PLAGIARISM FREE "A" WORK

Despite all the talk and the change programs, empowerment is still mostly an illusion.

EMPOWERMENT THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES

BY CHRIS ARGYRIS

ONSiDERiNG its much touted potential, it's no wonder that empowerinent receives all the attention it does. Who wouldn't want

more highly motivated employees to help scale the twenty-first century? As one CEO has said, "No vision, no strategy can he achieved without able and empowered employees."

Top-level executives accept their responsibilities to try to develop empowered employees. Human resource professionals devise impressive theories of internal motivation. Experts teach change man- agement. Executives themselves launch any nuiTi- ber of programs from reengineering to continuous improvement to TQM. But little of it works.'

Take reengineering for instance. Although the rhetoric of reengineering is consistent with em- powerment, in reality it is anything but that. Both research and practice indicate that the best results of reengineering occur when johs are rigorously specified and not when individuals are left to define them. Even the GE workout sessions had their

98

greatest success when the prohlems resolved were relatively routine. Reengineering has led to im- provements in performance, but it has not pro- duced the numher of highly motivated employees needed to ensure consistently high-performing or- ganizations.

Few executives would deny that there has heen little growth in empowerment over the last 30 years. But why that is so remains a riddle. The an- swer is complex. The change programs and prac- tices we employ are full of inner contradictions that cripple innovation, motivation, and drive. At the same time, CEOs subtly undermine empower- ment. Managers love empowerment in theory, hut the command-and-control model is what they trust and know best. For their part, employees are often ambivalent ahout empowerment - it is great as long as they are not held personally accountable. Even the change professionals often stifle einpower- ment. Thus, despite all the best efforts that have gone into fostering empowerment, it remains very

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW May-]une 1998

mueh like the emperor's new clothes: we praise it loudly in publie and ask ourselves privately why we ean't see it. There has been no transformation in the workforee, and there has been no sweeping metamorphosis.

Two Kinds of Commitment To understand why there has been no transforma- tion, we need to begin with commitment. Commit- ment is not simply a human relations coneept. It is an idea that is fundamental to our thinking about economics, strategy, financial governance, infor- mation technology, and operations. Commitment is about generating human energy and activating the human mind. Without it, the implementation of any new initiative or idea would be seriously compromised. Human beings can commit them- selves in two fundamentally different ways: exter- nally and internally. Both are valuable in the work- place, but only internal commitment reinforces

empowerment. (See the exhibit "How Commit- ment Differs.")

External commitment-think of it as contractual compliance-is what an organization gets when workers have little control over their destinies. It is a fundamental truth of human nature and psychol- ogy that the less power people have to shape their lives, the less commitment they will have. When, for example, management single-handedly defines work conditions for employees, the employees will almost certainly be externally committed. That commitment is external because all that is left for employees is to do what is expected of them. The

Chris Argyris is the James Bryant Conant Professor Emeritus of Education and Organizational Behavior at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He is the author of "Good Communication That Blocks Learning" (HBR fuly-August 1994), a McKinsey Award winner. He is also a director at Monitor Company in Cambridge.

ARTWORK BY BRYAN LEISTER 99

EMPOWERMENT: THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES

HOW COMMITMENT DIFFERS

External Commitment

Tasks are defined by others.

Internal Commitment

Individuals define tasks.

The behavior required to perform tasks is defined by others.

Individuals define the behavior required to perform tasks.

Performance goals are defined by management.

Management and individuals jointly define performance goals that are challenging

for the individual.

The importance of the goal is defined by others.

employees will not feel responsible for the way the situation itself is defined. How can they? They did not do the defining.

If manageiTient wants employees to take more responsibility for their own destiny, it must encour- age the developiTient of internal commitment. As the name implies, internal commitment comes largely from within. Individuals are coiTimitted to a particular project, person, or program based on their own reasons or motivations. By definition, internal commitment is participatory and very closely allied with empowerment. The more that top manage- ment wants internal commitment from its employ- ees, the more it must try to involve employees in defining w^ork objectives, specifying how to achieve them, and setting stretch targets.

We might well ask whether everyone must par- ticipate in order for empowerment to exist in an organization. In principle, the answer is "yes"; in reality, there is a "but." It is unrealistic to expect management to allow thousands of employees to participate fully in self-governanee. The degree to w h i c h internal c o m m i t m e n t is plausible in any organization is certainly limited. Moreover, the extent of participation in corporate goals and aspirations will vary with each employee's wishes and intentions.

