypocrisy; that’s a different animal. Hypocrisy is a form of lying. It is the deliberate proclaiming of some value with full awareness that we don’t really believe it. What I’m talking about is a natural human process of development where the individual becomes aware of new truth, espouses that truth intellectually, and then begins to walk the road toward making that truth a reality in their personal experience.

A great illustration of this can be found in the Gospel of Mark where a man comes to Jesus and asks him to heal his son. The man says: “If you can do anything, take pity on us and help us.” Jesus responded: “What do you mean if you can? All things are possible to him who believes.” To this, the man responded: “I do believe, help my unbelief” (Mark 9:24).

In leadership, we constantly face this duality of human nature. One of our purposes as leaders is to help people move from theoretical values into the reality of those values, to help them in their unbelief. When the man asked Jesus to help his unbelief, he was, in a sense, crying out for leadership, for someone to show him how to become a more integral person, whose espoused beliefs and functional values are one and the same. This is one of the greatest services a leader can perform for people.  Following is a list of actions you can take to accomplish this.

Reward what you value. Often, it is not the individual who is at fault when a wide gap persists between espoused and real values. The organization itself often perpetuates this situation by inadvertently rewarding the values that it does not espouse and punishing those that it does. Take, for example, the classic situation I have observed in many churches that proclaim the truth that “the church is not a building; it is the people.” Yet, they reinforce the opposite by insisting that all “church activity” takes place within the walls of the “church” building and they keep referring to that building as “the church.” They also praise those who “attend regularly” while never mentioning the activities of those who serve Christ in so many ways in their workplace and in their communities. Leaders need to take a hard, honest, look at the attitudes and practices they reward.

Measure what you value. If we really value something, we must find ways to measure the extent to which that value is actually functioning. There are some good resources to help organizations develop this capacity such as Douglas Hubbard’s book, How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of “Intangibles” in Business.

The following list of five truths related to measurement also apply here:

• We don’t know what we don’t know.
• We can’t do what we don’t know.
• We won’t know until we measure.
• We don’t measure what we don’t value.
• We don’t value what we don’t measure (Harry & Schroeder, 2000).

Model what you value. Values are more caught than they are taught; we absorb them from the people we admire and with whom we spend time. This is why coaching and mentoring are so important in the development of people. The only way we can influence the values of another person is by spending time with them and giving them a living example of what we’re talking about.

Design life experiences of what you value. Words alone can never move people from espoused values to real values. We must provide opportunities to experience the reality of the values we espouse. In this way, experience becomes a kind of confirmation that moves these values into the realm of conviction. We do this by providing them with real-time experiences that reinforce and give body to the theory. Our theoretical values are like empty recipients into which life must be poured so that they take on meaning.

Leaders are always looking for ways to unlock the hidden potential in people. One of the most effective things we can do to achieve this is to help people embed the values they espouse into their hearts and experience. Leaders who understand and practice this principle will develop high-capacity individuals and high-capacity organizations.

[Post a Response]

Works Cited

Argyris, Chris, and Donald A. Schön, Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, & Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1996.

Harry, Michael, and Richard Schroeder, Six Sigma. New York: Doubleday, 2000.

I presented the following slideshow during the 3rd Annual Conference “No Educator Left Behind,” Indianan Wesleyan University, Indianapolis, IN, Friday, June 20, 2008.

| View | Upload your own

JESUS WAS ALWAYS WORKING TO BRING OUT THE HIDDEN POTENTIAL IN PEOPLE. One of the ways He did this was to challenge their thinking, particularly their thinking about themselves. In contemporary terms, we call this empowerment. Heathfield (2006) defines empowerment as “the process of enabling or authorizing an individual to think, behave, take action, and control work and decision making in autonomous ways. It is [also] the state of feeling self-empowered to take control of one’s own destiny.” There is a great example of empowerment in the Gospel of John, chapter five. Jesus was visiting the city of Jerusalem during one of the annual Jewish feasts, when he came to a certain public pool called Bethesda. Evidently, some local beliefs had developed around this pool that attributed healing powers to its waters. It was felt that this power was especially present when the waters would ripple, as this was a sign that an angel was stirring up the water. Jesus met one man who was lying near the pool who had been waiting thirty-eight years to be healed. When questioned further, the man said that whenever the waters would stir, someone would always beat him to the pool.

