Tag: leadership



When does empowerment become counterproductive to a manager or leader?

–Anonymous

Thank you for your intriguing question. Current fashion in leadership education and research typically indicate that empowerment is always a good thing. As the question suggests, perhaps this is not the case. But before predicting when empowerment is good—or not so good—for a leader, it is important to first define what is meant by empowerment.

Empowerment has many definitions but most, at least with respect to organizations, cluster around two different meanings. First, in its simplest and most common form, empowerment means to invest someone with authority, to authorize. In other words, empowerment involves a superordinate—a boss—assigning to an individual or team, decisions rights over resources (time, physical resources, money) so that they make decisions about what to do and how to respond to specific situations without checking in with the boss. This perspective of empowerment assumes a hierarchical organization in which decision rights are “pushed” down the hierarchy.

The second common definition of empowerment focuses on the willingness of individuals to make decisions. This self-actualization form of empowerment features emotions and confidence about making decisions, the ability to overcome barriers that are in the way, and to feel that it is appropriate make decisions and take action. In organizations, successful empowerment requires both an assignment of decision rights and an individual’s or team’s confidence to use them.

Contrary to much of the leadership literature, empowerment may not always yield performance improvements for an organization. If empowerment yields lower efficiency in the short and long run then it is counterproductive for organizations. To figure out this counterproductivity, let’s begin by first understanding when empowerment is productive.

With two colleagues, I studied a garment facility that shifted from individual piece rates (a price paid to a worker for each sewing operation performed) to group piece rates (a price for sewing the entire garment split equally among a team).* In essence, management empowered the team to make all production decisions in sewing where under the prior situation individuals were assigned a specific and narrow repetitive task like sewing inseams. Overall, empowering autonomous work teams led to a stunning 14% productivity improvement over individual production and, arguably, a better culture and work environment. In a fascinating twist, the most productive individual workers essentially took a pay cut of up to 40% to work on empowered teams, presumably because they enjoyed them more than working alone! From the study can be deduced five sources of improved productivity from empowerment.

When can empowerment improve productivity?

  1. Empowerment at the garment facility yielded greater productivity for most but not all teams. Most workers enjoyed working with others and demonstrated collaboration skills. But a few teams declined substantially in productivity. These workers seemed not to enjoy being on a team and did not display collaboration skills. Empowerment in teams may require individuals who enjoy working with others and who possess collaboration skills.
  2. Empowerment of teams led garment workers to productively use and share their individual information and knowledge, which seemed superior to that possessed by management, to increase productivity. Empowerment therefore may be useful when workers have superior information and knowledge.
  3. Team output was easily, comprehensively, and precisely measured. With accurate and precise measurement and feedback for the team and management, empowerment may make it easier for teams to improve productivity.
  4. Team members could easily monitor each others’ contributions and effort. Empowerment and easy peer monitoring may encourage social punishment of any member who deviates from the norm.
  5. The team had an incentive—in this case income—to collectively improve performance. Empowerment and strong enough incentives may generate both a high performance norm and the motivation to achieve it.

These five features explain why team empowerment worked brilliantly at the garment facility. Turning these features on their head helps to identify when empowerment might be counterproductive.

When can empowerment be counterproductive?

  1. Empowerment may not be advantageous in a team setting if individuals aren’t interested in working with others or do not possess collaboration skills.
  2. Authority is a better form of organization if leadership has costly-to-transfer and superior information and knowledge not possessed by subordinates. In this case, command and control can deliver superior organizational performance.
  3. When team output cannot easily be measured then greater oversight of effort and adherence to specific process steps are called for, assuming leadership can observe effort and verify process steps.
  4. If team members cannot easily monitor each other’s actions and aren’t motivated to do so then it becomes easy for each worker to take it easy and shirk.
  5. Without an incentive—financial, career, acknowledgement, status, some form of socialization, etc.—it may be difficult for teams to adopt a high performance norm, a common goal, and have motivation to achieve them.

In my view, empowerment is a useful leadership approach for most situations. Nonetheless, it isn’t always the best option as applying it in some situations can be counterproductive. A challenge for leadership, and in government in particular, is finding ways to structure work so that empowerment offers a superior approach. Doing so not only can lead to substantial productivity gains but also create a superior organizational culture and work environment.

Duce a mente (May you lead by thinking),

Jackson Nickerson

* Barton Hamilton, Jack Nickerson, and Hideo Owan (2003). “Team Incentives and Worker Heterogeneity: Empirical Analysis of the Impact of Teams on Productivity,” Journal of Political Economy (111,3): 465-497.




It is not uncommon for senior leaders to use several approaches to winnow applicants down to a small pool. Phone interviews are one of many hurdles, all of which you have to successfully navigate if you want to end up in the final pool from which a selection will be made.

