A520.5.3.RB_RuggerioSteven

Developing and Empowering Employees

In Developing the Leaders Around You, John Maxwell (1995) said, “Great leaders produce other great leaders” (p. 3).  He explained his point further with, “An organizations growth potential is directly related to its personnel potential.  In short, a company cannot grow without until its leaders grow within” (p. 4).  Forrester (2002) believes one of the best ways to grow employees into leaders is through the oft-misunderstood management practice commonly known as empowerment.  

Forrester identified six strategies that aid leaders in enlisting the power of employees more effectively:

1.                    Enlarge power, by building knowledge, skills, and competence alongside increased discretion

2.                    Be clear how much you want to extend employees’ power, the extent you are prepared to extend their power, how you plan to fund it, and the appetite within the company for empowerment initiatives

3.                    Differentiate among employees

4.                    Support power sharers

5.                    Build closely aligned management systems

6.                    Focus on results

These six strategies focus on empowering and equipping an organization’s workforce more effectively.  Correctly managed, these initiatives will both develop employees and increase productivity.  Empowerment is more than a position; it’s an opportunity.

Whetten & Cameron (2011) explained that empowerment “enables people to develop a sense of confidence; it helps people overcome feelings of powerlessness or helplessness; and it acts as a means to energize people to take action and mobilize intrinsic motivation to accomplish a task” (p. 445).  In today’s fluid and sometimes-chaotic business atmosphere of rapid technological change and cutthroat competitiveness, managers risk burnout and an organizations rapid decline if leaders fail to empower and equip employees.

The days of withholding information and power from employees as a means of control are over.  Rather, as Whetten & Cameron (2011) clearly point out, “Evidence shows that empowered employees are more productive, more satisfied, and more innovative, and that they create higher-quality products and services than unempowered employees” (p. 443).  To achieve these ends, they identified five dimensions, or benefits, of empowerment that relate to Forrester’s six strategies above: self-efficacy (competence), self-determination (choice), personal consequence (impact), meaningfulness (value), and trust (security).  These dimensions specifically and measurably strengthen and develop an organization’s most precious resource: its people.

John Maxwell (1995) said, “You can’t turn people loose without structure, but you also want to give them enough freedom to be creative.  The way to do that is to give them the big three: responsibility, authority, and accountability” (p. 98).  Both Forrester’s strategies above and Whetten & Cameron’s five dimensions for empowerment echo the big three and confirm the importance of manager-employee communication. 

Whether it’s Maxwell’s big three, Whetten & Cameron’s five dimensions and nine prescriptions, or Forrester’s six strategies, each underline three common threads inherent in empowerment programs: responsibility, resources, and results.  First, everyone wants to believe that his or her efforts are personally making a difference in society in one way or another.  Whetten & Cameron (2011) call this, “personal consequence” or impact.  They said, “Empowered people have a sense that when they act, they can produce a result.  It is the conviction that through one’s own action, a person can influence what happens” (p. 449).  Forrester highlights the importance of building an employees’ power by increasing their abilities and skills.  Developing employee’s skill and demonstrating their impact with responsibility provides them with the personal motivation that produces positive results.

Once employees are empowered with responsibility, they must be given the resources to function effectively and efficiently.  Resources consist of the tools and techniques necessary to follow-through on assignments.  Some examples include, funding, information, special equipment, the latest technology, and most importantly, the authority commensurate with their responsibility.  Too often employees are set-up to fail because managers did not provide them with the authority to make decisions and enlist others to achieve the task.  Finally, another critical resource is to understand the boundaries and limits of their empowerment.  Working under or stepping over boundaries has the potential to doom a project before it has a chance to begin as well.  Whetten & Cameron (2011) said, “No empowerment can occur without employees knowing what these boundaries are” (p. 466).

The final element of empowerment as identified by Forrester, Whetten, Cameron, and Maxwell as results.  When it comes to empowerment, both the organization and the front line supervisors are stepping out in faith and trusting the employees will produce as good or better results.  One of the key motivations behind producing good results is accountability.  I have heard is said, “You get what you inspect, not what you expect.”  Either way, accountability does not have to entail looking over an employee’s shoulder throughout the process; however, regular and consistent follow-ups and feedback sessions are critical to the empowerment process. 