As with so many of the narratives in the Bible, there is a lot detail about this situation that we are simply not given. For example, we don’t know the exact nature of the man’s illness. Nor do we know to what extent he had become “comfortable” in his life of dependency. Some might object: “How could anyone be comfortable living in that condition?” Yes, it does seem unthinkable. But, isn’t it amazing how an unthinkable situation can become thinkable and then, over time, it becomes unthinkable to think otherwise? We even forget why it was unthinkable in the first place. For that clear vision of how life could be different to come again to the surface, we sometimes need to have our basic assumptions shaken up a bit.

Could it be that Jesus’ question to the man was intended to produce exactly this effect? He asks the man: “Do you want to get well?” For the superficial observer, that kind of question might evoke a response like: “Duh, of course he wants to get well, why do you think he’s there in the first place?” However, if you understand empowerment, then you know that equipping others to take on a life of wholeness and autonomy often requires the prior removal of some disempowering thinking about themselves. Jesus’ question might be translated: “Are you really ready to take on the obligations of responsibility? To work and pay for your own way? To begin serving others instead of only being served? If I give you the means to control your life, are you willing to take the responsibility for that control?” These questions all relate to the attitudes that a follower needs to have in place if he or she is to be truly empowered.

Questions for Reflection

(1) Read John 5:1-9. Do you agree with the author’s take on this text? Why or why not? (2) What is some of the thinking that you have seen in others or in yourself that you believe is disempowering? (3) Jesus used a question very skilfully here. What are some other empowering questions? (4) What are some examples of people in the workplace who are sitting by the pool waiting for someone to put them into the water?

Works Cited

Heathfield, S. M. (2006). Employee empowerment. About, Inc. Accessed November 1, 2006 from http://humanresources.about.com/od/glossarye/a/empowerment_def.htm

Great leaders possess the ability to see beyond the immediate, to make connections between the past and the future, and to use their foresight to formulate a vision that truly serves the organization and its constituents. According to Greenleaf (1977, 2002), it is this ability that constitutes the “lead” in leadership. “Once leaders lose this lead and events start to force their hand, they are leaders in name only” (p. 40). Assuming that the leader has this foresight and has been able to give body and form to the vision that is percolating within the organization and among the people served by the organization, how does the leader then communicate that vision so that it becomes a clear and powerful motivator for the members of the organization? One way that has been suggested is through the use of well-formulated questions.

Handy, (1994) suggests using the question: “If we did not exist, would we re-invent ourselves, and, if so, what would we look like?” (p. 50). Handy calls this “second curve” thinking, referring to the sigmoid curve that illustrates how human endeavors tend to go through a cycle of entrepreneurship, productivity, climax and finally decline and that, to survive in the long run, they should begin developing a fresh vision while they are still on the upward slope of productivity and not wait until they are in decline when it may be tool late. Others talk about creating stories about the future of the organization (Marquardt & Berger, 2000, p. 32) and using visual imagery to help people “see” the vision (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990, pp. 675-676).

Unfortunately, some leaders have turned this “vision thing” into a cheap gimmick. They think that by simply creating a cute slogan and plastering it on every wall and on every computer screen, they have thereby cast the vision. Infusing a vision throughout a church or organization implies far more than this. A vision is a profound sense of calling and purpose, set in concrete imagery about “where we will be in the future.” For Christians, it involves sensing the calling of God and giving voice to that calling so that all can see and hear it.

Questions for Reflection

(1) Think about what you have read about the life of Christ. What were some ways that He helped His disciples to “capture the vision?” (2) How does a servant leader discern the vision of the organization? (2) In what ways might a leader’s vision become abusive or manipulative? (4) Can you think of someone who has infused vision into your life? How did they do it?

[Post a Reply]

Works Cited

Robert K. Greenleaf. Servant Leadership: A Journey Into the Nature of Legitimate Power & Greatness (New York: Paulist Press, 2002).

Charles Handy, The Age of Paradox (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1994).

Michael J. Marquardt, and Nancy O. Berger, Global Leaders for the 21st Century (New York: State University of New York Press, 2000).

Kenneth W. Thomas, and Betty A. Velthouse, “Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An ‘Interpretive’ Model of Intrinsic Task Motivation,” Academy of Management Review 15, no. 4 (1990): 666-668. Journal on-line. Available from Business Source Premier (20 November 2006).

