"he following appeared in the &ay-5une, 6778, issue of the $A+9A+: ';<4 E<< +E94E=2

E&>O=E+&E "2 "$E E&>E+O+'< E= C?O"$E<

Despite all the talk and the change programs, empowerment is still mostly an illusion.
'@

C$+4< A+*@+4<

Considering its much touted potential, it's no wonder that empowerment receives all the attention it does. who wouldn't want more highly motivated employees to help scale the twenty-first century? As one CEO has said, " o vision, no strategy can !e achieved without a!le and empowered employees." "op-level e#ecutives accept their responsi!ilities to try to develop empowered employees. $uman resource professionals devise impressive theories of internal motivation. E#perts teach change management. E#ecutives themselves launch any num!er of programs from reengineering to continuous improvement to "%&. 'ut little of it wor(s.i "a(e reengineering instance. Although for the

rhetoric of reengineering is consistent with empowerment, in reality it is anything !ut that. 'oth research and practice indicate that the !est results of reengineering occur when )o!s are rigorously specified and not when individuals are left to define them. Even the *E wor(out sessions had their greatest success when the pro!lems resolved were relatively routine. +eengineering has led to improvements in performance, !ut it has not produced the num!er of highly motivated employees needed to ensure consistently high-performing organi,ations. -ew e#ecutives would deny that there has !een little growth in empowerment over the last ./ years. 'ut why that is so remains a

riddle. "he answer is comple#. "he change programs and practices we employ are full of inner contradictions that cripple innovation0 motivation, and drive. At the same time, CEOs su!tly undermine empowerment. &anagers love empowerment in theory, !ut the command-andcontrol model is what they trust and (now !est. -or their part, employees are often am!ivalent a!out empowerment 1 it is great as long as they are not held personally accounta!le. Even the change professionals often stifle empowerment. "hus, despite all the !est efforts that have gone into fostering empowerment, it remains very much li(e the emperor's new clothes2 we praise it loudly in pu!lic and as( ourselves privately why we can't see it. "here has !een no transformation in the wor(force, and there has !een no sweeping metamorphosis. "wo 3inds of Commitment "o understand why there has !een no transformation, we need to !egin with commitment. Commitment is not simply a human relations concept. 4t is an idea that is fundamental to our thin(ing a!out economics, strategy, financial governance, information technology, and

operations. Commitment is a!out generating human energy and activating the human mind. =ithout it, the implementation of any new initiative or idea would !e seriously compromised. $uman !eings can commit themselves in two fundamentally different ways2 e#ternally and internally. 'oth are valua!le in the wor(place, !ut only internal commitment reinforces empowerment. A<ee the e#hi!it "$ow Commitment :iffers."B External commitment 1 thin( of it as contractual compliance 1 is what an organi,ation gets when wor(ers have little control over their destinies. 4t is a fundamental truth of human nature and psychology that the less power people have to shape their lives, the less commitment they will have. =hen, for e#ample, management single-handedly defines wor( conditions for employees, the employees will almost certainly !e e#ternally committed. "hat commitment is e#ternal !ecause all that is left for employees is to do what is e#pected of them. "he employees will not feel responsi!le for the way the situation itself is defined. $ow can they? "hey did not do the defining. 4f management wants employees to ta(e more

responsi!ility for their own destiny, it must encourage the development of internal commitment. As the name implies, internal commitment comes largely from within. 4ndividuals are committed to a particular pro)ect, person, or program !ased on their own reasons or motivations. 'y definition, internal commitment is participatory and very closely allied with empowerment. "he more that top management wants internal commitment from its employees, the more it must try to involve employees in defining wor( o!)ectives, specifying how to achieve them, and setting stretch targets.

organi,ation is certainly limited. &oreover, the e#tent of participation in corporate goals and aspirations will vary with each employee's wishes and intentions. At <mith3line 'eecham, in one of the most far-reaching programs for employee participation that 4 (now of, management used a merger as an opportunity to !uild empowerment. "hroughout the entire organi,ation, more than D// tas( forces were created. @et to this day top management does not !elieve that internal commitment has !een generated throughout the entire company. "heir realistic assessment is that not even all the employees on the tas( forces feel empowered.

