個案總覽

Everyone talks about empowerment, but it's not working. CEOs subtly undermine empowerment. Employees are often unprepared or unwilling to assume the new responsibilities it entails. Even change professionals stifle it. When empowerment is used as the ultimate criteria of success in organizations, it covers up many of the deeper problems that they must overcome. To understand this apparent contradiction, author Chris Argyris (Harvard Business School Professor Emeritus and Director at Monitor Co.) explores two kinds of commitment: external and internal. External commitment--or contractual compliance--is what employees display when they have little control over their destinies and are accustomed to working under the command-and-control model. Internal commitment occurs when employees are committed to a particular project, person, or program for their own individual reasons or motivations. Internal commitment is very closely allied with empowerment. The problem with change programs designed to encourage empowerment is that they actually end up creating more external than internal commitment. One reason is that these programs are rife with inner contradictions and send out mixed messages like "do your own thing--the way we tell you." The result is that employees feel little responsibility for the change program, and people throughout the organization feel less empowered. What can be done? Companies would do well to recognize potential inconsistencies in their change programs; to understand that empowerment has its limits; to establish working conditions that encourage employees' internal commitment; and to realize that morale and even empowerment are penultimate criteria in organizations. The ultimate goal is performance.

The new but now familiar techniques of corporate communication--focus groups, surveys, management-by-walking-around--can block organizational learning even as they help solve certain kinds of problems. These techniques do help gather simple, single-loop information. But they also promote defensive reasoning by encouraging employees to believe that their proper role is to criticize management while the proper role of management is to take action and fix whatever is wrong. Managers focus so earnestly on "positive" values--employee satisfaction, upbeat attitude, high morale--that it would strike them as destructive to make demands on employee self-awareness. Yet employees dig deeper and harder into the truth when the task of scrutinizing the organization includes looking at their own roles, responsibilities, and potential contributions to corrective action.

Competitive success depends on learning, but most people, including professionals in leadership positions, are not very good at it. Learning is a function of how people reason about their own behavior. Yet most people engage in defensive reasoning when confronted with problems. They blame others and avoid examining critically the way they have contributed to problems. Companies need to make managers' and employees' reasoning patterns a focus of continuous improvement efforts.

Many top executives pride themselves on their skill in avoiding and managing conflict. However, when managers neither speak candidly nor put important facts on the table, candor is lost, communication suffers and so does the company. Skilled incompetence is a condition in which people excell at doing what they shouldn't because it seems right. These managers are "skilled" because they act without thinking. They are "incompetent" because their skill produces unintended results. A special application of the case method can be the first step to recognizing and correcting what's wrong.

Organizational learning is a process of detecting and correcting errors. Single loop learning is a process in which organizations are able to correct matters in order to achieve stated objectives. In double loop learning, problems are examined and corrected even though correction requires challenge to underlying policies and objectives. When policy or objectives are not questioned, organizational behavior may camouflage errors. Organizational games and norms prevent people from speaking out.

A detailed examination of the findings of a study focusing on executive decision making in six representative companies indicates that executives rank innovation, risk-taking, flexibility, and trust as important influences for effective decision making. Results of the investigation indicate, however, that during important decision-making meetings, executives dedicate themselves to "getting the job done," which results in a suppression of creativity and innovation. Recommended methods of breaking down barriers include certain types of questioning; playing back and analyzing tape recordings of meetings; and laboratory education and its various offshoots.