All of us have had to do things out of a sense of obligation or simply because we were forced to do it by a higher power. In fact, just last month, most of us were coerced into sending a part of our hard-earned income to the federal government in the form of taxes. There may be some out there who just find this annual exercise the highlight of their year, but I think it’s pretty safe to say that most do not experience it that way. What I am talking about is the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Thomas and Velthouse (1990) defined “intrinsic” motivation as involving “positively valued experiences that individuals derive directly from a task” (p. 668). It is the result of the person internally assessing the task and determining that the task itself is personally rewarding. The focus is on the task rather than the consequences of not performing the task or the “payoff” from accomplishing the task. In other words, it is a motivation that is independent of the attraction of the reward or the fear of the punishment. In my estimation, this was the approach that was most often employed by the Apostle Paul in his efforts to influence people to follow the way of Jesus Christ. For example, in one instance, Paul was trying to raise funds for a gift of charity to the Jewish Christians living in Jerusalem who were suffering a terrible drought. While in the Greek city of Corinth, Paul appealed to the Christians there to give generously, but not out of a sense of obligation. He wrote: “Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” (1 Corinthians 9:7, NASB). Most organizational experts agree that, in today’s world, the old approach of command and control no longer works. Our culture and the world as a whole are seeking the kind of leaders who know how to help people discover the power of intrinsic motivation.

Questions for Reflection

(1) Why do you think the system of command-and-control fails to produce the best results? (2) How can a leader tap into the intrinsic motivation of the task? (3) Can you think of some specific things that leaders have done in your life to foster motivation from within? (4) What are the assumptions being made my leaders who seem to only know the command-and-control style of leadership?

[Reply to this Post]

Works Cited

Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An ‘interpretive’ model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666-668.

UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT and how the two interact with one another is critical to organizational effectiveness and survival. This is even true–or perhaps especially true–for the church. Not all leadership experts agree that there really is a difference, but most feel that the distinction is important. Kotter (1997) was the first to take a serious look at this distinction. He writes: “Management is about coping with complexity. . . . Without good management, complex enterprises tend to become chaotic in ways that threaten their very existence. Good management brings a degree of order and consistency to key dimensions like the quality and profitability of products” (p. 25). Management is the effort to make sense out of the chaos, to clear up the confusion, and to force life into an orderly frame of reference. This is great for calming the nerves and maintaining a sense of peace and tranquility.

This desire for order, however, can also lure us into the illusion of security because real life is not like that. Real life is full of surprises and shifting forces that affect the outcomes of our efforts. This changing and chaotic reality of life is where leadership comes into play. Again, Kotter writes: “Leadership, by contrast, is about coping with change. . . . More change always demands more leadership” (p. 25). The research of Kouzes and Posner (1995) goes even further, providing clear evidence that high-performance leaders are always engaged in the work of leading change (p. 15). Dr. Thomas C. Stanton, vice president for Academic Affairs at James Madison University, maintains that “leaders and managers have common foundation abilities but they differ with respect to their predominant tendencies.” Leaders, he says, “tend to be goal-oriented while managers tend to be results-oriented. . . . Managers attempt to adjust to change while leaders attempt to produce it.”

Perhaps even more important than simply recognizing the distinction between leadership and management is to also understand how the two functions interact with one another. They are both essential to the survival of any organization, but they often come into conflict with one another. As Yukl (2002) states: “The two processes have some incompatible elements; strong leadership can disrupt order and efficiency, and strong management can discourage risk taking and innovation” (p. 6). Unfortunately, the desire for “keeping the peace” or “not upsetting the applecart,” can lead a church or other organization to reject the innovators as instigators of harm, rebels, and malcontents. On the other hand, those who lean more toward leadership tend to be impatient with the managers, willing sometimes to run roughshod over anyone who gets in the way of their program for change. Healthy churches and healthy organizations manage to create an environment where both can perform their legitimate function.