=e might well as( whether everyone must participate in order for empowerment to "o !e fair, it is important to e#ist in an organi,ation. 4n remem!er that empowerment principle, the answer is is a goal that organi,ations "yes"C in reality, there is a appro#imate !ut never Euite "!ut." 4t is unrealistic to reach. "he fact is that it is e#pect management to allow possi!le to have various thousands of employees to levels of commitment in an participate fully in selforgani,ation and still get the governance. "he degree to )o! done. Curiously, which internal commitment is plausi!le in any How Commitment Differs E#ternal Commitment
"as(s are defined !y others. "he !ehavior reEuired to perform tas(s is defined !y others. >erformance goals are defined !y management.

4nternal Commitment
4ndividuals define tas(s. 4ndividuals define the !ehavior reEuired to perform tas(s. &anagement and individuals )ointly define performance goals that are challenging for the individual. 4ndividuals define the importance of the goal.

"he importance of the goal is defined !y others.

employees have no trou!le understanding the need to (eep within !ounds. 4n all my wor(, 4 have yet to find employees who ma(e unrealistic demands a!out empowerment. -or top management, then, the essential thing to (now is that there are limits to internal commitment. Employees do not understand 1 in fact, they usually resent 1 e#ecutives preaching internal commitment while continuing to demand e#ternal commitment from the ran( and file. 4ndeed, a great source of discontent in organi,ations is that toplevel managers continually ris( their credi!ility !y espousing empowerment too gli!ly. Clearly, if it is internal commitment that provides the (ind of outcomes that CEOs say they want, then they must !e realistic and )udicious in their demands for it. 'ut the pro!lem goes deeper !ecause the framewor( that most organi,ations are now using to transform themselves discourages employees from actually ta(ing responsi!ility in their )o!s. C$A *E >+O*+A&< 4 C+EA<E 4 E+ CO "+A:4C"4O < &a)or change programs are rife with inner

contradictions. 'y this, 4 mean that even when these programs and policies are implemented correctly, they do not 1 and cannot 1 foster the !ehavior they are meant to inspire. if the inner contradictions are !rought to the surface and addressed, they can !e dealt with successfullyC that is, they will not inhi!it the (ind of personal commitment that management says it wants. 'ut if the contradictions remain !uried and unac(nowledged, as they usually do, they !ecome a destructive force. ot only do they stifle the development of empowerment, they also sap the organi,ation's efficiency !y !reeding frustration and mistrust. "o illustrate, consider the advice that currently represents !est practice for implementing and promoting organi,ational change. "hat advice !rea(s the process down into four !asic steps2 :efine a vision.

employees can carry out the processes effectively. "he underlying pattern of these instructions is consistent with what change researchers and practitioners have learned a!out effective implementation over the years. <tart with a clear framewor( 1 a vision 1 and progressively ma(e it operational so that it will come alive. <o that no one will have any dou!ts a!out how to align the four parts of the process, management is advised to spea( with one voice. "his process ma(es sense. 4t is rational. @et the process is so riddled with inner contradictions that change programs that follow it will only end up creating confusion, particularly at the implementation stage. *iven that all the steps have !een so precisely descri!ed through a set of instructions, the advice actually encourages more e#ternal than internal commitment. Clearly, when employees' actions are defined almost e#clusively from the outside Aas they are in most change programsB, the resulting !ehavior cannot !e empowering and li!erating. One immediate conseEuence is that employees react to the change program !y Euietly distancing themselves from it. "hus the change program is successful in terms of improving performance

:efine a competitive strategy consistent with the vision. :efine organi,ational wor( processes that, when e#ecuted, will implement the strategy. :efine individual job requirements so that .