The results element of empowerment is often defined in terms of the organization’s bottom line.  While that is true, I believe there is another aspect of results that cannot be overlooked: the employee’s personal growth as a leader.  Managers should not judge the effectiveness of an empowerment program solely on profits; but rather, the people.  John Maxwell (1995) surveyed hundreds of leaders and identified empowerment as the characteristic that adds the greatest value to leaders.  He said:

“Motivation, believing in, mentoring, and all the other traits tap into what is inside the person.  Empowerment adds a new dimension to the person that did not and often cannot exist or come into existence on its own…There is a great responsibility with the gift of empowerment.  With the wrong motives a leader can empower for his/her own good rather than the good of the people and the organization.  Great leaders always put the organization and individual people before himself” (p. 178).

Whetten & Cameron (2011) said it best when they summarized their view of empowerment and delegation.  “Strong leaders are not lone rangers so much as they are savvy individuals who know how to mobilize those they lead and manage” (p. 472).  Empowerment is the bridge that makes great leadership happen.

Steve

References:

Forrester, R. (2002). Empowerment: Rejuvenating a potent idea. Measuring Business Excellence, 6(2), 68. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/208740450?accountid=27203

Maxwell, J. (1995). Developing the leaders around you. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

Whetten, D.A., & Cameron, K.S. (2011). Developing management skills. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

A631.4.4.RB_RuggerioSteven

Self-Managed Teams: Undeniable Impact

In his book, Leadership and the Art of Struggle, Steven Snyder (2013), former business manager for Microsoft and Bill Gates’ right-hand man said, “Spending time with Bill Gates in his formative leadership years gave me a privileged perch for observation.  It turns out that Bill’s sagacity and insight do not stem solely from innate genius.  He surrounds himself with very smart people, and he’s a voracious reader” (p. 171).  Bill Gates, the late Steve Jobs, Herb Kelleher, and Howard Schultz all understand their name is attached to the corporation; however, it is the teamwork and synergy of all the employees that truly produce outstanding results. 

The definition of a leader is changing.  While his or her name may be publicly recognizable, the days of autocratic control, directing employees, and micromanaging processes are decreasing and organizations are turning toward flatter structures and empowered work teams.  Great leaders have always understood the power of teamwork; however, today, mere awareness has been replaced with application.  Historically, teams were temporary and tightly managed.  Managers wrestled with their own fears and nervously contained and directed individual team members.  Teams and teamwork were encouraged but rarely supported from higher management levels.  In The Secret of Teams, Mark Miller (2011) said, “Although every business unit said they were organized in a team structure, in truth, many were not teams at all” (P. 8).

The idea of teamwork has evolved to include more than helping a coworker on an assembly line.  With the introduction and growth of self-managed work teams, responsibilities and management formerly reserved for corner offices has made its way to the factory floor and in the hands of the specialist performing the work.  Ripping through bureaucratic red tape and felling hierarchical organizational structures like redwoods, the increase in work teams is proving to be the difference maker between equally empowered organizations.  In an INSEAD (2008) interview, Peter Tesluk, Professor of Management and Organization at the University of Maryland, defined a self-managed team as “A team that has formal responsibility and authority for making their own decisions about how they organize their work and about how they decide they’re going to get their work done.”

I’ve been included in teams and been excluded from teams.  I’ve sat through hours and hours of training on effective teamwork and studied it extensively at work, in sports, and in churches.  I’ve read numerous books and continue to face challenges and experience breakthroughs from successful teams and cooperative teamwork.  When it comes to performing at a high level by integrating self-managed work teams, there are some benefits and drawbacks.

One of the key benefits of self-managed work teams is they contain fewer levels of management.  With a flatter organizational structure, decisions can be made quickly without the delay inherent in traditional, hierarchical structures.  Also, in work teams, various skills are contained in the group rather than externally in another department.  Brown (2011) said, “There are fewer support staff, such as engineering, planning departments, and purchasing, because the work team performs these jobs.  The people who do the work are integrated into the work team” (p. 351). 

