Quality management, or continuous improvement, is based on the willingness of everyone involved to make a continuous effort at making a difference. We take a look at what empowerment and ownership really mean.

Most companies propagate a norm of predictability and conventionalism

Let's be honest. Quality management, or continuous improvement, is based on the willingness of everyone involved, to make a continuous effort at making a difference.

We could call that willingness empowerment.

What does empowerment really mean?

Empowerment is a hefty word that has been used, abused, and kicked around carelessly for a long time.

It is also a word that, while well-intentioned, has been seriously maligned and misunderstood, a word that might qualify for the list of 'overused words of the last millennium'.

Indeed, today most people prefer to call it ownership, but it amounts to much the same thing.

Usually, ownership is thought of as a simple commodity that can be passed around at will.

The belief is that if people possess or own responsibility for consequences, continuous improvement is the natural result. Not true!

Ownership is not a commodity to be conferred. We may talk about who owns the sale, who own the project or who owns the proposal, but what we mean is whose head will fall if failure ensues.

Still, ownership is not a gift given, or a freedom allowed though it is a condition often required.

How 'ownership' works

When someone thoughtfully encourages employees to be creative, to be risk?takers, to be innovative, flexible or accountable, that someone may believe they are helping instil ownership among the ranks. That someone may even feel pretty good about it.

And that's just fine, as long as that same someone also understands that while they are spreading good feelings and good humour, they are not transferring ownership.

When managers exhort their staff to strive for continuous improvement by trying harder, those managers may think themselves on the cutting edge of quality management.

The truth is, they may be mandating, they may be delegating, they may be requiring, authorising, suggesting, or merely asking. But, they are certainly not bestowing ownership. Or compelling ownership. Or motivating ownership.

Ownership is a locus of control issue; it comes from within each individual, or it simply does not exist. A sense of ownership stems from an internal belief that 'I am of value', and that belief rests firmly on the feedback I get from my environment.

And that feedback at work, whether spoken, written or merely implied, is usually under the control of my manager. And whether my manager believes it or not, I listen to both the clear and the coded messages being sent.

The danger of 'fitting in'

Still, behaviours such as uniformity, predictability and conventionalism are the norm in most organisations.

There is an unspoken expectation that everyone will do their best to quietly melt into the existing group, to 'fit in'.

But, these are the attitudes and behaviours that create significant obstacles to managing diversity and to promoting individual peak performance.

If 'fitting in' means I must try not to be myself, how can I possibly be my best? How can I do my best? Why would I even want to, if my manager or my organisation doesn't value me for who I am? For what is unique and different in me? If I am from somewhere else, why must I relinquish those very traits that brought me here in the first place? Equally important, why would I take ownership for anything when doing so doesn't pay off?

To manage for quality, the barriers to superior performance, originally erected to keep some people out, must be removed for everyone. It's a slow process, but one that fits right in with your job as a leader.

Leaders understand and maximise their own performance and are instrumental in doing the same for others. They help others feel significant. They respect and value the contributions of their employees, and value their diversity because diversity is today's reality and because diversity is an advantage.

Strong leaders do not accept less than an individual is capable of achieving, and they learn how to handle sensitive issues and use feedback as a growth opportunity for employees. And as these managers do what they do best - respect - everyone begins to take ownership, because it is the natural consequence of respect and responsibility.

Quality management demands strong leaders who participate as catalysts, encouraging involvement, contribution, creativity and risk-taking. They are able to nourish employees and teams.

Strong leaders and strong teams

A strong leader 'grows' people and makes certain that each individual receives training in the skills and behaviours he or she needs in order to move forward; a leader guides, counsels, and coaches; a leader shares the vision and ensures that employees have the authority, as well as the mandate and responsibility, to implement decisions.

Strong teams share in decision-making and in accepting the responsibility for their decisions. In the early stages of transition, everyone participates in offering input and the leader guides the team through the process of reaching consensus.

Once a decision is made, everyone accepts responsibility for the outcome. As shared responsibility becomes a way of life, the leader may simply charge the team with reaching a decision.

It is understood that team decisions bind all members, a strong motivation for everyone to commit to a positive outcome.

An empowered team is synergistic; energy is multiplied; individual and group power is unleashed. Everyone shares responsibility, team pride, and recognition. Ownership follows. Quality management has made it happen.

The prevailing wisdom is that there are two key ingredients for success in today's challenging business environment. They are:

1. Managers who are effective leaders
2. Employees who are committed, valued, and responsible.

A leader influences others by creating a climate conducive to responsibility for every individual; when everyone feels included, commitment and involvement, a willingness to continuously improve, are the natural consequences.

Leadership, a requirement of quality management, does not imply the manager's abdication of responsibility as many fear.

It does require strength and skills and energy. It requires education, a solid sense of self, a commitment to change, an ability and a desire to share the vision, and most importantly, a truckload full of good, reliable strategies.

[copyright Expatica 2005]