The Paradox Of Empowerment -a Case Study

The paradox of empowerment – a case study

The paradox of empowerment

Eric L. Wickisier President, New Paradigms Inc, Bloomington, MN, USA “Delight Our Customers with World Class Products, Services and Value.” That’s the mission of Dura-Tech, one of the many organizations I have visited. As I begin a visit, I reflect on what I see, hear, and feel, and consider questions I want to ask. At Dura-Tech, I found a busy atmosphere, with an unusual degree of synergism, satisfaction, and joy. I immediately asked myself – what’s happening here? Is this real? What does this mission statement mean to DuraTech employees? As an educator in quality, I feel compelled to share what I experienced at Dura-Tech, Inc., in order that their learnings might be passed on to others. This is a story of how a business with six employees working out of a converted garage grew an organization of over two hundred team members producing close tolerance, high quality labels, dials, nameplates and panels for components of automobile dashboards, medical and recreational equipment. The birth of the concept began in 1977. A group of entrepreneurs wanted to produce labels, bumper stickers, and T-shirts. They formed a partnership in 1979 and named Peter Bentz president. The organization was traditionally structured and the culture typically entrepreneurial – informal, small, where everyone knew each other and did whatever tasks needed to be done. Long-term employees described it as like a family. Even Peter would join in the screening process to get rush orders out the door. The entrepreneurial spirit encouraged utilizing whatever resources were available, making incomplete processes and systems work. Formal structure and policies were not necessary in this environment. A culture was created and sustained that said, “We can do anything!...a can-do attitude. Because of the strong work ethic, quality products and opportunities, Dura-Tech grew at a 20% annual rate. This rate of growth meant transitioning a small family of employees, who worked together to do what was necessary to produce a good product, into a new kind of organization that was, as yet, undefined. This middle growth period was difficult and confusing to employees. As the company rapidly expanded in size and number, employees no longer had the same alliance with peers. Implementation of new products and systems became difficult. The systems and methods of doing business that had worked well in a small organization, were simply not working in the new, expanding one. What was once known, stable, controllable and could be relied on by employees, appeared to melt away. To regain a sense of control, a more traditional management system was instituted. Employees were assigned specific tasks each day. Although this appeared to be a step backward, it was accepted by most

213

Empowerment in Organizations, Vol. 5 No. 4, 1997, pp. 213-219. © MCB University Press, 0968-4891

EIO 5,4

214

employees as necessary to provide a foundational structure that would accommodate new employees, systems, challenges and products. It seemed logical that giving specific directions to employees and making decisions for them would reduce confusion and help stabilize the number of changes. During this period, the new structure and policies were documented in an employee handbook to support implementation and gain control of growth and larger systems. This brief period lasted until the middle eighties. There was an observable schism between existing management philosophy and an inspiring vision of the future. This showed up as an inability to cope with pressing demands for quality improvement and increased order volume. The old cultural beliefs said that the organization could work out any problem. Past performance reinforced the belief. Strategies of applying more thinking and analysis, adding people, being more careful, taking more time produced inconsistent results. The once close-knit family split into factions that were at cross-purposes with each other. There began a period of trials; many ideas were embraced, tried and discarded. Quality was introduced as a systematic process intended to bring the entire organization and processes together. Leading purveyors of quality were read, digested and their ideas tried. Quality and process engineers were added to implement quality into the organization. Quality teams (circles) were formed with the expectation of wondrous results. A quality action plan was developed and good results were expected from all employees through teamwork and working together. However, the process lacked commitment from management and employees. Teams were purported to be a benefit and yet their output was chaotic and frequently non-productive. Considerable effort had been expended and the desired results were not being achieved. What was wrong? Management encouraged the formation and use of teams. Employees were instructed to work as teams to solve problems and improve processes. By directing and controlling team efforts and operations, management retained decision-making authority. The inability of the teams to make decisions and take full responsibility for their process was reinforced when customer problems were brought to the attention of management. If a mistake or problem occurred, blame was directed at a team or individual. Fear of committing mistakes grew, leading to a reluctance to admit mistakes, reducing open and honest communication. Fear in the culture created incentive for a win-lose philosophy where employees often undermined one another. These employees believed that if they appeared more skillful or knowledgeable than their peers, they would be rewarded. This was counter to the previous friendly family atmosphere and only resulted in confusion and resentment. The shift from an open, friendly atmosphere to one that was closed and competitive produced results exactly opposite of those expected from empowering employees. Time wasted in excessive meetings and disagreements bogged down team progress. There were several drivers for change: the continued growth of sales, the size of the company, employee turnover, and a belief in the ability of the organization to effect change. There was a growing realization that true change could only