At SmithKline Beecham, in one of the most far- reaching programs for employee participation that I know of, management used a merger as an oppor-

Individuals define the importance of the goal.

t u n i t y to huild empowerment. Throughout the entire organization, more than 400 task forces were created. Yet to this day top management does not believe that internal commitment has been gener- ated throughout the entire company. Their realistic assessment is that not even all the employees on the task forces feel empowered.

To be fair, it is iinportant to remember that em- powerment is a goal that organizations approxi- mate but never quite reach. The fact is that it is pos- sible to have various levels of commitment in an organization and still get the job done. Curiously, employees have no trouble understanding the need to keep within bounds. In all lny work, I have yet to find einployees who make unrealistic demands about empowerment. For top management, then, the essential thing to know is that there are limits to internal commitment. EiTiployees do not under- s t a n d - i n fact, they usually r e s e n t - e x e c u t i v e s preaching internal commitment while continuing to demand external commitment from the rank and file. Indeed, a great source of discontent in orga- nizations is that top-level managers continually risk their credibility by espousing empowerment too glibly.

Clearly, if it is internal eommitment that pro- vides the kind of outcomes that CEOs say they want, then they must be realistic and judicious in their demands for it. But the problem goes deeper hecause the framework that most organizations are

100 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW May-June 1998

EMPOWERMENT: THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES

now using to transform themselves discourages employees from actually taking responsibility in their jobs.

Change Programs Increase Inner Contradictions Major change programs are rife with inner contra- dictions. By this, I mean that even when these pro- grams and policies are implemented correctly, they do not-and cannot-foster the behavior they are meant to inspire. If the inner contradictions are brought to tbe surface and addressed, they can be dealt with successfully; that is, they will not inhibit the kind of personal commitment that manage- ment says it wants. But if the contradictions re- main buried and unacknowledged, as they usually do, tbey become a destructive force. Not only do they stifle the development of empowerment, they also sap the organization's effieieney by breeding frustration and mistrust.

To illustrate, consider the advice tbat currently represents best practice for implementing and pro- moting organizational cbange. That advice breaks the process down into four basic steps: • Define a. vision. • Define a eonipetitive strategy consistent with the vision. • Define organizational work processes that, when executed, will implement the strategy. • Define individual job requirements so that em- ployees can carry out the processes effectively.

The underlying pattern of these instruetions is consistent with what ehange researchers and prac- titioners have learned about effective implementation over the years. Start with a clear framework-a vision- and progressively make it operational so that it will come alive. So that no one will have any doubts about how to align the four parts of the process, management is advised to speak with one voice. This process lnakes sense. It is rational.

Yet the proeess is so riddled with in- ner contradictions that change programs that fol- low it will only end up creating confusion, particu- larly at the implementation stage. Given that all the steps have heen so precisely described through a set of instructions, the advice actually encourages more external than internal commitment. Clearly, when employees' actions are defined almost exclu- sively from the outside (as they are in most change programs), the resulting behavior eannot be em- powering and liberating. One immediate eonse-

quence is that employees react to the ehange pro- gram hy quietly distancing themselves from it. Thus the change program is successful in terms of improving performance because it helps reduce mistakes, as in the case of TQM, or because it helps employees embrace best practices. But at the same time, it undermines internal commitment. In short, the advice for implementing change simply does not provide the new source of energy that many executives want.

But the real danger is that ehange programs end up poisoning the entire eorporation with long- lasting mixed messages. Internally committed em- ployees intei-pret these messages as "do your own thing-the way we tell you." They reluctantly toe the line. Employees who prefer external commit- ment will also pick up the mixed messages; how- ever, these people will be relieved because they feel protected from having to take any personal respon- sibility. In this way, the very working habits that executives do not want to see continued in their organizations are strengthened and reinforced. The result is invariably more inner contradictions and more inefficiency and cynicism, all of which get in the way of real change.

CEOs Undermine Empowerment CEOs work against empowerment both eonsciously and unconsciously. Surprisingly-at least to out- siders-executives do not always seem to want what tbey say they need. Consider a few typical re- marks that I came across during my research. These remarks-excerpted from a roundtable discussion

CEOs worR agauist empoweniient consciously and unconsciousiy;

executives do not always seem to want what they say they need.

of executives from world-class companies-indi- cate very clearly the ambivalence of CEOs toward internal commitment and empowerment. The first CEO noted that with "well-defined processes where the variances arc small and the operating limits are well defined," you no longer need the old command-and-control approach. Workers are now empowered, "provided they respect the process," he said. The second CEO agreed that these "processes are liberating," while the tbird observed

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW M;iy-Junc 1998 101

EMPOWEKMENT: THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES

that many employees have a tough time under- standing what it means for processes to be "reli- able, respectable, and in control."

