Empowerment

"One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man." – Elber Hubbard

In an empowering organization, the command chain is short, people from the lower levels of the hierarchy come with suggestions, ideas, improvements that are passed upwards to higher management which acts upon them. After all, engineers know best what is capable from the technology they have at hand, have ideas on what should or can be improved, designers and marketers know more about the latest trends on the market and thus know how to innovate in their areas, and so on. Competitive edge lies in the hands of people who are passionate, eager to perform and have the power to act upon their knowledge. From this comes motivation, trust, commitment, involvement, attachment, and self fulfilment. 

How does an organization become empowering? 

First of all, it all starts with a company culture that has trust in their own strength and is willing to trust its workforce. From such a culture emerges a trend to focus more on strategy and future and let go the control on people. Management then focuses on improving the processes and removing the impediments from the face of their men and women, so that everyone can concentrate on what they know and love to do.

Instead of giving directions, managers will ask their people how they can help them achieve higher performance. People will feel that they have the power to control the outcome of their work and will want to prove that they are up to the trust they are given. The more they have control on their own work, the more they will get aware of what their impediments and limitations are and they will want to improve on that. A creativity and learning loop is then created that propagates throughout the organization - better products, happier workforce, more innovation, better processes, better strategies, more awareness and more involvement. 

Instead of having one brain working for the entire team to define what each one does, you have the benefit of having 10-15 brains working all together and cooperating. This comes from trust and it is all ignited by a culture in which people have faith in each other, have the power to define choices and choose for themselves, a culture in which manager's role is to propagate awareness and communication throughout the organization. Unfortunately, it  takes a lot of courage for an organization to change as the process of changing a culture is painful and will trigger a defense reaction in most of its employees who may feel that their security and privileges may be compromised.

Organizational Change

During the recession, many companies are forced to make changes in their organization. It can be a withdrawal from a market, the closing of a subsidiary or a deep change in the way of the company is managed.

In each of these cases, the manager faces people who resist the change. This resistance can be wrenching for the project and create an immobile situation.

 Most of the time this resistance is due to two main factors:

-         Employees do not know why this change occurs

-         Employees are afraid to lose some acquired work conditions

The worst solution is to try to force change, solution which can lead to a direct conflict.

The key tactic to manage this inter organizational resistance is communication. From the first steps of a change, employees need to be aware of a potential modification within the company. However the manager needs to go further and explain the different reasons of this requirement. 

Nevertheless, a global meeting is not recommended as a first step. Indeed the manager needs first of all to establish a strong pro change basis which will help him to face the resistance. To do that he needs to find employees who will accept this change and who will relay the message. Those people are easily identifiable by function of their personality. People who are audacious and have initiative will be more disposed to accept the change.

The purpose of this pro change attitude is to make employees feel that the change originates not only from the upper hierarchy but also bottom up from employees. Of course people from the same level of hierarchy can also be more efficient to convince them.  It is better to list the different advantages that the company and thus employees can benefit from.

A good way to guide employees toward the change is to integrate them in the change. The involvement of employees in the process of change can solve the problem of resistance because they will become protagonists of this change. The delegation of tasks is the best way to establish this strategy.

Managers vs. Leaders

If we had to make a choice between working for a Manager and working for a Leader, we should, first of all, consider working environment. If the business is stable and the company needs mostly organizational administration, then a Manager can be the best type of the superior. Managers are perfect in organizing people for achieving organizational and personal goals.

Managers can direct the work of their subordinates according to the plans and strategies, which are already established by someone else. Managers are great in performing routine activities, as well as supervising and controlling the work of their organization. Finally, managers are usually the bosses, who prefer autocratic leadership style and like discipline at work. Certainly, this is very important for a successful organizational performance.

But in modern times, business usually develops in a complex, dynamic and rapidly changing environment, which requires making a lot of risky decisions and looking for new directions all the time. In such situation, I think, it would be preferable to work for a Leader. Unlike Managers, Leaders know how to set up goals, motivate the employees for achieving organizational goals and initiate changes

Leaders can inspire their subordinates for personal improvement, support them, help them to find own place in the organizational structure and to break a deadlock. Finally, the subordinates become their followers, who trust and understand their Leader and are ready to do the right thing. Therefore, in the majority of the situations working for a Leader brings more job satisfaction, favors personal development and can be a good challenge for ambitious employees.

