Doc,
you wrote:
>If the relationships are enabling or empowering ones, the
>dependency that ensues can create more harm than good.
I guess it was this idea that I was trying to communicate. Given this
understanding of empowerment, I would say that empowerment reinforces
dependency and my previous comments relate to capacity development.
>I'm very convinced that we should seek (as effective coaches, managers,
>supervisors or team-members) to develop the capacity for power in each of
>our colleagues and staff members, which I don't consider empowering or
>enabling.
Yes. I also think that this process should extend beyond the workplace.
(after all, don't we? )
After reading your post I am of the opinion that my interpretation of
empowerment is very close to what you call capacity development. However,
thanks to your post as well as At's (on empowerment) I need to reflect
further on my understanding of the word empowerment. At the same time, I
believe that capacity development is what allows LO's and learning
individuals to truly grow.
This thing about language, and accepted usage is a tough one. In South
Africa, where much of my experience with empowerment and capacity building
was gained, the word empowerment is understood, (certainly in development
circles) to be very closely tied to capacity development. In that
environment, empowerment represents a move away from dependency, and can
therefore not be granted by another. Where capacity development is
granted by virtue of another's position, the process is seen to be
reinforcing dependency and is not considered empowerment, which (in that
context) an individual can only develop for themselves.
Thanks for your continued conversation.
Still learning,
Les
--"Leslie Lax" <leslax@cnx.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>