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 attended a Deming seminar. Peter came away with a vision of quality and improvement that spurred transformation and continues to guide Dura-Tech’s evolution. For the first time, the whole company went off-site for training at a Deming seminar to imagine a new future for Dura-Tech. Employees became team members and a true empowering process began with Peter Bentz motivating, encouraging and giving a picture of what could be, if changes were to take place. The missing pieces began to be identified. They realized that empowerment would require training; that deciding to be empowered and telling team members that they are empowered would not yield transformation. In 1992, a steering committee was formed to lead implementation of the vision. The steering committee went through the Malcolm Baldridge Award criteria to glean out direction for improvements. The committee realized that increasing customer demands and the need for new technology required education and new skills. They were also aware of varying levels of team member needs; that few had a history of or comfort with being empowered. They needed a model of what empowerment looks like and a mentor to demonstrate those actions. Making wise use of empowerment and choices also meant having adequate knowledge and skills training. Team members who did not possess this belief and ability were given training for knowledge and decision-making skills to empower themselves. One of the first steps was the development of leadership training for management and team leaders. Previous leaders tended to control; the new leader was to be an encourager and a mentor. When management and team leaders began changing, it became acceptable for the team members to change. A Process Improvement Coordinator was hired to implement process improvement using teams. The team members then had role models for change and methods to effect that change. To meet training needs, the committee directed the development of resource guides, which were to be manuals for regular training of tools and skills for team members. Dura-Tech University was developed as a series of training courses for team members to gain technical and team-building skills. These formed the basis for a team member certification program which specified skills and knowledge to be achieved to qualify as a certified operator. Crosstraining was encouraged resulting in team members better appreciating their peers. In discussing what team members needed to know to be able to make informed decisions about their work, the steering committee realized that key business information would need to be shared. Company meetings were used to began 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 making decisions at a process level reinforces ownership of that process by the team

The paradox of empowerment

215

EIO 5,4

216

members. During this period of developing trust, Peter Bentz began “after hours chats with the chief”. This provided an opportunity for anyone to come and ask questions or provide feedback directly to the president. This reinforced an open door policy that continues today. The information sharing developed into monthly company-wide meetings and being open and honest on financial and production information to keep all team members informed. The organization was restructured by designing and implementing teams to address compensation, training and education, and information systems. Teams were formed for writing detailed work instructions to assist in the instruction and training of team members. “Continuous Improvement - A Resource Guide” was a resource book used to train team members in team building and process improvement. Teams were authorized to make decisions that affected all team members. This authority for making decisions was documented in “Team Empowerment - Decision Making Guidelines”. These guidelines discussed who should be involved and what decisions teams could make. A history of good decisions was accumulated by teams. The teams allowed natural leaders to seize opportunities and accept responsibilities outside their areas. For example, when it was decided to implement the international quality standard, ISO 9000, several ISO team leaders were tried before finding leadership for the process. A winning combination was found with the Quality Specialist and the Information Coordinator. Shared responsibility allowed each team member to continue with their current tasks and still do the design and implementation of ISO. A unique training tool emerged from the Information Coordinator. When it was time to train team members on how to conform with ISO, a game based on the game show Jeopardy was developed and implemented on the PC network. Instead of a dry presentation on ISO, the teams were challenged and winners were given small prizes. The level of enthusiasm increased and the learning process became fun. The steering committee was responsible for implementation, of making the needed resources available to all team members. These included training, new processes, equipment, tracking resources, and recommending new resources. As the process of empowerment evolved, team members began asking, “What’s in it for me?” This issue was addressed by integrating rewards and recognition into each team’s process and by ensuring that all team members knew the importance of what was being asked of them. Profit sharing and gainsharing programs were put in place to provide a method of directly rewarding team members for their efforts. Where is Dura-Tech today? The entire process is described as The World Class Quality Leadership Program. This program has placed Dura-Tech in a position of being a leader and model for quality and empowerment. The pride evidenced by team members has reinforced a growing reputation. The reputation of Dura-Tech has extended far beyond the local area. This reputation continues to draw new people who have heard positive comments about DuraTech and a different kind of management.