[Post a Reply]

Sources Cited

Kotter, J. P. (1997). What leaders really do. In R. P. Vecchio (Ed.), Leadership: Understanding the Dynamics of Power & Influence in Organizations (pp. 24-34): University of Notre Dame.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1995). The leadership challenge: How to keep getting extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Stanton, T. C. Cited by Mark R. Christian, August 31, 2003,Manager vs Leader, Online threaded discussion forum in Leadership Studies Doctor of Strategic Leadership Forum LEAD771: The Human Side of Leadership, Regent Univesity, Virginia Beach, VA.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Organizations may fail to grow beyond the small family-business model into something larger simply because their structure does not allow for expansion. I have seen how the governing boards of small churches often insist on making all the tactical decisions–from what color to paint the foyer to whether or not to support some new missionary project. A decentralized structure that would enable the organization to stretch and grow might require the top governing body to shift to a system of governance by policy rather than by direct management (Carver, 1996). Decentralization includes the ideas of valuing good ideas, regardless of their source, resolving problems where they occur, removing unnecessary bureaucracy, and pushing decision-making authority out to the extremities of the organization. According to Nadler and Tushman (1997), “decentralization typically translates into greater speed, because decisions can be made by the people directly involved in the action” (p. 122). Decentralization has also been credited with higher job satisfaction, better decisions, and more creativity (Marquardt & Reynolds, 1994, p. 56; McMahon, 2001).

The Decentralization-Empowerment Link

Individual empowerment is unlikely to occur within a highly centralized system of command and control. Command and control structures–which have also been referred to as mechanistic or bureaucratic structures–place all decision-making power into the hands of the few who occupy the center, thereby inhibiting individual initiative. When you do not allow people to act upon their better judgments, they will tend to keep those judgments to themselves. It’s a bit like when a husband tries to wash the dishes and his wife stands over his shoulder telling him where to put the dishes that are waiting to be rinsed, which dishes to wash first, and how much soap to put into the water. It’s demotivating; he never wants to wash dishes again.

In policy governance, the top leadership defines the core and also the outer parameters of the organization, but allows freedom of movement and decision-making in the space between these two boundaries. Charles Handy (1994) describes this kind of organizational structure as being like an inside-out doughnut. The core of the doughnut, instead of being empty, is full; it is the part of the organization that is essential to what it is supposed to be doing. It should be clearly defined by the leadership core. The outer ring of the doughnut is empty (hence the inside-out doughnut) and represents “our opportunity to make a difference, to go beyond the bounds of duty, to live up to our full potential” (p. 70). Employees (or lay leadership in the church) are free to exercise their gifts and talents as they see fit as long as they are in alignment with the core parameters.

The Value of Front-Line Insight

By becoming evermore involved in directing the organization as a whole, leaders often no longer find the time to make contact with the customers whom they serve. As leaders move up the organizational structure, they isolate themselves from the very customer whom the organization claims to serve. Having lost touch with the customer, they also lose the perspective of the customer. The experience and latent knowledge of the front-line worker then becomes essential to the survival of the organization. This is not a problem for decentralized organizations, because those at the lower levels, or at the outer extremes of the doughnut, those who still have direct contact with the people, have the power to influence the direction and programs of the organization.

Another way to say this is that an organization is like a series of interconnected rivers and streams with information, decisions, actions, and outputs flowing out toward the customer. Highly centralized organizations create the notorious bottleneck effect, where the information and decisions get clogged up being always funneled through the top leadership and thus causing flooding and delays and an inferior service.

The negative effect, however, is not only seen in an inferior work flow, but also in what such a structure does to the very employees we are trying to empower. Organizational learning is inhibited because people are not motivated to learn when they don’t have authority to do anything with what they have learned (Denzau & North. 1993). They become passive and dependent, forever waiting on someone else to make the decisions before they act and withholding valuable insights they may have because, “Why bother, when nobody pays attention to my ideas anyway.” Leaders may lament the lack of commitment and loyalty of their people, without ever considering how their structural issues may be contributing to the problem.

Why We Resist

These leaders may not “see” structure as a problem because to consider an alternative way to structure themselves conjures up fears of anarchy and loss of control. Distrust is at the heart of a manager’s resistance to decentralized structure. The manager may harbor suspicions that, hidden within the claims of improved results derived from decentralization, lies a secret plot to undermine the foundations of the organization. We fear letting go of the reins of control and we suspect that calls for decentralization may stem from some underlying philosophy of anarchism.

This fear is not completely without foundation. Decentralization does carry within it some inherent dangers that must be understood and adequately dealt with if the organization is to derive its benefits and avoid its pitfalls. Daft (2004) warns, “Decentralization and employee freedom are excellent for initiating ideas; but these same conditions often make it hard to implement a change because employees are less likely to comply. Employees can ignore the innovation because of decentralization and a generally loose structure” (p. 407). This is why it is so important to rigorously define the core–the purpose, vision, goals, and expected outcomes of the organization–and to insist on the achievement of that core. Responsible decentralization does not mean less accountability but more, but it is an accountability to the core, not to the hierarchy. Responsible decentralization will be characterized by the clear definition of core processes, insistence on loyalty not only to one’s own autonomy but also to the organization as a whole, true buy-in on the part of the managers, and effective communication systems that provide the employee with the information he or she needs to make wise decisions.