!ecause it helps reduce mista(es, as in the case of "%&, or !ecause it helps employees em!race !est practices. 'ut at the same time, it undermines internal commitment. 4n short, the advice for implementing change simply does not provide the new source of energy that many e#ecutives want. 'ut the real danger is that change programs end up poisoning the entire corporation with long-lasting mi#ed messages. 4nternally committed employees interpret these messages as "do your own thing 1 the way we tell you." "hey reluctantly toe the line. Employees who prefer e#ternal commitment will also pic( up the mi#ed messages, however, these people will !e relieved !ecause they feel protected from having to ta(e any personal responsi!ility. 4n this way, the very wor(ing ha!its that e#ecutives do not want to see continued in their organi,ations are strengthened and reinforced. "he result is invaria!ly more inner contradictions and more inefficiency and cynicism, all of which get in the way of real change. CEO< ; :E+&4 E&>O=E+&E " CEOs wor( empowerment
E

consciously and unconsciously. <urprisingly 1 at least to outsiders 1 e#ecutives do not always seem to want what they say they need. Consider a few typical remar(s that 4 came across during my research. "hese remar(s 1 e#cerpted from a roundta!le discussion of e#ecutives from worldclass companies 1 indicate very clearly the am!ivalence of CEOs toward internal commitment and empowerment. "he first CEO noted that with "welldefined processes where the variances are small and the operating limits are well defined," you no longer need the old command-andcontrol approach. =or(ers are now empowered, "provided they respect the process," he said. "he second CEO agreed that these "processes are li!erating," while the third o!served that many employees have a tough time understanding what it means for processes to !e "relia!le, respecta!le, and in control." ?et us stop a moment and as( ourselves how there can !e empowerment when there is neither guesswor( nor challenges 1 when the )o! reEuirements are predetermined and the processes are controlled. -or employees operating in such a world, the environment is not empoweringC it is foolproof. D

Employees won't feel internally committed if someone is always controlling them from the top down. "his is not a milieu in which individuals can aspire to selfgovernance. On the contrary, as long as they !uy in and follow the dictates of the processes, the employees in the companies )ust descri!ed will only !ecome more e#ternally motivated. "he enthusiastic use of champions in virtually all contemporary change programs sends a similar mi#ed message from CEOs to employees. "op management is well aware of the dangers of piecemeal implementation and eventual fade-out in ma)or change programs. "hey strive to overcome those pro!lems !y anointing champions. "he champions pursue performance o!)ectives with tenacity, managing !y decree. "hey have generous resources availa!le to ensure compliance, and they monitor employees' progress freEuently. Altogether, these !ehaviors reinforce the topdown control features of the e#ternal commitment model. "he single voice of fervent champions leads employees to feel that management is in control, and it drives out the sense of internal responsi!ility and personal empowerment. $ow can

against !oth

employees feel empowered if someone is always "selling" them or controlling them from the top down? 4ndeed, such champions would not !e necessary if employees were internally committed. "he result of all these interventions is disarray. &anagers and the change programs they use undermine the empowerment they so desperately want to achieve. why does this occur? Could it !e that today's top-level managers don't truly want empowered employees? 4n truth, they are pro!a!ly unsure. At the same time, employees do not hold e#ecutives to tas( for their !ehavior. Employees have their own mi#ed feelings a!out empowerment. E&>?O@EE< $A9E "$E4+ :O;'"< E#ternal commitment is a psychological survival mechanism for many employees 1 it is a form of adaptive !ehavior that allows individuals to get !y in most wor( environments. $ow that survival mechanism wor(s is illustrated Euite dramatically today in the former East *ermany. =hen the 'erlin =all came down, a routine way of life for East *erman wor(ers came to an end. &ost wor(ers had learned to survive !y complying. -or D/ years,

most plants were run in accordance with the dictates of central planners. 4f many East *ermans had pushed for greater control over their destinies, their lives might have !een endangered. As a result, East *erman wor(ers over the years learned to define performance as doing the minimum of what was reEuired of them. After the fall of communism, 4 participated in many discussions with =est *erman e#ecutives who were surprised and !affled !y the lac( of initiative and aspiration displayed !y the East *ermans. =hat those e#ecutives failed to understand is how !ewildering 1 indeed, how threatening 1 it can !e for people to ta(e internal commitment seriously, especially those who have lived their entire lives !y the rules of e#ternal commitment. As 4 listened to the =est *erman e#ecutives who wanted to ma(e East *erman employees more internally committed, 4 thought of several cases in the ;nited <tates and elsewhere where similar pro!lems e#ist. Again and again in my e#perience, prolonged e#ternal commitment made internal commitment e#tremely unli(ely, !ecause a sense of empowerment is not innate. 4t is something that must !e

learned, honed.