Let us stop a moment and ask ourselves how there can be empowerment when there is neither guesswork nor ehallenges - when the job require- ments are predetermined and the processes are con- trolled. For employees operating in such a world, the environment is not empowering; it is foolproof.

Employees won't feel internally committed if someone always controlling them from the top down.

This is not a milieu in which individuals can aspire to self-governance. On the contrary, as long as they buy in and follow the dictates of the processes, the employees in the companies just described will only beeome more externally motivated.

The enthusiastic use of champions in virtually all contemporary change programs sends a similar mixed message from CEOs to employees. Top man- agement is well aware of the dangers of piecemeal implementation and eventual fade-out in major change programs. They strive to overcome those

problems by anointing champions. The champions pursue performance objectives with tenaeity, man- aging by decree. They have generous resourees available to ensure compliance, and they monitor employees' progress frequently. Altogether, these behaviors reinforee the top-down control features of the external commitment model. The single voice of fervent champions leads employees to feel that management is in eontrol, and it drives out

the sense of internal responsibility and personal empowerment. How ean em- ployees feel empowered if someone is always "selling" them or controlling them from the top down? hideed, such champions would not be necessary if employees were internally committed.

The result of all these interventions is disarray. Managers and the change pro- grams they use undermine the empow- erment they so desperately want to achieve. Why does this oeeur? Could it be that today's top-level managers don't truly want empowered employees? In truth, they are probably unsure. At the same time, employees do not hold exec- utives to task for their behavior. Em- ployees have their own mixed feelings about empowerment.

Employees Have Their Doubts External commitment is a psyeliolog- ieal survival mechanism for many em- ployees-it is a form of adaptive behav- ior that allows individuals to get by in most work environments. How that sur- vival meehanisni works is illustrated quite dramatically today in the former East Germany.

When the Berlin Wall came down, a routine way of life for East German workers came to an end. Most workers had learned to survive by complying. Eor 40 years, most plants were run in

accordance with the dictates of central planners. If many East Germans had pushed for greater eontrol over their destinies, their lives might have been en- dangered. As a result. East German workers over the years learned to define performance as doing the minimum of what was required of them.

After the fall of communism, I participated in many discussions with West German executives who were surprised and baffled by the lack of initia- tive and aspiration displayed by the East Germans. What those executives failed to understand is how

iS

102 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW May-June 1998

EMPOWERMENT: THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES

bewildering-indeed, how threatening-it can be for people to take internal commitment seriously, especially those who have lived their entire lives by the rules of external commitment. As I listened to the West German executives who wanted to make East German employees more internally committed, I thought of several cases in the United States and elsewhere where similar prohlems exist. Again and again in my experience, prolonged exter- nal commitment made internal commitment ex- tremely unlikely, because a sense of empowerment is not innate. It is something that must be learned, developed, and honed.

The question, then, is, How do you produce in- ternal commitment? One thing for sure is that the incentive programs executives have used-for in- stance, higher compensation, better eareer paths, "employee of the month" recognition awards- simply do not work. On the contrary, in all my years as a ehange consultant, I have repeatedly wit- nessed how offering employees the "right" rewards creates dependency rather than empowerment. In- evitahly, the power of such methods wears off with use, and all that has been created is more external eommitment.

Consider one company with substantial financial woes. In that case, the CEO decided at considerable personal sacrifice to raise his employees' salaries. But his own research later showed that the employ- ees merely considered their raises to be in keeping with their equity in the labor market. Internal com- mitment had not increased. Employees continued to do only what was asked of them as long as the rewards were increased. They followed the rules, but they did not take any initiative. They did not take risks, nor did they show the sense of personal responsibility that management sought. The CEO was surprised, but I thought that these results were entirely predictable for two reasons. First, pay, like other popular incentive schemes, often advances external commitment while creating a bias against internal commitment. Second, and more funda- mental, many employees do not embrace the idea of empowerment with any more gusto than man- agement does. For a lot of people, empowerment is just too much work. Like the workers in East Ger- many, almost all employees have learned to survive by depending on external eommitment.

When it comes to empowerment, executives and employees are engaged in shadowboxing. Manage- ment says it wants employees wbo participate more; employees say they want to he more in- volved. But it is difficult to know who means what. Is it just a charade? Employees push for greater au- tonomy; management says tbe right thing but tries

to keep control through information systems, processes, and tools. Employees see vestiges of the old command-and-control model as eonfirming their worse suspicions - that superiors want un- challenged power. Management just wants to see better numbers. Thus the battle between autonomy and control rages on, and meanwhile, as eompanies make the transition into the next century, the po- tential for real empowerment is squandered.