The Paradox of Decentralization

This is an intriguing paradox. On the one hand, decentralization places more autonomy and authority in the hands of individuals at the lower levels of the organizational structure. On the other hand, it also requires more directiveness in the definition of expected outcomes. It requires a fundamental shift in the function of the manager who “must learn to specify the measures of success as well as the signs of failure [but] must then allow his or her people the space to get on with it in their own way” (Handy, 1990, p. 132).

The Priesthood of All Believers

In the domain of the Christian church, a concept that is congruent with decentralization has been referred to by theologians as the “priesthood of all believers” (Ketcherside, 1956). It is the idea that God has gifted and called every believer into religious ministry, that this calling is not limited to a specially designated class of religious men or women within the church. At the root of this doctrine is the New Testament doctrine that every member of the Body of Christ has a direct, vital, continuous, and living connection with God through the Holy Spirit (e.g., Romans 8:14). If this is the case, then one would expect the creative force of ideas and vision to flow up from the common member of the church. This is the very picture that we find of the primitive church as recorded in the New Testament scriptures. The early Christians seemed to understand intuitively that good ideas and sound judgment are not the exclusive rights of a privileged few at the apex of an organizational pyramid. God was moving in and through His people, regardless of title, social status, or job description.

Empowerment is not just a set of ideas or attitudes. Though these are essential, as we saw in previous posts, an empowering work environment also requires some structural adjustments that will enable more people to make decisions and to take on the responsibility of those decisions.

Questions for Reflection

(1) What are the benefits of decentralization? (2) What are its dangers? (3) How can an organization achieve the benefits and avoid the dangers? (4) How can an organization’s structure either enhance or hinder the spiritual development of its people?

[Post a Reply]

Sources Cited

Carver, John, and Miriam Mayhew Carver, Basic Principles of Policy Governance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996.

Daft, Richard L., Organization Theory and Design. Mason, OH: South-Western, 2004.

Denzau, Arthur T., and Douglass C. North. Shared Mental Models: Ideologies & Institutions. Washington Uiversity: Center for the Study of Political Economy, 1993.

Handy, Charles, The Age of Paradox. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1994.

Handy, Charles, The Age of Unreason. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1990.

Ketcherside, W. Carl. “The Royal Priesthood.” ed. Restoration Movement Texts. St. Louis, MO: Mission Messenger, 1956.

Marquardt, Michael J., and A. Reynolds, Global Learning Organizations: Gaining Advantage through Continuous Learning. New York: Irwin, 1994.

McMahon, J. Timothy. “Participative & Power-Equalized Organizational Systems.” In Classics of Organizational Behavior, ed. Walter E. Natemeyer and J. Timothy McMahon, 294-302. Long Grove, IL: Waveland, 2001.

Nadler, David A., and Michael L. Tushman, Competing By Design: The Power of Organizational Architecture. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Water Lily Pads at Atlanta Botanical Garden Photo by D. McAbee (March 3, 2008), Available at http://www.morguefile.com/archive/?display=201047&

MY PREVIOUS POSTS LOOKED AT THE PERSONAL DIMENSIONS OF EMPOWERMENT: that of the leader and that of the follower. This final series of posts on the topic of organizational empowerment looks at empowerment from a structural perspective. Just as a philosophy of empowerment has implications for the people who make up an organization, it also has implications for organizational structures. We have seen that certain kinds of leader behaviors can either inhibit or enhance empowerment. The same is true for the follower; certain kinds of follower behavior must be in place for empowerment to become a reality. The behavior of individuals, however, is only one side of the empowerment equation. The structure of the organization is an equally important factor.

