Lack of Will & Empowerment of Employees

[ralphsulser]

Most people want to do a good job, but conflicting orders and responsibilities can make a mess of even the best intentions.

/Claes

Unfortunately some upper management egos also prevent resolutions because it's a power thing.

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Thanks, you've said what I mean with my post ( but my terrible English hasn't permitted me ).

I don't think you need to worry about your English. Your post made perfect sense to me

Unfortunately some upper management egos also prevent resolutions because it's a power thing.

Yes... I forgot about that little problem, didn't I? Heaps of common sense has been sacrificed on the altar of the ego...

/Claes

 

[selena15]

Hi all

I ....To add to the complexity, managers are also motivated and the type of motivation can differ from his or her employees

yes indeed it can be a reason, because, the org from where this question raised has as rules that Mngt aren't expected to stay in one position and area for long term, they should remove to another area, of course, they won't loose a job, but they have to move and probably if they are forced to, it may give another view to their motivation

thanks lot for all feedback
Sel

 

[prabhatchaddha]

Hi all

do you think that facing a lack of will from some employees to do some tasks has as root cause a lack of empowerment of the responsible of this tasks?

Can be

i mean if they got additional tasks from another dept responsible or area, and they don't provide any feedback to his request, even this project was presented to them by the Mgt.

This can have quite a few reason I have seen cases where mgt give a additional task to some capable young guy in some another department. when the employee start taking up interest in that he doesn’t receive the support in that department reason being personal ego of the intended department as these people eye him as an intruder. Sooner he start losing interest in it. Other reason could be employee may relate this to his career and find it that it has no implications. Some may feel overly burdened or can be beyond there interest etc etc

Does this because they don't see this responsible as their direct one so no problem to panic or what is it exactly?

This can be true in some cases

that's mean, does providing enough empowerment would correct a bad will from one employee?

It can if this is the issue

When employees won’t fulfill the requirements if they can scape or to “delegate” it to another person. Does this behavior arise if there is lack of willingness or because the sender of the requirement has not enough authority ?

Sel

Not necessary may be he doesn’t have time or may have some different priorities.

Regards

Prabhat Chaddha

 

[prabhatchaddha]

Apart from what has been said already I see one common cause for concern (and problems): In many workplaces Dep. boundaries, and processes are very poorly matched (which incidentally is why we should audit processes and not departments). Quite often dep. heads and process owners will turn out to be different people.

This makes a clash between interests of department heads and process owners likely. When that happens people caught up in the fray will react in different ways. Some will try to please both their nominal bosses and the process owners. Others will see it as a possibility to skirt as may tasks as possible. Most people want to do a good job, but conflicting orders and responsibilities can make a mess of even the best intentions.

/Claes

This is true for many of the cases where hat of process and hat of department is on different people.

I think process owner should be a department head or vica versa.In case with department having many process owner due to varibility in operation then they should report top department head

Regards

Prabhat chaddha

 

[Jen Kirley]

Jennifer, have you got into Leadership Substitutes very much (Kerr and Jermier)?

Essentially, in many occupations, the job (or the end result) becomes the source of leading the activity. In their initial paper, the authors used Hawkeye from M.A.S.H. as the example. He was always driven to save people; regardless of what else is going on.

Plain and simple, most humans have a variety of rewards (in addition to a paycheck) they want from a job. When you can align the individual needs with the organization needs, then you have success.

A decent manager helps set goals. A good manager is giving constant goal feedback; helping the individual achieve the goals.

Again, goals are just one of many theories to approach this from. We haven't even touched Equity Theory yet.

Putting the theories into practice is like parenting:

1) It is possible to do a good job without being able to explain the theories, which can resemble complex psychobabble.

2) Succeeding with #1 usually requires effort in understanding people, and what works with them as individuals and why. It means paying attention and staying involved without hovering. It means letting you know you care without clinging or commanding. It means not getting too comfortable: people and their needs do tend to change. It means an appropriate degree of trust they will live up to expectation, ranging from none to complete.

3) It isn't always possible or practical to give people what they want, but when you can't give them what they want, it's usually worthwhile to explain why because regardless of what we say, people do keep score.

4) Unless it's pre-arranged, "I'll make it up to you" is a poor substitute for getting it right the first time.

5) Be sincere: kids and employees can smell a fake.