developed,

and

"he Euestion, then, is, $ow do you produce internal commitment? One thing for sure is that the incentive programs e#ecutives have used 1 for instance, higher compensation, !etter career paths, "employee of the month" recognition awards 1 simply do not wor(. On the contrary, in all my years as a change consultant, 4 have repeatedly witnessed how offering employees the "right" rewards creates dependency rather than empowerment. 4nevita!ly, the power of such methods wears off with use, and all that has !een created is more e#ternal commitment. Consider one company with su!stantial financial woes. 4n that case, the CEO decided at considera!le personal sacrifice to raise his employees' salaries. 'ut his own research later showed that the employees merely considered their raises to !e in (eeping with their eEuity in the la!or mar(et. 4nternal commitment had not increased. Employees continued to do only what was as(ed of them as long as the rewards were increased. "hey followed the rules, !ut they did not ta(e any initiative. "hey did not ta(e ris(s, nor did they show the sense of personal responsi!ility that

management sought. "he CEO was surprised, !ut 4 thought that these results were entirely predicta!le for two reasons. -irst, pay, li(e other popular incentive schemes, often advances e#ternal commitment while creating a !ias against internal commitment. <econd, and more fundamental, many employees do not em!race the idea of empowerment with any more gusto than management does. -or a lot of people, empowerment is )ust too much wor(. ?i(e the wor(ers in East *ermany, almost all employees have learned to survive !y depending on e#ternal commitment. =hen it comes to empowerment, e#ecutives and employees are engaged in shadow!o#ing. &anagement says it wants employees who participate more 1 employees say they want to !e more involved. 'ut it is difficult to (now who means what. 4s it )ust a charade? Employees push for greater autonomyC management says the right thing !ut tries to (eep control through information systems, processes, and tools. Employees see vestiges of the old command-and-control model as confirming their worst suspicions 1 that superiors want unchallenged power. &anagement )ust wants to

see !etter num!ers. "hus the !attle !etween autonomy and control rages on, and meanwhile, as companies ma(e the transition into the ne#t century, the potential for real empowerment is sEuandered. C$A *E >+O-E<<4O A?< 4 $4'4" E&>O=E+&E " :uring the past decade, 4 have had the opportunity to wor( with more than .// change e#perts in different organi,ations. <uch individuals differ in their practices and their effectiveness, of course, !ut more stri(ing than the differences are the patterns that recur. Caught in the middle of the !attle !etween autonomy and control, the change professional has a tough assignment. "he role of the change professional, whether internal or e#ternal, is ostensi!ly to facilitate organi,ational change and continuous learning. 4n their own way, however, the vast ma)ority of change professionals actually inhi!it empowerment in organi,ations. "o understand how that occurs, consider what happens as "om, a change agent, tries to wor( with 5ac(, a line manager. A'oth are composite figures typical of those 4 encountered in my H

research.B 5ac( is told !y his !oss to wor( with "om, who is there to "help" 5ac( empower his organi,ation. "he change program !egins with a series of meetings and discussions. "om tal(s passionately a!out openness, honesty, and trust as the foundations of empowerment. &any employees leave these meetings feeling hopeful a!out the direction that the company is ta(ing toward more open communication. A month into the program, however, "om o!serves that 5ac( has fallen !ac( into his old style of management. $e decides that he had !etter confront 5ac( Asee !o#C ne#t pageB. =hat's happening here? "he change program that !egan with great enthusiasm is clearly in deep trou!le. 4t's a pattern 4've o!served over and over again. After the initial e#citement passes, reality inevita!ly settles in. >ut aside the nice rhetoric of empowermentC employees will have pro!lems. "hey will as( their managers for help, and their managers will tell them what to do. "hat is how most wor( gets done and how organi,ations meet their num!ers. And in many cases, there's a!solutely nothing wrong with this, e#cept that it goes against the theory of empowerment.