Yukl (2010) said, “Self-managed work teams offer a number of potential advantages, including stronger commitment of team members to the work, more effective management of work-related problems, improved efficiency, more job satisfaction, less turnover, and less absenteeism” (p. 336).  While self-managed work teams have grown popular and many companies are experiencing a surge in productivity, it is not a panacea and research data remains mixed.  Additionally, lack of interpersonal training, poor group dynamics, and dim goal clarity can result in unhealthy conflict, lack of productive results, and frustrated team members. 

One of the key factors of a self-managed team is trust.  Members must be willing to be open and vulnerable, share concerns, and provide feedback.  In his bestseller The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, Patrick Lencioni (2002) said, “Trust lies at the heart of a functioning, cohesive team.  Without it, teamwork is all but impossible” (p. 195).  For trust to develop, team members must create a vulnerability-based relationship.  Trust is the currency of accountability.  In self-managed work teams, trust means being able to count on the other members to fulfill their roles.  In The 17 Indisputable laws of Teamwork, John Maxwell (2001) said, “The Law of Countability states that ‘teammates must be able to count on each other when it counts’” (p. 117).  He explains his law by the following simple but powerful formula: “Character + Competence + Commitment + Consistency + Cohesion = Countability” (p. 122).  Successful self-managed teams rank high in countability.

As a leader in the local church, self-managed teams have become a necessity.  Most churches have small staffs and operate by and large through their volunteers.  Currently, I am the director of the Assimilations Ministry.  This area is concerned with integrating new members and visitors into the life of the local church.  By using small groups, relationship-based strategies, and personal connections, church leaders help people feel accepted and connected.  Since it is impossible (and unhealthy) to try and control the entire assimilations process, I have set up small (5-7 people) self-managed teams to govern the process of member integration.  As a result, we have seen an increase in retention and work-team members have taken a larger role in “owning” the vision of the church.  As a leader, I ensure they have the resources they need and continue to nurture support from the senior pastor and the governance team.

As an external leader of several work teams, garnering support from the senior pastor and governance team (church board members) is the easy part.  My proficiency in coaching, facilitating, and inspiring the team continues to improve.  However, my skills as an external coach could improve in planning and organizing the work.  As a very detailed leader, it can be challenging to delegate and release the intricate details of a project to a team of five members with a vast array of skills.  Peter Tesluk said, “There is somewhat of a contradiction to leading self-managed teams as they lead themselves.  The type of leadership style moves away from directing to one that develops team capabilities.”  As a leader, I have taken his advice and focused more on “helping them team understand their unique strengths and inspiring them rather than coercing or directing them.”

Seth Godin (2008) said, “We live in a world where we have the leverage to make things happen, the desire to do work we believe in, and a marketplace that is begging us to be remarkable.  And yet, in the middle of these changes, we get stuck.  Stuck acting like managers or employees instead of like the leaders we could become.  We’re embracing a factory instead of a tribe” (p. 10).  If we are to create greater innovations, if we are to reach more people, and if we ever hope to change the world for the better, we will need to power of successful teams.  Instituting self-managed work teams is a key link that raises relationships and output to another level.  Maxwell (2001) is correct, “One is too small a number for greatness” (p. 1).  It’s the power of teams that carry a global impact.

Steve 

References

Brown, D.R. (2011). Organizational development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education,

            Inc.

Godin, S. (2008). Tribes. New York, NY: Penguin Group.

INSEAD. (2008). Self-Managing Teams: Debunking the Leadership Paradox. Retrieved from

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBnR00qgGgM&feature=youtu.be

Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Maxwell, J. (2001). The 17 indisputable laws of teamwork. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson,

            Inc.

Miller, M. (2011). The secret of teams. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Snyder, S. (2013). Leadership and the art of struggle. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler

            Publishers, Inc.

Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

A521.9.4.RB_RuggerioSteven

                                                   A New Type of Leader

My home library is full of leadership books.  Maxwell, Collins, Godin, Yukl, and Wooden to name a few.  At the end of this week another author will be added: Stephen Denning.  Reading his (2011) book The Leader’s Guide to Storytelling in my recent graduate class was a privilege.  I just finished the last chapter aptly titled, A Different Kind of Leader and it ranks as one of the best chapters I’ve ever read pertaining to character, integrity, courage…leadership.  It would serve me well to read it once a month.

At the beginning of the chapter Denning identified six specific dimensions of his “new leader.”