Before discussing the relationship between empowerment and structure, we first need to define what we mean by structure. Galbraith (2002) defines it as the placement of power and authority in the organization (p. 11). It is usually represented by an organizational chart with boxes and lines. The boxes represent the way work is divided up and the lines signify who reports to whom (Davis & Weckler, 1996, p. 27). No organization can exist without some level of hierarchical structure. The question is whether the current structure serves the purpose. In a book that has nothing to do with organizations, H. Grady Davis (1958) wrote: “Life appears in the union of substance and form” (p. 1). The substance of an organization is its mission and values, but that substance cannot have life unless it takes on some structural form. There are, however, different qualities of life; it can be thriving or barely hanging onto existence. For organizations to thrive, they need a structure that drives them toward the accomplishment of their mission.

There is a sculpture located in the Salmon Mall in the city of Watertown, Upstate New York, that consists of a chain-link elevator that lifts metallic balls and drops them from the top of the sculpture where they begin falling and thereby activating an elaborate series of levers, rails, tubes and wheels that turn, spin, and whirl. It’s a finely tuned machine; yet it accomplishes absolutely nothing. Nadler and Tushman (1997) state: “It’s important to consider strategic issues before focusing too narrowly on organizational [i.e., structural] causes for problems. Otherwise, the organization is in danger of merely doing the wrong thing more efficiently” (p. 38). In other words, it is possible to achieve a finely tuned running machine that is a marvel to behold yet accomplishes nothing.

I have been acquainted with churches that are in this situation. They are stagnated; yet you would be hard-pressed to find any internal problems that are causing the failure. One church recently disbanded and I asked one of the key leaders what went wrong. He said: “I really don’t know. We had no internal problems. There was great teaching. Everyone got along together. It’s a mystery to me.” That church had become a holy huddle of blessed fellowship, but was not accomplishing its foundational purpose to serve its community in transformational action. For organizations to become empowering systems, it is not enough that employees (or members) get along, and are treated with equality. There is work to be done and a mission to fulfill.

A core idea of empowerment is that employees at any level within the organizational structure can have valuable insights on how to accomplish that work more efficiently and effectively. I know of another situation in a job placement service company where one employee had great ideas about how to improve the workflow of the organization. However, the supervisor to whom she reported had no interest in receiving feedback about improvement and there were no other mechanisms in place for allowing good ideas to filter up. This, of course, was partly a problem of corporate culture rather than structure, because the value of hearing ideas–no matter where they come from–was obviously not shared widely in the company. But there was also a structural element in that the organization did not provide mechanisms that would give voice to the employees. Valuable feedback that could improve the organization was lost.

I find it intriguing how people rarely question the structure of the organization and its effect on efforts to introduce change, such as the effort to become a more empowering organization. It is often assumed that the current structure is a given and that only heretics and traitors would consider tampering with it. Often structure is perpetuated well beyond its usefulness to accomplish the organizational mission and the structural means becomes the ends. People come to idolize certain organizational structures, never stopping to analyze them and to ask whether they are serving the purpose of the organization. A pastor friend on mine once said that churches go through stages over time. They start out with the vision of a man. Then they become a movement. This in turn eventually becomes a machine with its structural hierarchies. Finally it turns into a mere monument to what once was (Krajacic, 2005). This is largely because we become enamored with our structures and cling to them regardless of whether they serve to enable the mission.

Structure should be a servant to the mission and values of the organization. The mission of the organization and its values are the sacred elements. This is not to say that these will never change, but they should certainly be the most resistant to change, whereas the structure should be the most flexible element. It should be the enabler of the organization’s purpose. It is through the use of various kinds of structural configurations that the organization is able to achieve its purpose and goals. Those leaders who truly want to create an empowering organization must look carefully not only at the cultural issues that have been discussed in the previous posts, but also at the structural dimensions that may be inhibiting the potential for empowerment.

Most people want the organization they work with to be successful–whether it’s a church, a non-profit, or a for-profit company. An understanding of how structure can contribute to or inhibit that success can open up for people an entirely new array of options. Someone once said: “If all you have is a hammer, then everything will look like a nail.” A lack of appreciation for the power of structure to influence organizational outcomes can seriously limit our options when we are trying to introduce something new (such as empowerment) into the organization.

Organizational structure plays a vital role in whether or not empowerment becomes a reality for the organization. No matter how willing the people are to learn and adopt empowering behaviors, the wrong kind of structure can derail the whole process. On the other hand, structure can also serve as the means by which the values of empowerment can become institutionalized.

Just as there are certain leadership and follower behaviors that can enhance or hinder empowerment, so also certain organizational structures can either support and help move the organization toward empowerment or else they can subvert that goal. All organizations need to examine carefully their current structure to see whether it is right for what they are trying to accomplish.