Tom's unspoken thoughts: "O&2 Things aren't going well.

What Tom and Jack say: "O&2 <o how's everything going? 5AC32 "hings are going pretty well. "here's a lot of pressure from a!ove, !ut we're meeting the num!ers.

T !" h great. #ll $ack cares about is the numbers. Empowerment isn't even on his agenda.

"O&2 *reat. <uper. 'ut 4 was also wondering how well we're doing at getting people more committed to their )o!s. $ow empowered do you thin( people feel? 5AC32 =ell, 4 thin( we're doing o(ay. 4f there are pro!lems, people come to me and we wor( it out. <ure, some people are never satisfied. 'ut that's )ust a few people, and we can handle them.

T !" $ust what % &eared. $ack's not 'walking the talk.' (e just doesn't get it at all. T !" This is hopeless) There's got to be an easier way to make a living. %'ll never get through to him. % wish % could tell $ack what % think but % don't want to put him on the de&ensive. %'ve got to stay cool.

"O&2 ?oo(, 5ac(, if you solve all their pro!lems, how are we going to empower our employees?

5AC32 =ell, to !e honest with you, "om, the signal 4'm getting from a!ove is that my )o! is to produce the num!ers without, you (now, upsetting people. "o !e fair, 4 thin( 4'm doing that.

=hat does "om do when he o!serves 5ac( telling his employees what to do? 4nstead of figuring out whether 5ac( is doing the

right thing in this situation, change e#perts li(e "om will almost always !e dismayed, !ecause the managers aren't wal(ing the tal( of

empowerment. +arely have 4 seen a change professional help a manager deal effectively with !eing caught !etween a roc( and a hard place. Even more uncommon is a change agent who offers practical advice to the manager a!out what to do. ot only is "om unwilling to ac(nowledge the real pro!lem 5ac( is having, !ut he papers over his own thoughts. $e tries to act as if he still !elieves the program can !e successful when, in fact, he has given up hope. "om himself is guilty of not wal(ing the tal( of openness, honesty, and trust. 4n my e#perience, line managers are far more willing to ac(nowledge the inner contradictions of change programs 1 at least, in private. "hey will admit to distancing themselves from the soft stuff 1 two-way participation, internal commitment, and discontinuous thin(ing 1 to focus instead on the num!ers. &anagers li(e 5ac( often conclude 1 rightly, 4'm afraid 1 that the change agent does not (now how to help them. <o 5ac( listens politely as "om warns him a!out the dangers of !ac(sliding and e#horts him to !e more persistent. And then 5ac( goes on a!out his !usiness.

4n the end, everyone is frustrated. 4n theory, empowerment should ma(e it easier for organi,ations to meet their num!ers. 'ut when change programs are imposed without recogni,ing the limitations of empowerment and when managers and employees are not helped to deal effectively and openly with them, the organi,ation ends up worse off than it was to !egin with. Empowerment too often enters the realm of political correctness, which means that no one can say what he or she is thin(ing2 this is )ust nonsense. 4n this scenario, if you challenge the change agent, you !ecome an enemy of change. <o instead of feeling more empowered, people throughout the organi,ation feel more trapped and less a!le to tal( openly a!out what's really going on. 4s it any wonder that change programs don't succeed and that they actually undermine the credi!ility of top management? =$A" 4< "O 'E :O
E?

