I have been following this thread on empowerment for several weeks now. I
read one message (like the one Richard Karash wrote: LO21084) and be
convinced, by the reasoning presented, that empowerment can ONLY come from
within. Then I will read another (like this one by Genene Koebelin:
LO21412) and see, by the reasoning presented, that empowerment can be
given from one person to another.
This has led to some confusion on my part as to how both can be true.
After some reflection, I think I see that there are actually two separate
issues. I think I can illustrate the two issues by looking at the "seed"
(although this has been insightful to me, it may be rather elementary for
everyone else; in fact, I think what is presented in LO21412 is the two
elements). My thoughts presented here are newly sprouted and not
developed, I apologized for that; but I am excited about the implications
and want to bounce it off of others.
What I present here assumes that the purpose of the seed is to grow and
bear fruit (there may be other uses for a seed: food, decoration, etc.).
In order to have empowerment (growth and fruit), two things are required:
1) The seed itself must possess the "life" to sprout and the appropriate
genetic "information" to direct the development of the sprout to maturity
and fruition. Without this "internal" power, NOTHING will happen -- ever,
period. No one "gives" this to the seed, it must be intrinsic.
2) The seed must be provided with the conditions necessary to promote and
support "life". Without this "external" power, NOTHING will happen --
although the potential may be present, the "internal" power can not be
released without the "external" power being present.
Separating empowerment into these two components has allowed me to more
easily consider the problem of empowerment.
One can plant a seed (place it into appropriate soil with necessary
nutrients) and another can water the seed; but, neither can guarantee that
the seed will grow (there is a humility in this understanding, ultimately
you must depend upon those you serve--you realize that the real power is
in the seed - all you can offer is the conditions to allow it to grow. I
think this is where the Myth aspect comes in. Those who think they have
the power to make someone else grow is arrogant; at best, we can provide
the conditions for a miracle to take place). Unless the seed itself has
life, no amount of cultivating will produce any fruit. On the other hand,
if the appropriate soil, water, nutrients, light are not provided, the
"life" present in the seed will not be realized. I think in the same way
that a farmer goes forward because he believes there is "life" in the seed
(even though he has no guarantee of it) we also need to proceed believing
that those around us have the potential to grow and it is worth our energy
and resources to provide the conditions for growth.
Even as I write this, it seems awful arrogant of me to assume that I can
provide "life-giving" conditions for someone else. Yet it does seem that
we have the ability to offer nurture to others. Maybe the balance is that
I am not the "farmer" of those around me but rather I have been given
opportunity to provide "farmer-like" care to those around me just as
others have "farmer-like" care over me.
A thought that came to me: Is it better to not provide any elements for
growth than to provide just enough to coax the seed into sprouting and
then leaving it to shrivel and die. In the first case, the potential for
life is still present just waiting for the right conditions to thrive;
whereas, in the second case the "life" has been teased forth and allowed
to die. Has this happened in some organizations where they begin the
life-giving process only to pull it back?
This may address the issue of manipulation. One type of leader is the one
who is able to extract more work and resources out of his people than
anyone else can. Another type of leader is one who invests in those
around them to see them grow, mature, and succeed (which ultimately
produces long lasting benefit for all, including himself). The first
assumes it is his right to reap and harvest; the other sees his
responsibility to generate conditions that will lead to a harvest.
Is it manipulation to provide the conditions and resources that will
promote growth? Is it not a matter of motive? If I provide the
conditions for growth knowing full well that my reasons for doing so is so
that I can extract every last bit of benefit for myself (sucking the
"life" out of them -- e.g., if I can make people think they're important,
I can get more work out of them)? If I provide the conditions for growth
because I want to see the miracle of "life" spring forth, not for the
purpose of exploitation, but rather to see growth: perpetuating
multiplying fruitfulness.
Why can't the same excitement I experience when I plant a garden and watch
it grow, exist in a business or in my home?
Respectfully,
Stan
--"Stanton L. Berberich" <sberberi@uhl.uiowa.edu>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>