• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
The paradox of empowerment
213
The paradox of empowerment– a case study
Eric L. Wickisier
President, New Paradigms Inc, Bloomington, MN, USA
“Delight Our Customers with World Class Products, Services and Value.” That’sthe mission of Dura-Tech, one of the many organizations I have visited. As Ibegin a visit, I reflect on what I see, hear, and feel, and consider questions I wantto ask. At Dura-Tech, I found a busy atmosphere, with an unusual degree of synergism, satisfaction, and joy. I immediately asked myself – what’shappening here? Is this real? What does this mission statement mean to Dura-Tech employees?As an educator in quality, I feel compelled to share what I experienced atDura-Tech, Inc., in order that their learnings might be passed on to others. Thisis a story of how a business with six employees working out of a convertedgarage grew an organization of over two hundred team members producingclose tolerance, high quality labels, dials, nameplates and panels forcomponents of automobile dashboards, medical and recreational equipment.The birth of the concept began in 1977. A group of entrepreneurs wanted toproduce labels, bumper stickers, and T-shirts. They formed a partnership in1979 and named Peter Bentz president. The organization was traditionallystructured and the culture typically entrepreneurial – informal, small, whereeveryone knew each other and did whatever tasks needed to be done. Long-termemployees described it as like a family. Even Peter would join in the screeningprocess to get rush orders out the door. The entrepreneurial spirit encouragedutilizing whatever resources were available, making incomplete processes andsystems work. Formal structure and policies were not necessary in thisenvironment. A culture was created and sustained that said, “We can doanything!...a can-do attitude. Because of the strong work ethic, quality productsand opportunities, Dura-Tech grew at a 20% annual rate.This rate of growth meant transitioning a small family of employees, whoworked together to do what was necessary to produce a good product, into anew kind of organization that was, as yet, undefined. This middle growthperiod was difficult and confusing to employees. As the company rapidlyexpanded in size and number, employees no longer had the same alliance withpeers. Implementation of new products and systems became difficult. Thesystems and methods of doing business that had worked well in a smallorganization, were simply not working in the new, expanding one. What wasonce known, stable, controllable and could be relied on by employees, appearedto melt away. To regain a sense of control, a more traditional managementsystem was instituted. Employees were assigned specific tasks each day.Although this appeared to be a step backward, it was accepted by most
Empowerment in Organizations,Vol. 5 No. 4, 1997, pp. 213-219.© MCB University Press, 0968-4891
 
EIO5,4
214
employees as necessary to provide a foundational structure that wouldaccommodate new employees, systems, challenges and products. It seemedlogical that giving specific directions to employees and making decisions forthem would reduce confusion and help stabilize the number of changes. Duringthis period, the new structure and policies were documented in an employeehandbook to support implementation and gain control of growth and largersystems.This brief period lasted until the middle eighties. There was an observableschism between existing management philosophy and an inspiring vision of thefuture. This showed up as an inability to cope with pressing demands forquality improvement and increased order volume. The old cultural beliefs saidthat the organization could work out any problem. Past performance reinforcedthe belief. Strategies of applying more thinking and analysis, adding people,being more careful, taking more time produced inconsistent results. The onceclose-knit family split into factions that were at cross-purposes with each other.There began a period of trials; many ideas were embraced, tried anddiscarded. Quality was introduced as a systematic process intended to bring theentire organization and processes together. Leading purveyors of quality wereread, digested and their ideas tried. Quality and process engineers were addedto implement quality into the organization. Quality teams (circles) were formedwith the expectation of wondrous results. A quality action plan was developedand good results were expected from all employees through teamwork andworking together. However, the process lacked commitment from managementand employees. Teams were purported to be a benefit and yet their output waschaotic and frequently non-productive. Considerable effort had been expendedand the desired results were not being achieved. What was wrong?Management encouraged the formation and use of teams. Employees wereinstructed to work as teams to solve problems and improve processes. Bydirecting and controlling team efforts and operations, management retaineddecision-making authority. The inability of the teams to make decisions andtake full responsibility for their process was reinforced when customerproblems were brought to the attention of management. If a mistake or problemoccurred, blame was directed at a team or individual. Fear of committingmistakes grew, leading to a reluctance to admit mistakes, reducing open andhonest communication. Fear in the culture created incentive for a win-losephilosophy where employees often undermined one another. These employeesbelieved that if they appeared more skillful or knowledgeable than their peers,they would be rewarded. This was counter to the previous friendly familyatmosphere and only resulted in confusion and resentment. The shift from anopen, friendly atmosphere to one that was closed and competitive producedresults exactly opposite of those expected from empowering employees. Timewasted in excessive meetings and disagreements bogged down team progress.There were several drivers for change: the continued growth of sales, the sizeof the company, employee turnover, and a belief in the ability of the organizationto effect change. There was a growing realization that true change could only
 
The paradox of empowerment
215
take place in an atmosphere of support for the entire process of empowerment.The challenge lay in building this foundation of support.A significant transformation took place in 1991, when Peter Bentz attendeda Deming seminar. Peter came away with a vision of quality and improvementthat spurred transformation and continues to guide Dura-Tech’s evolution. Forthe first time, the whole company went off-site for training at a Deming seminarto imagine a new future for Dura-Tech. Employees became team members anda true empowering process began with Peter Bentz motivating, encouragingand giving a picture of what could be, if changes were to take place. Themissing pieces began to be identified. They realized that empowerment wouldrequire training; that deciding to be empowered and telling team members thatthey are empowered would not yield transformation.In 1992, a steering committee was formed to lead implementation of thevision. The steering committee went through the Malcolm Baldridge Awardcriteria to glean out direction for improvements. The committee realized thatincreasing customer demands and the need for new technology requirededucation and new skills. They were also aware of varying levels of teammember needs; that few had a history of or comfort with being empowered.They needed a model of what empowerment looks like and a mentor todemonstrate those actions. Making wise use of empowerment and choices alsomeant having adequate knowledge and skills training. Team members who didnot possess this belief and ability were given training for knowledge anddecision-making skills to empower themselves.One of the first steps was the development of leadership training formanagement and team leaders. Previous leaders tended to control; the newleader was to be an encourager and a mentor. When management and teamleaders began changing, it became acceptable for the team members to change.A Process Improvement Coordinator was hired to implement processimprovement using teams. The team members then had role models for changeand methods to effect that change.To meet training needs, the committee directed the development of resourceguides, which were to be manuals for regular training of tools and skills forteam members. Dura-Tech University was developed as a series of trainingcourses for team members to gain technical and team-building skills. Theseformed the basis for a team member certification program which specifiedskills and knowledge to be achieved to qualify as a certified operator. Cross-training was encouraged resulting in team members better appreciating theirpeers.In discussing what team members needed to know to be able to makeinformed decisions about their work, the steering committee realized that keybusiness information would need to be shared. Company meetings were used tobegan to disseminate information and data about the business and customers.The process to determine what and how much to share was slow and difficult.It raised trust issues that were only resolved with an awareness that makingdecisions at a process level reinforces ownership of that process by the team
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...