managers share some of the responsi!ility for undermining internal motivation in their organi,ations, the change programs that could create high levels of internal commitment and empowerment in corporations do not yet e#ist. "hat is why 4 !elieve it is time to !egin the research and e#perimentation that is reEuired to find some via!le answers. 'ut for now, let me !egin with some recommendations that may help e#ecutives thin( more sensi!ly a!out empowerment. +ecogni,e that every company has !oth top-down controls and programs that empower people, and that some inconsistencies are inevita!le and must simply !e managed. =hen these inner contradictions !ecome apparent, encourage individuals to !ring them to the surfaceC otherwise, a credi!ility gap will !e created that can pollute the organi,ation for many years to come. :on't underta(e !latantly contradictory programs. -or instance, stop creating change programs that are intended to e#pand internal commitment !ut are designed in ways that produce e#ternal commitment. &a(e sure that what is !eing espoused will

:espite all the rhetoric surrounding transformation and ma)or change programs, the reality is that today's managers have not yet encountered change programs that wor(. As we have seen, the reasons for that are comple#. Although 8

not contradict what actually happens. ;nderstand that empowerment has its limits. 3now how much can !e created and what can !e accomplished. 3now that empowerment is not a cureall. :o not evo(e it needlessly. Once it has !een created, do not misuse it. 'e clear a!out who has the right to change things. <pecify the li(ely limits of permissi!le change. +eali,e that e#ternal and internal commitment can coe#ist in organi,ations !ut that how they do so is crucial to the ultimate success or failure of empowerment in the organi,ation. -or instance, e#ternal commitment is all it ta(es for performance in most routine )o!s. ;nnecessary attempts to increase empowerment only end up creating downward spirals of cynicism, disillusionment, and inefficiencies. As a first precaution, distinguish !etween )o!s that reEuire internal commitment and those that do not. Esta!lish wor(ing conditions to increase empowerment in the organi,ation. 4f you want to help individuals move away from e#ternal commitment, encourage them to e#amine their own !ehavior. 4t has !een my e#perience that

many employees are willing to !ecome more personally committed if management is really sincere, if the wor( allows it, and if the rewards reinforce it. Calculate factors such as morale, satisfaction, and even commitment into your human relations policies, !ut do not ma(e them the ultimate criteria. "hey are penultimate. "he ultimate goal is performance. 4ndividuals can !e e#cellent performers and report low morale, yet it is performance and not morale that is paramount. =hen morale, satisfaction, and sense of empowerment are used as the ultimate criteria for success in organi,ations, they cover up many of the pro!lems that organi,ations must overcome in the twenty-first century. $elp employees understand the choices they ma(e a!out their own level of commitment. One of the most helpful things we can do in organi,ations 1 indeed, in life 1 is to reEuire that human !eings not (nowingly (id themselves a!out their effectiveness. -inally, remem!er that empowerment can run contrary to human nature, and !e realistic a!out how to achieve and use it. "o paraphrase A!raham 7

?incoln2 @ou can empower all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, !ut you can't empower all of the people all of the time. 4n the last analysis, no!ody should e#pect more than that.

*hris #rgyris is the $ames +ryant *onant ,ro&essor Emeritus o& Education and rgani-ational +ehavior at (arvard .niversity in *ambridge, !assachusetts. (e is the author o& '/ood *ommunication That +locks 0earning' 1(+2 $uly3#ugust 45567, a !c8insey #ward winner, (e is also a director at !onitor *ompany in *ambridge.

6/

-or a description of the similarities and differences in employee-involvement, reengineering, and "%& programs, see <usan Al!erta &ohrman, 5. +. *al!raith, and Edward E. Alwair, Tomorrow's rgani-ation A<an -rancisco2 5ossey-'ass, 6778BC 5. $endry, ">rocessing +eengineering and the :ynamic 'alance of the Organi,ation," European !anagement $ournal, vol.6., no. 4, pp.GF-GIC ". Eccles, ""he :eceptive Allure of Empowerment," 0ong 2ange ,lanning, vol. FH, no. H, pp. 6.-F6C and '. *. 5ac(son, "+eengineering the <ense of <elf2 "he &anagers and the &anagement *urus," $ournal o& !anagement 9tudies, 677H, vol. .., no. G, pp.GI6-G7/.