| > People start out wanting to achieve things, change things to be better, do a good job. Like all generalizations, this is only partly true. There are bad actors. > The active issue is disempowerment, created by other people (usually but not always senior) within the organisation. Disempowerment (is that a word?) is necessary. So necessary, that entire departments incorporate it as a large part of their mandate. HR, finance, QA... > So the question isn't "how to empower people", but rather "how to prevent disempowerment of people". Or more, how to focus the disempowerment on things that matter? > This isn't always popular, as it shifts the focus and responsibility for different behaviour away from the disempowered rank and file, towards the dysfunctional leadership. Maybe it's not always popular because some disempowerment is necessary, and framing the entire issue as a necessity for its removal and those who disagree as dysfunctional is needlessly inflammatory and counterproductive? |
Of course, but in the organisations I have experience of, I'd estimate that the 'bad actor' rate is very low - certainly a low-single-digit percentage. (I don't work in tech, BTW.)
> Disempowerment (is that a word?) is necessary. So necessary, that entire departments incorporate it as a large part of their mandate. HR, finance, QA...
I think we need to differentiate between different forms of disempowerment. For example, having a set budget to work within (i.e. the disempowerment that a finance department might generate) is structural in nature; and further may either be empowering if an individual or team has freedom to work within those constraints, or disempowering if the budget is too constrained, or changes unpredictably. In contrast, smart committed people having their ideas stamped on irrationally by a bad egotistical leader ultimately leads to disenchanted people who don't want to invest their energy any more.
> Maybe it's not always popular because some disempowerment is necessary, and framing the entire issue as a necessity for its removal and those who disagree as dysfunctional is needlessly inflammatory and counterproductive?
You're maybe not considering the background context of why such a discussion would even be taking place. These discussions spring out of leadership noting somehow (direct observations, discussions, workplace surveys, workplace transformation initiatives, etc.) that people in their organisations are less "empowered" than they (leadership) would wish (with perceived negative impacts) and therefore this is something they want to reverse. They're frustrated and confused: they think they're offering an environment for people to behave as they hope to see, and yet people aren't stepping through the apparently open door.
It's unpopular because asking why people are disempowered shifts the focus from the failings of individuals ("why is this employee not behaving as I expect them to; what stick or lever or additional incentive can I use to improve their behaviour?") to the failings of leadership ("what have I been doing wrong all along to result in this sorry state of affairs? Am I the cause?")