Even a nod from a person who is esteemed is of more force than a thousand arguments or studied sentences from others. ~Plutarch

The empowered relationship is one of the more important aspects of orchestrating organizational transitions, but the term “empowerment” continues to be misunderstood and misused. Most professional change facilitators have some understanding of empowerment’s role during implementation, but we have to fully grasp all its implications if we are to help our clients use this tool wisely.

Sponsors who consistently achieve what they set out to accomplish depend on the influence of empowered individuals whose opinions and observations they trust. I’ve personally never seen a significant initiative reach full realization without the sponsors relying heavily on others to help them gain context and perspective. Sometimes they lean on internal resources (subordinates, peers, their bosses, etc.). Often, they gather insights from external resources (consultants, thought leaders, etc.). Either way, they look to others to ensure they have all the information they need to make the best decisions they can.

As change facilitators, it doesn’t matter whether we operate from inside or outside an organization—the crux of any impact we have with clients is our ability to be influential…particularly when we advise them how to navigate unfamiliar territory or to take actions that are counterintuitive to their tendencies.

In this series, I’ll share some of what I’ve learned about empowerment and how I’ve seen it used to help sponsors make effective, informed change-related decisions. I’ll also speak to the impact of empowerment on the client/practitioner relationship. As is true for anything addressed in this blog, there are many angles on what works and what doesn’t. I hope my comments on empowerment challenge you to explore your own experience and maybe share what you’ve learned with colleagues.

Is It “Empowerment” or “Delegation”?

Some organizations encourage people to make their own decisions about some aspect of implementing change. They mistakenly call this “empowering the work force.” Pushing down decision making during change is generally a good thing, but if people have been given the right to make their own decisions, it is more appropriate to refer to this as delegation, not empowerment.

Delegation involves granting someone at a lower level in the organization the responsibility and authority for making decisions and taking action. Two things must be in place for this to work:

• The person must be capable of being right most of the time
• When mistakes do occur, those higher up must remain supportive while the person learns the remaining things he or she doesn’t know

Aside from the obvious issue of choosing the right person to delegate to, the key to its success is for management to stand firm by its decision to pass authority and accountability down to someone lower in the chain of command. Once this has been done, management should support the delegated decisions unless the person makes mistakes management can’t afford. If that happens, the person should be released from his or her delegated responsibilities.

The secret to “affording” mistakes is learning. As long as people are learning from their mistakes and applying what they learn to new situations, in most cases, the organization is best served if management continues to support them.

When a manager delegates a change-related duty to someone, it means one of two things:

• The manager is confident the person will perform well, but can live with the consequences if that doesn’t happen.
• The manager knows the person is not quite ready for the challenge, but feels the lessons he or she will acquire from any mistakes will be valuable enough to warrant the risk incurred.

The litmus test for delegation is when a person’s manager expresses a strong opinion about what should be done, but it is viewed as input rather than a directive. THAT’s delegation.

Though all this may sound straightforward, properly delegating is a tough challenge within most organizations. As a result, people usually have related negative experiences to overcome. It’s common to hear of people who have received the responsibilities associated with a task or job minus the authority to carry them out.

When delegation fails, it is often for one or a combination of three reasons:

• It was designated but never intended—The person was told that some aspect of a change had been delegated to him or her, but that was never the real intent of upper management. A more accurate statement of what they had mind is, “This part of the implementation is delegated to you (as long as you make decisions we agree with…if you start to veer off the course we want, we’ll let you know to get back on track).” It is the italicized, unspoken implication that kills so many people’s enthusiasm about being put in charge of change—or anything else for that matter.

• It was intended but not thought through—The person was told that some aspect of a change had been delegated to him or her and it was the intent of management to do just that—but then reality set in. The person became responsible for more than one person can handle, or was given less authority than needed to do the job. In another scenario, he or she received just the right amount of responsibility/authority but it was granted before he or she had the experience to apply the proper judgment to the situation. Regardless of how it played out, management engaged delegation with good faith but failed to employ the proper due diligence to think through all the implications.

• Perfection was required—The person was told that some aspect of a change was being delegated to him or her. However, the expectation by management was that the job would be carried out flawlessly. They were unprepared for the inevitable missteps and outright blunders that always occur with new responsibilities, and were unwilling to provide support while the person matured into the role.

Empowerment is quite a different concept, yet, more often than not, empowerment and delegation are treated as synonymous. Empowerment should be reserved to describe those situations where people are not granted authority to make decisions themselves, but are in a position to provide influential input to sponsors as they make change-related decisions. Delegation is when people have been handed the authority to make decisions; empowerment is when their input is seriously considered by the decision makers.

Empowerment represents an inclusive aspect of the decision-making process where people have clout based on their knowledge or expertise, rather than their organizational position or tenure. It happens when sponsors allow others to influence their deliberations but never relinquish the decision-making authority itself. When an empowered person offers his or her opinion about something, it is listened to and respected, even when out of sync with the sponsor’s views. In fact, the litmus test for empowerment is when the person’s input is highly regarded despite it being contrary to what the sponsor expected, agrees with, or wants to hear.

It is essential that sponsors have access to empowered input (particularly so from their change facilitator) in order for them to be positioned to make the best decisions possible during the implementation of major change.

Next: Empowerment is earned