I may be blowing the importance of empowerment out of proportion because
of some personal interest or need. It has been a defining force in my
teaching and in my orientation to people in general. That
notwithstanding, it appears we are asking more and more of people at all
levels, and our individual and collective success depends on those
individuals' capabilities and motivation.
Ginger Shafer provided several definitions for empowerment, including the
one to which I most closely connect, "to enable." She goes on to discuss
how individuals may "be enabled" through training, confidence building,
and the like, suggesting that "the leader's new work" involves 'designing
the learning processes.'
Ian Kearney wrote about empowerment as a process, explaining that
empowerment results (is an output of) a process whose inputs include
necessary conditions, including trust and confidence). He felt that
empowerment considered as an input might lead to negative consequences as
opposed to the positive ones we would wish for an "empowering environment"
(my words). Ian appears seems to share my concern that those who wait to
be empowered are not fully ready for empowerment.
This is a concern also shared by Rol Fessendon who earlier wrote, "When
anyone is waiting for empowerment to be given, they are -- practically by
definition -- not ready for it." Ivan Blanco responded to Rol's message,
affirming a set of requisite conditions for empowerment, including
structural and procedural ones, but adding the dimension of personal
control. Ivan maintains that people empower themselves, basically by
acquiring skills and knowledge (again, my words) and by knowing they know
and can. He adds the caution that [even if empowerment could be given
that] people will not trust "given empowerment" because "given empowerment
can be easily taken away."
This notion of acquisition is crucial. My explorations into empowerment
and the conditions which enable it point that skill, knowledge,
competence, and confidence are all essential. I begin by assuming we each
are endowed with the potential to express high levels of these attributes.
I accept that we don't all demonstrate high levels, all the time. But
like motivation, and here I disagree with Ivan that one's motivation
cannot be heightened by others, these attributes are fostered by an
environment that encourages and challenges them.
In my attempt to map these dynamics usings Causal Loop Diagramming, these
environmental conditions are generally included under "opportunity," and
it is easy to see how as opportunities for increasing responsibility,
learning, and rewards increase, the skill, knowledge, competence, and
confidence increase as well, further enhancing opportunities (you might
call this access).
An individual who has had very little "opportunity" (experience with
empowerment; becoming enabled) is not in a solid and receptive position
for empowerment. That is, readiness is low (even if desire may be high).
This brings us to the point of managing the environment or creating the
conditions others have commented on. It does not have to be a management
dilemma, a form of manipulation, or even a well-intended top-down
initiative. The very creation of conditions that will foster empowerment
and enablement can be a joint activity in the best organizational learning
conditions. The self-organizing classrooms I and my colleagues are
facilitating are examples of environments of co-creation. It is an honor
and a pleasure to be a part of these learning laboratories.
The process of co-creation is new to us. It is a sometimes joyous and
sometimes distressing affair, but one that always produces learning. In
fact, the most important outcome of self-organization we have found so far
is that the learning transcends the content of a given course. By
extension, the same type of learning would probably emerge from
self-organizing initiatives in the workplace and in our communities. This
process begins a whole new discussion, and I look forward to your
responses.
-- Joe Hays hays@volpe1.dot.gov (617) 494-2095