Change Professionals Inhibit Empowerment During the past decade, I have had the opportunity to work with more than 300 change experts in dif- ferent organizations. Such individuals differ in their practices and their effectiveness, of course, but more striking than tbe differences are tbe pat- terns that recur.

Caught in the middle of the battle between au- tonomy and control, the change professional has a tough assignment. The role of the change profes- sional, whether internal or external, is ostensibly to facilitate organizational change and continuous learning. In their own way, however, the vast ma- jority of change professionals actually inhibit em- powerment in organizations.

To understand how that occurs, consider what happens as Tom, a change agent, tries to work with Jack, a line manager. [Both are composite figures typical of those I encountered in my research.) Jack is told by his boss to work with Tom, who is there to "help" Jack empower his organization. The change program begins with a series of meetings and diseussions. Tom talks passionately about openness, honesty, and trust as the foundations of empowerment. Many employees leave these meet- ings feeling hopeful about the direetion that the company is taking toward more open communica- tion. A month into the program, however, Tom ob- serves that Jack has fallen back into his old style of management. He decides that he had better con- front Jack:

Tom's unspoken thoughts:

TOM: Things aren't going well.

What Tom and Jack say:

TOM: SO how's every- thing going?

JACK: Things are going pretty well. There's a lot of pressure from above, but we're meeting the numbers.

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW May-lunc 1998 103

EMPOWERMENT: THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES

TOM: Oh great. All Jack cares about is the num- bers. Empowerment isn't even on his agenda.

TOM: Just what I feared. Jack's not "walking the talk." He just doesn't get it at all.

TOM: Great. Super. But I was also wondering how well we're doing at get- ting people more com- mitted to their johs. How empowered do you think people feel ?

JACK: Well, I think we're doing okay. If there are prohlems, people eome to me and we work it out. Sure, some people are never satisfied. But that's just a few people, and we can handle them.

TOM: Look, Jack, if you solve all their prob- lems, how are we going to empower our em- ployees?

TOM: This is hopeless! There's got to be an eas- ier way to make a liv- ing. I'll never get through to him. I wish I could tell Jack what I think, but I don't want to put him on the defen- sive. I've got to stay cool

JACK: Well, to be honest witb you, Tom, tbe sig- nal I'm getting from above is that my job is to produce the numbers without, you know, up- setting people. To be fair, I think I'm doing that.

What's happening here? The change program that hegan with great enthusiasm is clearly in deep trou- hle. It's a pattern I've observed over and over again. After the initial excitement passes, reality in- evitably settles in. Put aside the nice rhetoric of empowerment, employees will have probleiTis. They will ask their managers for help, and their managers will tell them what to do. That is how most work gets done and how organizations meet their numbers. And in many cases, there's ahsolutely

notbing wrong with tbis, except that it goes against tbe theory of empowerment.

What does Tom do wben be observes Jack telling his employees wbat to do? Instead of figuring out wbetber Jack is doing tbe right thing in tbis situa- tion, cbange experts like Tom will almost always be dismayed, because the managers aren't walking the talk of empowerment. Rarely have I seen a change professional help a manager deal effectively with heing caught between a rock and a hard place. Even more uncominon is a change agent wbo offers practical advice to the manager about what to do.

Not only is Tom unwilling to acknowledge the real problem Jack is having, but he papers over bis own thoughts. He tries to act as if be still believes the program can he successful when, in fact, he bas given up bope. Tom himself is guilty of not walking the talk of openness, honesty, and trust.

In lTiy experience, line managers are far lnore willing to acknowledge the inner contradictions of cbange programs-at least, in private. They will ad- mit to distancing themselves from the soft stuff- two-way participation, internal commitment, and discontinuous thinking-to focus instead on the numbers. Managers like Jack often conclude- rightly, I'm afraid-that tbe cbange agent does not know bow to belp theiTi. So Jack listens politely as Tom warns him about the dangers of hacksliding and exhorts bim to be more persistent. And then Jack goes on about his business.

In tbe end, everyone is frustrated. In theory, em- powerment should make it easier for organizations to meet their numbers. But when change programs are imposed witbout recognizing the limitations of empowerment and Wien managers and employees arc not helped to deal effectively and openly witb tbem, tbe organization ends up worse off tban it was to begin witb. Empowerment too often enters the realm of political correctness, which means tbat no one can say wbat he or she is thinking: this is just nonsense. In this scenario, if you challenge the cbange agent, you become an enemy of change.