With phone interviews, and in particular with a committee on the line, what kinds of questions will be asked? What will the committee be looking for? How can you shine through a telephone line and demonstrate that you have the right stuff?

First and foremost please know that I have never been on such a hiring committee for Senior Executive Service (SES) candidates. But I have been on hiring committees, and even have run a few, at my university including ones for selecting a provost, a dean, and a variety of senior leaders. I believe much of what I have learned translates to government agencies.

How do hiring committees work? Typical committees ask the same questions of all candidates. With only 30 minutes, expect about five questions, give or take. At least some questions are likely to focus on the Office of Personnel Management’s Executive Core Qualifications (ECQs). (Of course, carefully reading the job posting will give you important clues about what might be asked.)

The purpose of the questions often is threefold. First, the committee wants to assess your experience with leadership challenges. Second, they want to assess your (hopefully) great communication skills. Third, the committee will likely want to get a sense of your ability to aspire to deliver great value, inspire your future team to achieve success, and perspire, which is your willingness to set a good example by working hard.

While these general categories of questions may be of some help, they don’t offer specific recommendations for getting in tip top form for a phone interview. Here are three specific recommendations that you can practice for your interview.

  1. Your response to a question should be short, calm, and clear. After hearing the question do not start talking immediately. Instead, gain some time for thinking by thanking them for the question. Pause and jot down one, two, but no more than three main points that you wish to express in response to the question. Once you have these points in hand, briefly state them. For instance, “Thank you for your question on how I have led change in my existing organization. In response I would like to talk you about a specific challenge my organization faced, how my team and I responded to it, and the outcomes achieved.” Move on to describe each point, restating the points when finished. Even though you are the candidate, you should be thoughtful about managing time. While you cannot manage the interview itself, you can manage your responses to questions by keeping them to less than 3 minutes—with a 30-minute interview, talking longer likely will signal that you are rambling.
  2. Your responses are most powerful when they come in the form of a short narrative, story, or vignette. People typically find it easier to remember an impactful story instead of hearing facts taken out of context. A brief story with characters (with a hero other than you), a plot with some type of tension or conflict, and a climax with a resolution that you contributed to, can be particularly memorable. Describing how you enabled the hero in your story is a great way to illuminate the very desirable trait of leadership of empowering others.
  3. Be candid about mistakes (big and small) and how you took ownership and learned from them. In fact, I believe the best vignettes are those that highlight how a candidate first thought one way and then learned to think another, better way. Such “mistakes” and willingness to learn highlight how leaders take responsibility, learn, and lead, which is important for every ECQ.

Practice may not “make perfect” but it does “make better”. Have a friend or significant other interview you with his or her own questions. Record the interview (a smart phone, computer, or other digital device can do this easily for you). Don’t stop or ask to start over if you stumble. Finish your response as if the interview were real. When done, do something else for at least 10 minutes before listening to the recording so that you can refresh your mind. Listen to your responses without making any comment. Once done, find three things you did well in your response. Once you appreciate what you did well, then, and only then, identify three things you could have done better. Repeat the process.

While I can’t promise that you will get the job, practicing the three steps outlined above and then reflecting will help you advance your thinking and interviewing capability. I wish the best for you in the interview!

Duce a mente (May you lead by thinking),

Jackson Nickerson

Photo credit: cell phone by Jonathan Lyman, Flickr Creative Commons




Wow!  Olin’s faculty members are doing some amazing research.

At our first Praxis luncheon this year, Professor Andrew Knight presented his research on how to effectively lead teams with diverse values.

Most of us think of diversity in terms of demographics, or skill sets.  Professor Knight and his team found that we really need to be thinking about diversity of values – because teams with similar values need to be managed much differently than teams with differing values, in order to maximize team performance.

When team members’ values differ, there is a high risk of conflict.  Managers of these teams can either provide structured, task based leadership, or they can provide person-focused leadership.  Professor Knight found that when managers provided task-focused leadership, teams with a high values variance vastly outperformed (and with less conflict) similar teams receiving person-focused leadership.

When team members’ values were similar, both leadership styles resulted in good performance, although the person-focused managers had slightly better outcomes.

This research is truly relevant to business, across all industries and functions, and certainly has changed the way I look at diversity in teams!

Murray Weidenbaum, Richard Mahoney, and Andrew Knight

Murray Weidenbaum, Richard Mahoney, and Andrew Knight

The Praxis luncheon series was designed to help put the relevant, cutting-edge research of Olin’s faculty in the hands of business leaders who can apply its findings to benefit their own organizations.

Sponsored by Olin’s Distinguished Executive in Residence, Richard J. Mahoney, the luncheon series is part of a broader effort to foster meaningful, mutually beneficial interaction between Olin’s faculty and the corporate community.

