Should we stop talking about "empowering" knowledge workers?
“When we care about people, we care less about money, and when we care about money, we care less about people.” ― Margaret Heffernan, Willful Blindness: Why we ignore the obvious at our peril"
The word, "empowerment" is used by organisations the world over, but, where words may lie, actions tell the truth. I would like to see "empowerment" removed from the organisational lexicon, to be replaced by "sponsorship," and here's why.
Empowerment is defined as: "Making (someone) stronger and more confident, especially in controlling their life and claiming their rights" (The Oxford Dictionary). Put this in the context of a knowledge economy and knowledge workers, in terms of what Drucker (2007, p.11) referred to as, “the directed, focused, united effort, of free human beings...” and I begin to have some questions.
First, my experience has been that, in the vast majority of cases, leaders and managers use "empowerment" without really considering its meaning or the context within which it is being used in organisations. To optimise the outputs from knowledge workers you need to focus on nurturing the effort of liberated or "free" human beings. My question: Do the efforts of the majority of leaders really liberate followers, allowing them to become free?
It appears that in reality "empowerment" misses the need to liberate people, to give them control and claim their rights as critical stakeholders in the organisation's present and future. Instead too much energy is directed toward the 'management' of empowerment; a focus on "the directed, focused, united effort." Empowerment ends up to not actually being about strengthening the individual in their quest to claim the right to freedom, but more about the governance of constraints, boundaries, for the individual, group or team. Empowerment, but by my rules, not yours. Empowerment, but not in my name - let me explain what I mean by this.
Leaders can use empowerment to escape accountability. Leaders empower people, but the 'cost' for this freedom can be sole accountability (empowerment, but not in my name - a form of willful blindness, if you will). I believe that people do not need this form of empowerment. Instead, if leaders want to match words with actions, followers need to be "sponsored." Sponsorship is defined as, "a person taking official responsibility for the actions of another" (The Oxford Dictionary). Sponsorship means joint accountability - a leader who wants people to act freely and whose words are supported by an acceptance of joint accountability for the actions of the people, the followers, s/he sponsors.
Over the next five to six years we are going to experience a growing expectation from knowledge workers for sponsorship. By 2020 it is predicted that unto 70% of the workforce will be either Millennials or Gen2020 (Gen Z). This workforce has an expectation of freedom; an agricultural (contingency-based) approach to development over a traditional, industrial (universalist) approach; a focus on bespoke understanding of the individual, their career, development and talent-management over a homogenised, universalist (vanilla) understanding that places people in broad sweeping categories.
To sync with this world we need to disenthrall ourselves from what is fast becoming mismatched practice of the past. Leaders need to rise with the emerging challenge and work 'with' not 'through' their followers. Work 'through' lies within the tired organisational discourse of empowerment. Working 'with' is more aligned to the future and a focus on joint accountability and co-development, a world of sponsorship.
