First, though I liked the idea of empowerment, I didn't understand why empowerment was needed.
Second, the way I was told to manage others was not the way I wanted to be managed.
Third, I was disturbed by the close coupling of the technical competence of the leader with the performance of the organization.
One of the things that limit our learning is our belief that we already know something.
Simply exhorting people to be proactive, take ownership, be involved, and all the other aspects of an empowerment program just scratched the surface.
It is precisely the success of the top-down, leader-follower structure that makes it so appealing. As long as you are measuring performance over just the short run, it can be effective. Officers are rewarded for being indispensable, for being missed after they depart. When the performance of a unit goes down after an officer leaves, it is taken as a sign that he was a good leader, not that he was ineffective in training his people properly.
Are you curious? I thought I was being curious during my previous tours; turns out I was only "questioning."
Are you asking questions to make sure you know or to make sure they know?
Do people take action to protect themselves or to make the outcome better? Does leadership in your organization take control or give control?
Do you play "bring me a rock" in your organization, where vague understanding of the goal results in wasted time?
supervisors needed to recognize that the demand for perfect products the first time they see them results in significant waste and frustration throughout their organization. Even a thirty-second check early on could save your people numerous hours of work.
Trust means this: when you report that we should position the ship in a certain position, you believe we should position the ship as you indicated. Not trusting you would mean that I thought you might be saying one thing while actually believing something else.
The key to you team becoming more proactive rests in the language subordinates and superiors use. Here is a short list of "disempowered phrases" that passive followers use:
- Request permission to...
- I would like to...
- What should I do about...
- Do you think we should...
- Could we...
Here is a short list of "empowered phrases" that active doers use:
- I intend to...
- I plan on...
- I will...
- We will...
The benefit from this simple extension was that it caused them to think at the next higher level. The OODs needed to think like the captain, and so on down the chain of command. In effect, by articulating their intentions, the officers and crew were acting their way into the next higher level of command.
How many times do issues that require decisions come up on short notice? If this is happening a lot, you have a reactive organization locked in a downward spiral. When issues aren't foreseen, the team doesn't get time to think about them; a quick decision by the boss is required, which doesn't train the team, and so on.
Cherish the dissension. If everyone thinks like you, you don't need them.
When it comes to processes, adherence to the process frequently becomes the objective, as opposed to achieving the objective that the process was put in place to achieve. The goal them becomes to avoid errors in the process, and when errors are made, additional overseers and inspectors are added. These overseers don't do anything to actually achieve the objective. They only identify when the process has gone bad after the fact.
Many people talk about teamwork but don't develop mechanisms to actually implement it. Taking deliberate action is certainly one.
Have you tried to divest control without first making sure your organization is competent to handle more decision-making authority? I learned the hard way that control without competence is chaos.
as authority is delegated, technical knowledge at all levels takes on a greater importance. There is an extra burden for technical competence. If all you need to do is what you are told, then you don't need to understand your craft. However, as your ability to make decisions increases, then you need intimate technical knowledge on which to base those decisions.
Why is "learning" a better word than "training"? Training implies passivity; it is done to us. We are trained; we attend training. Learning is active; it is something we do.
Do you play "bring me a rock" in your organization, where vague understanding of the goal results in wasted time?
Furthermore, supervisors needed to recognize that the demand for prefect products the first time htey see them results in significant waste and frustration throughout their organization.
Trust menas this: when you report that we should position the ship in a certain position, you believe we should position the ship as you indicated. Not trusting you would mean tha tI thought you might be saying one thing while actually believeing something else. Trust is purely a characteristic of the human relationship.
The Power of Words. The key to you team becoming more proactive rests in the language subordinates and superiors use. Here is a short list of "disempowered phrases" that passive followers use:
- Request permission to ...
- I would like to ...
- What should I do about ...
- Do you think we should ...
- Could we ...
Here is a short list of "empowered phrases" that active doers use:
- I intend to ...
- I plan on ...
- I will ...
- We will ...
The benefit from this simple extension was that it caused them to think at the next higher level. The OODs needed to hink like the captain, and so on down the chain of command. In effect, by articulating their intentions, the officers and crew were acting their way into the next higher level of command.
How many times do issues that require decisions come up on short notice? If this is happening a lot, you have a reactive organization locked in a downward spiral. When issues aren't foreseen, the team doesn't get time to think about them; a quick decision by the boss is required, which doesn't train the team, and so on. No one has time to actually think through the issue.
Cherish the dissension. If everyone thinks like you, you don't need them.
When it comes to process, adherence to the process frequently becomes the objective, as opposed to achieving the objective that the process was put in place to achieve. The goal then becomes to avoid errors in the process, and when errors are made, additional overseers and inspectors are added. These overseers don't do anything to actually achieve the objective. They only identify when the process has gone bad after the fact.
A briefing is a passive activity for everyone except the briefer. Everyone else "is briefed." There is no responsibility for preparation or study. It's easy to just nod ans say "ready" without full intellectual engagement.
Certifications shift the onus of preparation onto the participants. All participants are active. The change from passive briefs to active certification changed the crew's behavior.
Clariy
- Achieve excellence, don't just avoid errors
- Build trust and take care of your people
- Use your legacy for inspiration.
- Use guiding principles for decision criteria.
- Use immediate recognition to reinforce desired behaviors.
- Begin with the end in mind.
- Encourage a questioning attitude over blind obedience.