Praxis 2013 cover

 

Read a summary of Prof. Knight’s research paper in the new issue of Praxis: Research that Impacts Business.




Knowing that there are often new people involved in teams and or decisions, how do you ensure “bee-in” for them rather than just “buy-in”?

I introduced a leadership concept called “bee-in”, which represents a specific set of leadership processes that not only helps with diversity and inclusion but also helps teams build trust and create understanding. Teams that develop these characteristics have deep commitment to each other and to their projects and, as a result, are more likely to successfully discover and implement valuable solutions.

In contrast, asking individuals to “buy-in” implies that they weren’t important enough to be included in the conversation in the first place. Leaders who seek “buy-in” often don’t develop much trust and understanding within their teams and rarely generate commitment to either the project or each other. Worse, some team members may refuse to “buy-in” and work to slow or kill the project. The end result is that projects relying on buy-in rarely succeed in achieving their desired performance goals and may fail entirely.

There is no doubt that changing team membership can cause your team—and project—to unravel and fail. Adding or changing team members can quickly diminish commitment. Without being with the team from the beginning, why would a new team member be committed to any decision others previously made? Questioning prior decisions and injecting different views and preferences can create team conflict that undermines trust, impedes understanding, and reverses prior commitments. Moreover, if a new team member controls a critical resource but is not collaborative or has a domineering personality then team commitment quickly can collapse leaving few options but to fail or to shift to autocratic decision-making. In other words, bringing new people on the team and doing so late-in-the-game can erode “bee-in,” making it necessary to switch to “buy-in” and all that comes with it.

You may want to lead your team using a “bee-in” approach but how can you succeed if your team members change over time? How can you develop and sustain trust and understanding as well as commitment if people are rotating on and off your project? Is there anything you can do to lead in such circumstances or is “bee-in” a naive ideal that simply can’t be reached for some projects?

To develop useful strategies for maintaining “bee-in” it is useful to identify a few common reasons why team members change. All too often:

  1. teams are formed without thinking about what information and knowledge sets are needed and who will be critical to implementation efforts. In other words, not enough thought went into thinking about who should be on the team and hence the initial team composition is chosen poorly requiring future additions.
  2. new team members do not have much knowledge of the project and its history and do not have appropriate expectations about their role moving forward on the team.
  3. project complexity and duration necessitate the coming and going of team members. For instance, complex information technology projects and weapons systems using a waterfall approach to project management can last many years and may necessitate changing team members as various specializations are needed at various times or because of employee turnover.

In response to these common reasons for new people joining teams, three strategies may help you sustain bee-in.

  • First: The most important strategy is to be far-sighted and initially form your team with everyone you will need for the life of the project. For instance, I recommend that you should invite individuals to join the team who (a) possess the relevant information and knowledge that are likely to be needed to formulate and solve the challenge and (b) will be critical to implementation efforts. At first it may seem like constructing such a team is inefficient because those involved in implementing are not needed until much later in the process. You may be concerned that these people will waste their time and slow down team progress thereby harming productivity. Yet, without “bee-in” participation early on, those who you rely on for implementation may become blockers. Indeed, without participation from the beginning these people may never support implementation efforts, which is the worse inefficiency of all.
  • Second: Even if individuals are not formally on a team, it is important to involve everyone in your community by frequently apprising them of the project’s progress and soliciting their feedback. As you proceed with each stage of your project, document each step and solicit feedback from your broader community before proceeding so they have an opportunity to participate. Doing so demonstrates that you respect their feedback, gives them an opportunity to contribute, and keeps them from rehashing past decisions. In essence, involving your entire community in “bee-in” makes it easier to add new people to the team without disrupting it.
  • Third: Projects that last months if not years pose a specific challenge. Wherever possible, I recommend changing the project so that it is short in duration or can be separated into a series of projects each of which can be completed. For instance, waterfall project management approaches that would take up to a decade to design and build complicated information technology systems are giving way to “agile” development approaches that reduce develop time up to 90% by focusing on only the critical product features needed. These new approaches convert one complex project into a series of smaller projects.

In sum, my recommendation is to choose teams wisely so you won’t need new team members, invite broad awareness of and participation from your community so that new team members already are in the process, and restructure projects so that are short enough to maintain team membership. Can you always execute these strategies? No. Nonetheless, I suspect that these strategies can be used more than they are to maintain “bee-in” and increase project success.

Duce a mente (may you lead by thinking),

Jackson Nickerson




I was just reading an article about why the Australian swim team did not do well in the 2012 Olympics. They only won one gold medal whereas in prior years they have had many. The article had a statement I found interesting: “Participants reported that in the zealous and streamlined attempts to obtain gold medals, the delicate management of motivation, communication, and collaboration were lost.” How does a leader accomplish this delicate management especially once it has been lost? We [in government] of course do not strive for gold medals but there is certainly a lack of trust so that even when there is communication people are skeptical.

