Frank Billot wrote:
> As odd as it may seem, I would like to know more about Empowerment which I
> thought until recently that it meant 'getting/allowing people to be more
> autonomous'.
Hi Frank, list,
Technically, if definitions are important, empowerment demonstrates our
arrogance as managers and leaders, and our wicked potential as humans. We
take away the power of others, and empower ourselves over them. Say what
you will, we are all predisposed to do this. It is perhaps more correct,
regarding those you mean to speak of, to use the term de-powerment.
Empowerment would be such a silly concept, except for the existence of
de-powerment. That we can speak of such a thing ought to be the greatest
embarassment to those in power, and hilight the arrogance we humans can
use against one another. The same people that cannot be entrusted to
think and act on the job, go home and balance check books, purchase cars
and homes, raise children, and participate in life in a hundred other
ways. And yes, they make mistakes; no more or less than those who hold
power, and who refuse to accept mistakes from their subordinates, that
they overlook blindly in themselves.
We find ways to "demonstrate" our superiority- our education, our genes,
our money- and so we lower those around us to "less-than-us" status by
those externals. We exploit and enslave those now identified as
"different," dehumanizing them to remove any guilt. "Fish don't feel
pain, Jenny" But Jenny looks at Dad disbelievingly, until the day it
becomes important to her to catch and eat fish. Then she must endure some
uneasy feelings, or believe the lie. Most of us choose the lies.
Then, we grandly speak of empowerment, while only meaning dribs and drabs
of what we enjoy, and usually with the aim to better enslave with less
effort. So much easier to have slaves that no longer need external
chains. "You are free, son, to wander over our grounds unfetterred. Just
be sure to mind yourself, and do extra chores for the priviledge, or
you'll end up back shackled." "Oh yessah massah, thank you massah, bless
you." Both of these people should have a very bad taste in their mouths,
usually neither does, 'cause this is the way things are. One knows
oppression as a way of life, with little hope; and one oppresses the same
way, with little fear, and a blind arrogance. The lie is often shared by
both sides, and only a few dreamers see past it. Don't we think managers
and leaders are in a better position to make decisions? By virtue of
whatever (except great good fortune), we claim they have some internal
gizmo or some such that just better equips them.
Can we say bullshit on this list? Well, for now, baloney! This dreamer
now sees life in each human; precious, sentient, beautiful, awe-inspiring,
reverent life. I want to connect, not control.
Empowerment is often the absolute zenith of this arrogant, paternal
attitude towards the "masses" that we have first pillaged, enslaved and
defined as "less-than-us." We grandly refer to allowing them some
miniscule amount of the freedom and autonomy we freely enjoy, closely
monitored, controlled with limits, and quickly taken back at our whim.
The term empowerment is most often used in organizations where it means
the least in reality. Where de-powerment does not exist, empowerment has
no meaning.
Empowerment and motivation are closely related in how they operate, in
both having more negative than positive elements to them. We can do more
to harm people, than to help them bloom. I think Herzberg has that right.
Perhaps those who think of empowerment in terms of its source, are right
in seeing it as emanating from within the person, also like motivation.
These capacities to function are innate in us all. Those who see it
emanating from management are sadly also correct, but it is emancipation
that is involved more than bestowing benignly on the poor less-than-humans
beneath us something they don't already possess. It does take a
leadership, or the new management of John Dentico's dreams (which I
share), that lets go and unlocks the chains, and removes the double
standards enjoyed by managers and/or leaders to make mistakes and (thus)
to make decisions. Can those enslaved, depowered, and demotivated take
over and wrest these things from the "massah's?" Hmmm. Dunno, but sounds
dangerous, and can't think offhand of successful cases wholesale, only
pockets of insurrection that are allowed because of their success, and
usually put down after a few years. Usually just trading one set of
monarchs for another.
> Do you consider it as yet another fad ?
No, to me it represents the struggle of the human heart against
oppression. It may be a fad as a management (oh dear forgive me) "tool."
Sadly, I also don't think the arrogance that resides in everyone, slaver
and enslaved, that allows depowerment of others is a fad either. As soon
as the one enslaved joins the slavers, he or she acts with as much disdain
and dismissal of others as any. This is the vicious circle of our
existence- you cannot "empower" really, without becoming enslaved, unless
your organization (my definition- a non living entity, artificial life
that does not recognize human life) becomes a community where all have
recognized life, and will die for each others rights to it ( community to
me is a living entity- and life always resists death). That is partly why
so many managers have a gut reaction to resist teams and empowerment.
They don't trust the slaves not to take over if they really empower them
and hold no unseen chains to control them. That is why Unions fight
against teams too, because regaining power brings responsibility, and they
prefer to lay that at the feet of the massah's, since they gain their
power that way. Regaining power can be just as uncomfortable as giving up
usurped power can be.
Organizations, to me, seek security in enslaving others, to harness them
for use, recognizing their need of work, and making them working "parts."
Organization lacks the ability to have faith and trust by its nature- a
machine, an artificial functionality limited to design and stiff linkages
and meshed gears. Community, in opposition to organization as a
methodology of functioning together, lives with ambiguity, and depends on
others by faith and trust, a voluntary interdependence, respecting its
members as alive and with equal right to that life. Most businesses (all
inclusive), unions, churches, and governments are merely organizations.
I apologize to any who may be offended at my metaphors; I fear they aren't
metaphors, but a constant, present reality.
Power to the people, and life.
--Art Mealer______Alchemist______Buffalo, NY Art Mealer <audie@pce.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>