Strategic Planning

Nowadays, it is difficult to be successful in business without a road map for success. A   strategic plan would help to provide direction and focus. It points to specific results that are to be achieved and establishes a course of action for achieving them. Strategic Planning is the process you follow to form a Strategy. Strategic planning has become a concept that is  commonly suggested as the "solution" to many business problems. 

Strategic planning is the core of the work of an organization.  Without a strategic framework you don’t know where you are going or why you are going there.  So, then, it doesn't really matter how you get there!

A strategy is an overall approach, based on an understanding of the broader context in which you function, your own strengths and weaknesses, and the problem you are attempting to address.  A strategy gives you a framework within which to work, it clarifies what you are trying to achieve and the approach you intend to use.  It does not spell out specific activities.

A strategy is an overall approach and plan. So, strategic planning is the overall planning that facilitates the good management of a process. Strategic planning takes you outside the day to- day activities of your organization or project. It provides you with the big picture of what you are doing and where you are going. Strategic planning gives you clarity about what you actually want to achieve and how to go about achieving it, rather than a plan of action for day to- day operations.

A strategic planning process is not something that can happen in an ad hoc way, at a regular planning meeting or during a staff meeting. It requires careful planning to set it up so that the process is thorough and comprehensive. When you develop or revise a strategic plan, you are setting the parameters for the work of your organization, usually for two to three years or longer. So, it does make sense to spend some time and energy planning for your strategic planning process.

The strategic planning process helps an organization clarify, consolidate or establish its strategic framework. Embedded in the strategic framework are the values and vision of the organization. Because of this, it is important to involve the whole organization in at least part of the planning process.

In a diagrammatic form, the process of defining the strategic planning framework looks like this:

Most organizations have a structure that has both hierarchical and team elements. A hierarchical structure is one in which people report to someone who has authority over them, and who is accountable for ensuring that other people do their jobs properly. Some organizations are very hierarchical, with many levels, and others are flatter; so, for example, there might be a director, but most other people would be on the same level. This only works in fairly small organizations. Other organizations may decide not to be hierarchical at all, with everyone in the organization at the same level, and everyone equally accountable for ensuring that the work gets done. This can work in a small organization in which people have equal levels of skill and commitment, but it does not work when people have different levels of skill and commitment.


Within a hierarchical organization, it is still possible to work in teams. Teams can take different forms. The most important thing to remember about teams is that they are functional groups. Their reason for existing is to get a specific and clearly defined job done. This may be determined by the strategic framework, or by specific jobs that need to be managed. Each member of the team has a particular role which complements (fits together with) the role of other team members. The successful completion of the work depends on the team members working together.


Within organizations and projects, teams could take the form of departments that specialize in different kinds of work. So, for example, there might be Finance and Administration Department, or a Training Department, or an Advocacy Unit. The teams could, however, also cut across specializations to form multi-disciplinary teams. So, for example, an organization that supported informal sector building contractors might put together a team that had technical expertise, training expertise and tendering expertise to help an association of informal sector contractors tender for a particular job.


All functional teams need leaders. If the people in the team are of roughly equal skill, then it is probably enough to have a coordinator. That person is responsible for seeing that the team meets and that everything is on track. If there are discrepancies in skill and, possibly, commitment, then something more hierarchical, where the team leader has authority, is needed. Team leadership is a way of developing confidence and skills in people who have never thought of taking leadership positions. A team leader’s authority does not cut across a line manager’s authority. The line manager is the person to whom someone reports and who is accountable for his/her performance.  Performance problems that affect a team should be referred back to the line manager.


Organizations strategic planning process may result in some things in the organization changing, either in terms of work done or in the internal structuring of the work. People struggle with change. No strategic plan will be implemented without hitches. Each organization or project will have its own set of problems. Many organizations and projects make the mistake of focusing all their energies on planning of activities. They see the strategic part of the process as “a waste of time”. The process is so simple, so simple that people sometimes prefer to ignore it, and instead, spend too much money to hire consultants to give them the same planning results.