–Anonymous

With furloughs beginning in some cantons of the government, cost of living adjustments nullified for the third year in a row and public servants often vilified in the news, trust is, and if not should be, near the top of every government leader’s organizational concerns. Even if the environment around you and your organization undermines trust that comes from the structure of our political and governmental institutions, the wise leader can still build, maintain, and repair interpersonal trust within their own organization and community. That said, once trust is lost, especially in the leader, regaining it is unlikely except under rare conditions.

When people say that they trust someone, they typically are using a short hand to describe that they expect someone to have the “goods”: good character, good will, and good ability.

  1. Good character comes from the integrity of being true to your word—when you give your word you will follow through and, if for some external reason you can’t, you will let people know immediately and figure out what you can do to make up for it.
  2. Good will means that you predictably care for others and act to support them and do the fair thing even when costly to you.
  3. Good ability comes from demonstrating your capability to achieve successful outcomes for your customers and organization.

Leaders who consistently demonstrate these three goods build a reputation for trustworthiness. Such reputations do not get built over night and therefore, when achieved, should be cultivated and maintained as valuable leadership capital.

While trustworthiness can be cultivated and is durable, it also can be destroyed quickly if any of the three goods become “bads”. I use the word “can” because sometimes decisions and events happen outside of the control of a trusted leader. If people believe that the bad things that happened are not the fault of the leader then trustworthiness of the leader is not diminished. For instance, President Obama unilaterally decided to provide a cost of living adjustment to federal workers that Congress ultimately overruled. If government workers saw the President’s decision as following through on his words of support for public servants, caring for them, and demonstrating his capability for delivering an adjustment but also viewed Congress’ decision as being beyond his control then workers might maintain or increase their view of the President’s trustworthiness. Alternatively, those who view the President’s decision as insincere, offering the increase as a way to force Congress to eliminate the adjustment so that they would look bad, and ultimately failing to deliver a cost of living increase then his trustworthiness would be diminished. As beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so too do increases or decreases in trust depend on how actions and outcomes are viewed by the members of the leader’s community.

That said, people are smart and through repeated experiences with a leader they update their assessment of a leader’s trustworthiness. After losing a little trust, you can rebuild it with constancy of the three goods. But, if much trust is lost, rebuilding it within the same community can be practically impossible as smart people have long memories when it comes to bad actions and outcomes.

As with the Australian Olympic Swim team, if much trust is lost in a leader there only can be two paths forward to rebuild trust—change the community or change the leader. Only through changing one or the other can the gateway and path to trust and trustworthiness be reopened.

For government leaders, many actions and outcomes beyond your direct control are currently swirling around you—deficits, sequestration, continuing resolutions, political jockeying, etc. In these times of uncertainty, change, and undesirable actions and outcomes, maintaining the trust of your community is vital if you are to remain an effective leader. To do so, focus on the three goods:

  • Tell your community what is going on, directly and without delay. Engage them in conversation so they know what you say, what you promise, and what you can’t affect. Doing so will enhance how people view your integrity.
  • Consistently care for your community even when it means that you must sacrifice. Doing so solidifies perceptions of your good will.
  • Deliver successes based on what you say you will do–don’t disappoint or over deliver. Doing so builds your community’s confidence in your abilities.

Duce a mente (May you lead by thinking),

Jackson Nickerson


One of the most difficult things to figure out in government is that of jurisdiction. President Obama memorably stated in his 2011 State of the Union address that a salmon swimming in freshwater is handled by the Department of the Interior, while one in saltwater is handled by Commerce. While that line is certainly more memorable, he gave a much more striking example just before it – there are 12 different agencies that deal with exports. What that means is anyone trying to tackle an export-related problem has to align 12 different stakeholders. Efforts like these often end in failure and reinforce the idea that government can’t get anything done.

All hope is not lost, however, as Jackson Nickerson and Ron Sanders discuss in their new book. Government executives typically rely on inter-agency task forces to bring stakeholders together to solve complex problems. The issue with these task forces is that each individual agency has their own definition of the problem and their own take on how to solve it. In the initial task force meetings competing solutions get tossed around first, turf wars ensue, and progress grinds to a halt. The chance of a successful outcome is severely diminished at this point, and it can all be avoided with one simple step.

The key to success lies in coming to the table not with solutions but with ideas for root causes of the problem. If everyone formulates the problem together you eliminate that “us” vs. “them” mentality. All stakeholders now own the problem because they all took part in framing it, and once people own a problem they are much more willing to work together to come to a solution. That’s not to say that coming to that solution will be easy, but a major obstacle to success is removed by defining the problem together.