The last three years have produced a flatter organization. Extra management layers only created conflict and interfered with implementation of the vision. The remaining organization has a full workload. A paradox exists between a workload that must be carefully managed to ensure that necessary work gets done and the strong desire to continually improve and change the organization and processes. The team members must have a voice to be able to express their feelings, concerns and still have trust and patience that conflict will result in resolution. Success in recent history has been based on a committed management team that consistently paints the picture with words of empowerment and quality. The empowered organization prospers from unreserved encouragement for all team members fostering creativity in attaining its vision. The management team tells stories of how others changed, giving clear examples or parables. By building on the strengths from within and maintaining a flat organization, values like trust, respect, a willingness to learn, adaptability and flexibility, continue to grow and gain strength throughout the organization. These values are reinforced by leaders who know what is important and keep a balance of priorities within the teams. Internal and external communication constantly improve through utilizing the principles of networking and exploring all information sources. I asked team members who embodies the true nature or spirit, who would be the best representative, of what Dura-Tech is all about? The consistent answer was Peter Bentz. Team members say that Peter embodies what he teaches, knows how to work with people, and is constant in his purpose. Peter readily admits that he is “obsessed” with empowerment and quality improvement. He frequently tells the story of the many changes the organization has realized, how people are the foundational element for success and a picture of the future. As President, he begins the day at 7:30 and leaves at 5:00. He spends two to five hours each evening reading to keep current with changing technology, organizations and human relations. Peter is active in presenting the benefits of empowerment to the community. Today the organization can be described as maturing. Respect and trust among the team members exists where it was not before. Employees know more of what is expected of them and there is a general attitude of win-win, “If we find a mutually beneficial action, we and the company benefit”. However, paradoxes continue to exist. Learning and growth are frequently slower than as first envisioned. The culture and process changes require changes in the belief systems of individuals, groups and the entire organization. What sounded beneficial and desirable to achieve has not been an easy road. The level of discomfort was higher than expected. The paradox is that wanting to be empowered and truly being empowered are usually far apart. True empowerment embodies commitment and ownership that stems from being deeply involved with the workplace and its processes. The process requires allowing for mistakes, rewarding the risk-takers, avoiding blame, and management giving up control.

The paradox of empowerment

217

EIO 5,4

218

Empowerment does not exist equally for everyone. There is a group of team members who are empowered; there are those who are partially empowered; and there are those who are waiting to see if empowerment is real. In discussing empowerment with the partially empowered and those who are not participating, a commonality emerges. Fear appears to be the main roadblock to committing to the process. Fear closes the mind and heart to change. What is heard is, “My family or my former company are different from people here at Dura-Tech. If I tell them how I really feel, I will not be perceived as a team player.” Another paradox is that even with all the good mentors and models, there are reversions to old behavior of directing or control. Instead of seeing these as temporary behaviors, the disempowered see them as examples of truth and what the future will be. For the partially empowered and those still waiting, the challenge is to continually keep a clear picture of the vision in front of them, and to reinforce teamwork and decision-making at the process level. Dura-Tech is a self-healing organization. It reaches deep within to educate itself, going outside for expertise it does not have available within. Leaders are home grown. This was accomplished by having the insight to look at its wounds, to clean the wounds and then allow healing to take place. Healing encourages balance – -a balance to decide if a decision needs to be made by an individual or by a team; how meeting and decision-making time can be allocated for the process versus how much time is available. Another question remains: Is it better to hire empowered team members or do team members need to be grown from within the organization? Team leaders, if given the choice, would like to grow the team members. The leaders believe that a cultural fit and personal attributes are more important than having technical skills in the screen printing business. The organization believes that employment at Dura-Tech offers opportunities for personal improvement, and hiring people with good potential requires caring for that potential by offering growth opportunities so that team members will stay with the company over the long-term. An incongruity appears: most of the technical people within have a high school education and have been educated within the Dura-Tech system; but recently, mature, college-educated technical members have been hired. While this is inconsistent with training from within, the effect has been to provide stability and mentors for the younger workforce. When members of an organization are given the opportunity to be creative and express what was formerly hidden within themselves or the organization, a new belief system develops that disregards the limits and scope of tradition. Not only does collaboration become a conscious and desired effort, but the outcome is frequently beyond what had been envisioned. The true paradox of empowerment occurs when power and control are given away; something unexpected happens that is far greater than what was foreseen.

Learnings from Dura-Tech: • Empowerment can provide benefits such as customer and employee satisfaction, innovative systems, and contribute to the “bottom line”. • A bond (frequently called commitment, trust and joy) enables the organization to be self healing. • The vision is kept alive with training and a constancy of purpose. Dura-Tech has overturned the paradigms of the traditional organization which were: limit focus to efficiency and quality; having fun is unproductive; experts tell the uninformed how the system should work; and team decision-making requires too much effort and time. Dura-Tech has given us a true success story, worthy of acknowledgment and applause, and worth emulating.

The paradox of empowerment

219