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:
- Empowering organizations are generally more decentralized than centralized.
- Empowering organizations generally share information more freely than do non-empowering organizations.
- Empowering organizations put into place a system for contingent rewards.
- Empowering organizations are team-based.
- 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.
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.