[From Fred Nickols (981104.2030)] --
I was asked to repost the Letter to the Editor that HBR just
printed in the Nov-Dec issue. Here it is...
Fred Nickols (980705.2025 EDT)
The discussion about empowerment led me to refer back to Chris Argyris's
article about that subject in the May-June issue of Harvard Business Review.
That, in turn, prompted me to draft a letter to the editor of HBR. The
text appears below. I'd welcome comments from anyone (friendly or otherwise).
Begin draft letter to HBR editor --
Chris Argyris unwittingly puts his finger on the problem with empowerment
when he writes, �It is unrealistic to expect management to allow thousands
of employees to participate fully in self-governance.�
CEOs don�t get it. Argyris doesn�t get it. Employees are already
self-governing; each and every one of them is 100% in control of his or her
behavior. Sure, people can be enticed to behave in certain ways. They can
be coerced to behave in certain ways, too, but coercion is very expensive,
of limited utility, and depends on constant vigilance and supervision.
That�s no way to run a business in today�s world.
Individual human beings are naturally autonomous. They act in ways that
keep their perceptions of what�s going on around them more or less aligned
with their intentions. No one needs to �allow� us to participate in
self-governance�that�s what we do.
When work was materials-based and working was muscle-based, prescriptions
for overt behavior could be developed and enforced. Compliance was the
order of the day. But then the nature of work and working both changed.
Work shifted from a materials-base to an information-base and then a
knowledge-base. Working shifted its locus from the muscles to the mind and
social interactions based on verbal behavior moved center stage. The shift
to knowledge work shattered the chain of command. If you don�t believe
that, try ordering people to be creative or to come up with �killer-app�
new products and see how far that gets you.
The reign of compliance is at an end, especially for those we refer to as
�knowledge workers.� As Peter Drucker wrote in Management 25 years ago,
�Finally, there is the knowledge worker, especially the advanced knowledge
worker. No one can direct him. He has to direct himself. Above all, no
one can supervise him. He is the guardian of his own standards, of his own
performance, and of his own objectives. He can be productive only if he is
responsible for his own job (p.279).�
All people, not just knowledge workers, act in accordance with a set of
internal reference conditions. Their actions are intended to keep their
perceptions of the world about them aligned with these internally-held
reference conditions. This is not a sometimes thing. It is a permanent
fixture, a given. If an employee�s internal reference conditions do not
align well with the reference conditions held by management, employee
behavior and job performance are likely to be seen by management as
problematic.
With luck, management can communicate its expectations and provide
sufficient incentives to obtain something resembling that which is wanted.
However, relying on luck is no way to run a business, either. Something
more reliable is required.
The fundamental task of management has not changed in thousands of years.
It is and always has been a matter of concentrating and channeling
organizational energy along productive lines. For thousands of years, we
were able to do just that. First we used the whip. In recent years more
humane incentives have come into play�but always operating through a
supervisor. Now, as Drucker points out, the supervisor is of limited use.
Yet, the task of concentrating and channeling organizational energy
remains�and it taxes and vexes the best and brightest of our managers and
executives.
The general form of the solution is plain to see: alignment between the
reference conditions of management and those of individual employees.
Without this alignment, there can be nothing except working at cross
purposes, feigned compliance, futile exercises of authority, sham,
pretense, waste, inefficiency, and endless game playing. Fads, like
empowerment, will come and go, leaving disillusionment and frustration in
their wake.
At a more specific level what can be done? Well, perhaps the simplest
thing of all is to stop viewing employees as �human resources,� as chattel
property, as instruments or extensions of some non-existent central will,
and start viewing them for what they are: autonomous human beings,
naturally self-governing. The trick now isn�t one of ensuring compliance,
it is one of eliciting contributions. That calls for discussion, debate,
and negotiation. These are not the competencies of autocrats and
aristocrats; they are the stock in trade of democrats and republicans.
What Argyris fails to point out are the decaying, crumbling foundations of
corporate aristocracy and the autocratic behaviors that mark it as such.
The corporation is the last bastion of monarchy and the shift to knowledge
worker is ushering democracy into the workplace. Consequently, corporate
leaders needn�t waste time worrying about how to empower employees; indeed,
that�s a shaky position to take because it implies the ability to
disempower as well. Corporate leaders would do better to seek out and
eliminate the many roadblocks already empowered employees encounter as they
attempt to contribute to the organizations whose fates are often
inextricably intertwined with their own. You see, most employees know
something that many managers and executives seem to forget: In the last
analysis, we are all in the same boat.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
nickols@worldnet.att.net
(609) 490-0095