Replying to LO26186 --
Peggy,
Andrew mentioned that we went through this conversation a few years ago.
My point of view has not substantially changed since that exchange. The
"power" we refer to here has two sources. One is personal autonomy. The
other source is organizational authority (and responsibility). I think of
it as organizational autonomy. Organizational authority (the power to
make resource, policy or procedural decisions, for instance) may not be
shared.
Sometimes, organizations say they want to share authority (creating teams,
for instance), but they didn't spend the time developing their people's
capacity to wield that authority. This capacity is directly related to
personal autonomy (the capacity for self-authority and responsibility) and
for understanding the boundaries and responsibilities of wielding official
authority.
Mary Parker Follett spoke and wrote nearly a hundred years ago about the
organization's responsibility for developing the capacity for power among
their people before they "gave" away authority and responsibility. This
apparently was a problem then, too.
I have the opportunity nowadays to work with survivors of domestic
violence and the people who serve domestic violence victims. Personal
autonomy is one of the primary areas survivors seek to develop. Personal
autonomy means things like self-sufficiency, economic independence,
self-esteem, the right to say how they feel, to make their own decisions,
to set personal boundaries. Sometimes we call this personal power.
In the workplace, power means similar things. There is a degree of
professional independence; self-esteem; the right to say how they feel and
to make decisions (authority) over their work; to set personal boundaries.
Organization's have varying degrees of sharing power. Often this is
limited by risk considerations. Sometimes it's limited by statute. Most
often it's limited by organizational structure and culture.
Many people have their personal autonomy diminished through oppression (as
do victims of domestic violence). However, oppression can occur in many
ways. For example, socialization often includes giving personal power
away to teachers, parents, peers. We know that in the U.S., Native
Americans, Black Americans, women, and differently-abled people are
examples of groups of people who may be considered as historically
oppressed. As a result, there have been continuing challenges to the
development of personal and political autonomy within and among these
groups.
When a person of limited power person goes to work for someone, that
"hired hand" may be mystified when they're expected to be "powerful"
through some wacky organizational empowerment movement. The good thing is
that it's only a fad, and they can wait it out.
Too often, though, people are excited that they get to exercise "power" at
work through some wacky organizational empowerment movement, only to find
that the people who had the authority to share authority aren't really
ready to do so. Taking power back, once it's been given, can create a
substantial number of people with hard feelings towards their boss. This
isn't unique to organizations. It's happened politically for several
centuries (or longer). That's also called oppression (or domination).
When oppressed people have had their right to self-determination--or
political autonomy--returned to them, we don't call that empowerment. We
call that redressing a wrong. Unfortunately, the capacity for power needs
to be developed in these people also. That lack of capacity has caused
great social and political problems among formerly dominated peoples for
much of recent history.
Personally, I think that the empowerment thing is an organizational sham.
But I do believe in "sharing power" when it includes an effort to on
behalf of the person sharing the power, to develop the other persons
capacity for power. This can be done by assigning commensurate levels of
authority and responsibility within defined boundaries for each person.
As each person learns to successfully manage the organizational risk
associated with wielding the authority and responsibility they have (by
meeting expectations and obligations), then they may be ready to accept
higher levels of authority and responsibility.
Anyway, that's the way I see it.
regards,
Doc
--"Richard Holloway" <learnshops@rciti.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.