So instead of feeling more empowered, people throughout the organization feel more trapped and less able to talk openly about what's really going on. Is it any wonder that change prograins don't succeed and tbat tbey actually undermine the cred- ibility of top management?

What Is to Be Done? Despite all tbe rhetoric surrounding transforma- tion and major cbange programs, the reality is tbat today's managers bave not yet encountered change prograins that work. As we have seen, the reasons

104 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW May-|une 1998

EMPOWERMENT: THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES

for that are complex. Although managers share some of the responsibility for undermining internal motivation in their organizations, the change pro- grams tbat could create high levels of internal com- mitment and empowerment in corporations do not yet exist. That is why I believe it is time to begin the research and experimentation that is required to find some viable answers. But for now, let me be- gin with some recommendations that may help executives think more sen- sibly about empowerment. • Recognize that every company has both top-down controls and programs that empower people, and that some inconsistencies are inevitable and must simply be managed. When these inner contradictions beeome appar- ent, encourage individuals to bring them to the surface; otherwise, a cred- ibility gap will be created that can pollute the orga- nization for many years to come. • Don't undertake blatantly contradictory pro- grams. For instance, stop creating change programs that are intended to expand internal eommitment but are designed in ways that produce external commitment. Make sure that what is being es- poused will not contradict what actually happens. • Understand that empowerment has its limits. Know how mueh ean be created and what can be accomplished. Know that empowerment is not a eure-all. Do not evoke it needlessly. Once it has been ereated, do not misuse it. Be clear about who has the right to change things. Specify the likely limits of perinissihle change. • Realize that external and internal commitment can coexist in organizations but that how they do so is erucial to the ultimate success or failure of empowerment in the organization. For instance, external commitment is all it takes for perfor- mance in most routine johs. Unnecessary attempts to increase empowerment only end up creating downward spirals of cynicism, disillusionment, and inefficiencies. As a first precaution, distinguish hetween jobs that require internal commitment and those that do not. • Establish working conditions to increase empow- erment in the organization. If you want to help in- dividuals move away from external eommitment, encourage them to examine their own behavior. It

has been my experience that many employees are willing to become inore personally cominitted if management is really sincere, if the work allows it, and if the rewards reinforce it. • Calculate factors such as morale, satisfaction, and even commitment into your human relations poli- cies, but do not make them the ultimate criteria. They are penultimate. The ultimate goal is perfor-

Empowerment too often enters the realm of political correctness,

which means that no one can say what he or she is thinking.

mance. Individuals can he excellent performers and report low morale, yet it is performance and not morale that is paramount. When morale, satisfac- tion, and sense of einpowerment are used as the ul- timate criteria for success in organizations, they cover up many of the problems that organizations must overcome in the twenty-first century. • Help employees understand the choices they make ahout their own level of commitment. One of the most helpful things we can do in organiza- tions - indeed, in life-is to require that human be- ings not knowingly kid themselves about their effectiveness.

Finally, remember that empowerment can run contrary to human nature, and be realistic about how to achieve and use it. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln: You can empower all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can't empower all of the people all of the time. In the last analysis, nobody should expect more than that.

1, For a description of the similarities and differences in employee- involvement, recnginccring, and TOM programs, see Susan Alberts Mohrman, J.R. Galbraith, and Edward E. Alwair, Tomorrow's Or^nniza- tion (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, i99*^h ]• Hendry, "Processing Reengi- neering and the Dynamic Balance of the Organization," Europetm Man- agement Journal, vol, r3, no. i, pp. 5^-57; T. Eecles, "The Deceptive Allure of Empowerment," Long Riime Planning, vol- 26, no. 6, pp-13-21; and B.G. Jackson, "Rcengincering the Sense of Self: The Managers and the Management Gurus," Journal of Mannf^ement Studies, 1996, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 571-590.

Reprint 98302 To order rq)rints, see the last page of this issue.

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW May-June 1998 105

Harvard Business Review Notice of Use Restrictions, May 2009

Harvard Business Review and Harvard Business Publishing Newsletter content on EBSCOhost is licensed for

the private individual use of authorized EBSCOhost users. It is not intended for use as assigned course material

in academic institutions nor as corporate learning or training materials in businesses. Academic licensees may

not use this content in electronic reserves, electronic course packs, persistent linking from syllabi or by any

other means of incorporating the content into course resources. Business licensees may not host this content on

learning management systems or use persistent linking or other means to incorporate the content into learning

management systems. Harvard Business Publishing will be pleased to grant permission to make this content

available through such means. For rates and permission, contact [email protected].