First, the interactive leader works with the world rather than against it.  This can be difficult for the type-A leader who wants to control and direct with incentives and mandates.  However, when leaders look at the situation from all perspectives, they can gain a greater clarity to the possibilities often overlooked.  Denning (2011) said, “Independent of hierarchical position and power can be exercised from wherever you are in the organization” (p. 270).

I ran into a similar situation as a lay leader at my last church. While I was not on staff and held no formal title, my leadership was apparent.  Every Saturday morning I held a men’s group open to men at our church and other churches in the area.  It started with eight men but grew to 50.  Rather than offer support, the pastoral staff felt threatened because a large group of men were meeting with someone who was not being paid (and therefore, could not be controlled).  This eventually led to the group’s demise since the group met at the church.  Looking back, if the leadership at the church had realized “leadership is not in title only,” they could have provided needed resources and benefited from the growth of all the men.

Secondly, interactive leadership both adds and subtracts elements from the leadership palette.  In leadership, there is no “one size fits all” method.  As a result, interactive leaders supplement the traditional management functions of command and control with delegation and authenticity. Interactive leadership also subtracts; removing manipulative and intimidation behaviors. Leadership cannot be practices in a vacuum.  It is the “whole-person” concept.  As Denning (2011) stated, “It’s not possible for leaders to exercise manipulative and spinning behavior in one part of their conduct and expects to be accepted as open, truthful, and trustworthy on other domains” (p. 270)

The third dimension of an interactive leader is interactive leadership builds on personal integrity and authenticity.  This is my favorite dimension.  All leadership rests in this characteristic.  Denning (2011) said, “Because you can communicate who you are and what you stand for, others come to know you and respect you for that.  Because you speak the truth, you are believed.  And, because you make your values explicit and act in accordance with those values, your values become contagious and others start to share them” (p. 270).

As a minister and marriage counselor, my life is always on display.  How can I tell men to unconditionally love their wives if I am not?  How can I speak of the value of integrity and honesty if I am lying and manipulative?  In short, I can’t. No one can – at least not for very long. For example, last year my wife and I spent time with my family in New York.  During our visit, we knew they watched how my wife and I related to one another.  By the end of our three-day visit, my parents and my brother and his wife were treating each other better.  They were holding hands, helping each other, and speaking like they had recently fallen in love.  On the way home, my wife and I discussed the power of authentic love and leadership. Our demonstrative care and respect for one another was contagious. 

The fourth dimension of the new leader is interactive leadership doesn’t depend on the possession of hierarchical authority.  As stated earlier, “anyone and everyone who can help clarify the direction or improve the structure, or secure support for it, or offer coaching that improves performance is providing leadership” (Denning, 2011). 

Fifth, interactive leadership benefits from an understanding of the different narrative patterns that can be used to get things done in the world.  The ability to use narrative depends on emotional intelligence.  Daniel Goleman’s book, Emotional Intelligence should be mandatory reading for leaders and managers.  Too often, people in authority look “outwardly” and never take the time to examine the motives and thoughts of their own thinking.  The strength of the interactive leader lies in their knowledge and application of emotional intelligence.

Lastly, interactive leadership entails active participation in the world rather than detached observation. Leaders cannot be completely detached from their followers.  The “ivory tower,” us versus them mindset dividing managers from workers must be eliminated.  In the military, many people follow orders merely because of rank.  In fact, many senior non-commissioned officers (NCO) used to tell younger airmen to do something and then tell them it was based on Air Force regulation 6-2.  When the airman would ask, “What is reg 6-2?” the NCO would respond, “I have six striped and you have two. Do it.”

I often thought, if I have to tell you to do something and demand it based on my rank or a regulation, then either you are acting utterly rebellious and disrespectful or I haven’t led correctly.  By integrating into the lives and decisions of employees, leaders can connect on an authentic level.  When I’ve taken action to minimize the gap between myself and my followers, we completed the task successfully AND developed strong levels of trust and cooperation.  Denning (2011) is absolutely correct when he said, “In most leadership situations, trust, respect, and collaboration are simply more effective than preemptive domination” (p. 271).

Legacy leads.

Steve

References:

Denning, S. (2011). The Leader’s Guide to Storytelling. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York, NY: Random House.