posted 30 March 2000 04:49 AM               

Good idea you might think.

Now - this particular company is having a problem knowing its xxxx from its xxxx. Frustration and demotivation is all around with no one able or willing to give any direction.

What i now suspect is going to happen, is that every niggle, departmental cooperation problem is going to land on my desk to referee.

We will see in a few weeks.

Regards

posted 02 April 2000 01:39 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cotterell:

In all Management Manuals I write these days, I include the use of one form only for reporting nonconformances

---

quote:

---

I wonder how others feel about the level of empowerment this offers

---

Your proposition of using 3rd party auditors as 'police' is old, tired and disturbing. It has taken years to remove the immediate thought of POLICE when the word quality comes up. Now you suggest that because companies cannot police themselves that this should be the job of 3rd party auditors. Although it is happening, to some degree, I don't see police intervention as the answer in most companies. I'm also sure most management feels this way.

Alan, in your posts you seem to constantly portray management as people who can't or won't do what is right. I'm a liberal democrat in the US which is essentially a statement of pro-labour. You take it to the extreme. In this post you say:

quote:

---

"...these reports are the first thing certifying bodies look for during third party audit, and they insist the reports must be 'closed out'. This clause seems to herald the end to employers paying 'lip service' to ISO9000..."

---

One of your assumptions is that all these employees 'reports' will be valid and that they will get in the CA process. Often times there are NC's that simply do not require a CA. Christian had some very valid points in his post, as well.

Each company empowers employees in different ways and to different degrees. Some companies do not really require a high level of employee empowerment. Governments are quite like this. Citizens = Employees

You say:

quote:

---

"...when we implement a documented management system - empowerment or more executive control? We never seem to get three things together in any organisation - empowerment, ownership and participation. Do these things make up Industrial Democracy?"

---

Now I know you're thinking of risk, as you always do, and of safety. As a business owner I have certain obligations. But many things can happen. An employee can screw up (Bophal, India - Union Carbide). A design can fail (the NASA space capsule that fire engulfed killing the 3 astronauts some years ago where it was found that the design engineers had for years been advising against using pure oxygen but NASA stubbornly refused to listen). However, empowerment and 3rd party police are not going to solve these types of problems.

You want a business where the foundation is 'democracy' I suggest you start one.

While empowerment is a good idea, in my opinion, the question becomes 'at what point does it end'? My experience is that there are some good companies, some bad companies and most are 'middle of the road'. Once a 'good' company, Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) founder (Olsen?) walked the halls talking with employees and in general was very involved. His business decisions were in part made on the feedback he got as he toured and met with employees on all levels of the business. DEC did well for many years but - despite the extremely high level of 'empowerment' it eventually (for all intents and purposes) failed somewhat miserably. Back in the 70's and 80's when he did this it was a rather novel idea. Take a look at many Silicon Valley companies in the US today - they are the evolutionary product. But we also have to consider what their core business. Writing software and designing computer components and hardware is not the same as 'heavy' industries such as metal stamping and forging. Is empowerment the same in both? No.

posted 03 April 2000 06:34 AM               

The paradox of empowerment is that you cannot actually give power to another. Others can empower themselves and you may assist or resist that process. So when a manager decides to "empower" a worker, unless they set in place a process of self-empowerment, they are involved in an act of delusion. This is based on the notion that the power game is a zero-sum game, where if your power goes down, mine goes up. When the workerâs power increases, the manager must somehow have less of it.

This "zero-sum metaphor" misleads managers into thinking that the process of empowering others is somehow to the managersâ detriment. When you empower others, you lose power. Replace this metaphor, say, by the "knowledge metaphor" (as in knowledge shared is not knowledge halved) and the concept of empowerment becomes a positive and uplifting notion. Parker Follett calls this having "power-with" as opposed to the notion of "power-over" which is implicit in the "zero-sum metaphor".

She describes "power-with" as "a jointly developed power, a co-active, not coercive power" (Metcalf and Urwick, 1941 p. 101). In this way, the notion of power in empowerment becomes a self-developing capacity that is encouraged by the manager. It is more closely related to personal development than it is to "authority".

With this one concept of "power-with", she both predates and encapsulates the fundamental issue in so-called "empowerment programs" advocated by some. And that is that it is not about power but about enabling others to develop their abilities.

By conceptualising it as a process rather than an act, she removes most of the ground from beneath those who question empowerment as something that will undermine the authority of management. This inevitably leads to considerations of context, of the structural and social elements in organisations that either facilitate or hinder the development of "empowered" employees.

By re-conceptualising the notion away from power-over to power-with, Parker Follett changes the empowerment debate from a competition to a joint development project. It is probably the most sensible contribution so far made to the discussion on empowerment. And that is a contribution from the 1920âs, long before the debate was even conceived!

posted 03 April 2000 07:02 AM               

Bringing in the 'power' word and all the philosophy is not particularly enlightening. The statement "...power-over to power-with..." is nothing more than one should learn in marriage and is the basis of team work - everyone has a part to play and no one is 'King'. This is fine, to a certain point and each company decides where that point is. Ideally, a company will foster that type of relationship - everyone works for the benefit of the company. Someone does, in fact, have to be the 'King'. While concensus sometimes works (highest number of votes wins), it is not always the best way and often, in fact, the team leader (plant manager, whatever) has more experience and training and as such is the best one of the group to make the final decision.

Practically speaking there are real 'King's, such as plant managers - and for a good reason. The plant manager is supposed to have training and experience which qualifies him/her for that job and as such will be the ultimate decision maker. A line employee typically does not have that training and experience.