The organizational structure should clearly tell us who is responsible for what aspects of the organization’s functions. It should describe who reports to whom. It should provide mechanisms for connecting the different parts of the organization into a coherent whole. Most importantly, however, the organizational structure should drive the organization toward the accomplishment of its task and propel the organization into the future. Nadler and Tushman (1997) write:

Basing organizational design solely on social and cultural issues may well result in a working environment where people eagerly look forward to coming to work each day; the problem is that one day they may show up and find the place locked and shuttered because they were all happily working away on activities that had little to do with the organization’s crucial strategic objectives (p. 24).

What does this have to do with spirituality? In the environment of organized religion, it is often the case that people over-spiritualize problems. I have listened to countless pastors lament the lack of commitment and spirituality on the part of their people. In reality, however, the problems these pastors were facing had very practical, structural, causes at their roots. Though the preaching and teaching was saying one thing, the structure of the church was actually supporting behavior that was contrary to the church’s stated values. Leaders of any type of human endeavor should examine possible organizational contributions to problems before blaming the people they serve for their lack of character or spirituality.

How should an organization that wants to embed the concepts of empowerment into its organizational life structure itself? We will explore this question in the next several posts. By way of introduction, the following is a list of the key elements of an organizational structure that supports and promotes empowerment:

1. Empowering organizations are generally more decentralized than centralized.
2. Empowering organizations generally share information more freely than do non-empowering organizations.
3. Empowering organizations put into place a system for contingent rewards.
4. Empowering organizations are team-based.
5. Empowering organizations align themselves with their goals and values.

Mere talk about empowerment is not enough to bring about a truly empowering work environment. The decision to become an empowering church or an empowering school or an empowering construction company may involve some fundamental changes in the way tasks are organized and the way information and people are linked to create a cohesive and productive whole.

[Reply to this Post]

References Cited

Galbraith, J. R. (2002). Designing organizations: An executive guide to strategy, structure and process (Revised ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Davis, M. R. & Weckler, D. A. (1996). Organization design: A guide for team leaders, business owners and change managers. London, UK: Kogan Page Ltd.

Davis, H. G. (1958). Design for Preaching. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1997). Competing by design: The power of organizational architecture. New York: Oxford University Press.

Krajacic, D. (January 18, 2005). Does form always follow function? Regent University Doctor of Strategic Leadership Online Forum. Virginia Beach, VA.

A little boy watched as a newly transformed butterfly struggled to wriggle its way out of its cocoon. Feeling sorry for the creature and its terrible struggle, the boy decided to help him by cutting the edges of the cocoon and thus allowing the butterfly to exit more easily. To the boy’s horror, what came out was not a beautiful butterfly, but a wrinkled and ugly caricature of a butterfly that died soon after exiting the cocoon. The boy failed to understand that the struggle of pushing its way through the tiny hole in the cocoon was God’s way of forcing the creature’s blood out into its newly formed wings, forcing them to expand and enabling the caterpillar to become a fully developed butterfly.

Empowerment works the same way. As people are given the freedom to act on their own, they are also held accountable for the outcomes of their efforts. This can be a painful experience, but it is this process of struggle that generates true learning.

Learning has much to do with how we handle the inevitable failures that occur when one is responsible for his or her actions. The fear of failure is why so many people shy away from taking responsibility and why we often want the freedom of empowerment without the corresponding responsibility. People who are unwilling to accept the responsibility for their decisions will also be unable to learn from their failures. Instead of learning, they will resort to the blame game, pointing to other people, to management, or to the environment as the cause of their failure. On the other hand, the truly empowered individual will see failure as a path to learning and improvement. This ability to handle failure creatively enables them to accept the responsibility of empowerment.

Empowerment is not a fluffy feel-good approach to management. It’s about allowing our own decisions and efforts to be filtered through the grid of results. It’s about honestly and objectively asking ourselves whether those results really contribute to the objective and about being willing to change our tactics when they don’t. I know of many churches that are dying on the vine because their leaders live in a constant state of denial. They blame their members for lack of spirituality or commitment. They blame society for its erosion of morality. They blame the mega-churches for watering down their doctrine. Yet, all the time, what is really happening is that the environment has changed and their strategies based on a by-gone era are failing to produce results. They don’t take responsibility for the failure and they don’t allow that failure to inform their learning. In other words, they have not allowed themsevles to become truly empowered.

Many people are intrigued by the thought of empowerment, but they have not counted the cost of empowerment. Empowerment is not only defined by freedom; it is also defined by responsibility. As Jamali, Khoury, and Sahyoun (2006) point out: “Empowerment extends beyond delegation to encompass true ownership and hence the true burden of responsibility” (p. 339). When people feel that they own not only the process, but also the outcomes, their lives can take on a sense of significance and meaning. All of us want to make a genuine contribution to objectives that we value. Nobody enjoys simply being the instruments of someone else’s plans and someone else’s goals. Managers who rely solely on the command and control paradigm of management will always fail to make use of the full potential of their people, because they fail to tap into this human need to make a significant contribution. At this very moment, our nation is in the midst of making radical decisions about the future of the country. Two models are being presented to the people: one that promises universal care and protection while removing many key liberties and another that offers liberty with responsibility, one that offers entitlement and another that offers empowerment.

Empowered teams are called to accomplish an objective. They are expected to produce results. They are free to develop the means and processes by which they will accomplish these objectives, but the only way to assess whether these efforts have been successful is to measure them against a clearly-defined set of criteria. Empowered individuals accept this challenge and are willing to subject their efforts to the test of objective measurement. They are willing to speak with facts and to allow these facts to judge their actions. In other words, they are willing to accept the responsibility of empowerment. If you and your team have been empowered to do something, the following questions may help you to accept that challenge with an attitude of responsibility.

1. What have you been empowered to accomplish? What is your mandate? Make sure you are clear about the final outcome you have been empowered to achieve. What are the expectations of your superiors? Ask yourself, what will things look like once success has been achieved? What kind of need will you fill? Who will benefit from the successful accomplishment of this task? What are their criteria for successful accomplishment? “Empowerment requires accountability to the mandate, and the higher vision and values of the [organization]. Empowerment does not mean team members can do as they please, get their own way, or operate with autonomy” (USACE, 2006).
2. What resources will you need to accomplish this task? According to Von Krogh, Ichijo, and Nonaka (2000), there are two basic kinds of resources: human capital and structural capital. “Human capital includes all individual capabilities–that is, the talents, knowledge, and experience of the company’s employees and managers. Structural capital consists of everything that remains when the employees go home–that is, the infrastructure that supports the company’s human capital, including the information technology and physical systems used to transmit intellectual capital” (p. 93). Who are the people who must buy into this project for it to be a success? What are the technologies you will need to accomplish the task? What financial resources will you need?
3. What are some trends taking place that should inform your strategy? This has to do with identifying and monitoring change through environmental scanning. It involves the practice of looking outside the organization. Lay aside for a moment your pre-conceptions about the project. Look at the realities of the current economic situation. Look at the trends in perceptions outside of the organization. The designers of airplanes can apply a tremendous amount the creativity and autonomy to the task of building the jetliners, but if they fail to adhere to the laws of physics then tragedy will result. Autonomy involves the application of your creative genius; responsibility involves learning to live within the constraints of the real world.

The bottom line is that people who want to be empowered need to count the cost of empowerment and realize that it also involves a higher degree of responsibility. It means being accountable for outcomes. It means being willing to submit one’s efforts to the test of objective measurement. It involves the subjection of our preconceptions to the realities of the external environment. Where there is no risk; there is no significance. Where there is no failure; there is no learning. Empowered people accept the risk and learn from the failures.

Post a Reply

Questions for Reflection

(1) What are some reasons why people often resist being accountable for their actions? (2) What are some failures you have experienced that have lead to deep learning? (3) What is the relationship between significance and risk? (4) What patterns of responsibility or irresponsibility do you see at work in your organization?

Works Cited

Jamali, D., G. Khoury, and H. Sahyoun. “From Bureaucratic Organizations to Learning Organizations.” The Learning Organization 13, no. 4 (2006): 337-352. Available at Emerald Journals (17 November 2006).

USACE. “Learning Organization: Empowerment.” US Army Corps of Engineers, 2006. Available at http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepa/learning/17.htm (17 November2006).

Von Krogh, Georg, Ichijo, Kasuo, and Nonaka, Ikujiro, Enabling Knowledge Creation: How to Unlock the Mystery of Tacit Knowledge & Release the Power of Innovation. Oxford University Press, 2000.