Despite all the talk and the change programs,empowerment is still mostly an illusion.

EMPOWERMENTTHE EMPEROR'SNEW CLOTHES

BY CHRIS ARGYRIS

ONSiDERiNG its much touted potential, it'sno wonder that empowerinent receives allthe attention it does. Who wouldn't want

more highly motivated employees to help scale thetwenty-first century? As one CEO has said, "Novision, no strategy can he achieved without able andempowered employees."

Top-level executives accept their responsibilitiesto try to develop empowered employees. Humanresource professionals devise impressive theoriesof internal motivation. Experts teach change man-agement. Executives themselves launch any nuiTi-ber of programs from reengineering to continuousimprovement to TQM. But little of it works.'

Take reengineering for instance. Although therhetoric of reengineering is consistent with em-powerment, in reality it is anything but that. Bothresearch and practice indicate that the best resultsof reengineering occur when johs are rigorouslyspecified and not when individuals are left to definethem. Even the GE workout sessions had their

98

greatest success when the prohlems resolved wererelatively routine. Reengineering has led to im-provements in performance, but it has not pro-duced the numher of highly motivated employeesneeded to ensure consistently high-performing or-ganizations.

Few executives would deny that there has heenlittle growth in empowerment over the last 30years. But why that is so remains a riddle. The an-swer is complex. The change programs and prac-tices we employ are full of inner contradictions thatcripple innovation, motivation, and drive. At thesame time, CEOs subtly undermine empower-ment. Managers love empowerment in theory, hutthe command-and-control model is what they trustand know best. For their part, employees are oftenambivalent ahout empowerment - it is great as longas they are not held personally accountable. Eventhe change professionals often stifle einpower-ment. Thus, despite all the best efforts that havegone into fostering empowerment, it remains very

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW May-]une 1998

mueh like the emperor's new clothes: we praise itloudly in publie and ask ourselves privately whywe ean't see it. There has been no transformation inthe workforee, and there has been no sweepingmetamorphosis.

Two Kinds of CommitmentTo understand why there has been no transforma-tion, we need to begin with commitment. Commit-ment is not simply a human relations coneept. It isan idea that is fundamental to our thinking abouteconomics, strategy, financial governance, infor-mation technology, and operations. Commitmentis about generating human energy and activatingthe human mind. Without it, the implementationof any new initiative or idea would be seriouslycompromised. Human beings can commit them-selves in two fundamentally different ways: exter-nally and internally. Both are valuable in the work-place, but only internal commitment reinforces

empowerment. (See the exhibit "How Commit-ment Differs.")

External commitment-think of it as contractualcompliance-is what an organization gets whenworkers have little control over their destinies. It isa fundamental truth of human nature and psychol-ogy that the less power people have to shape theirlives, the less commitment they will have. When,for example, management single-handedly defineswork conditions for employees, the employees willalmost certainly be externally committed. Thatcommitment is external because all that is left foremployees is to do what is expected of them. The

Chris Argyris is the James Bryant Conant ProfessorEmeritus of Education and Organizational Behaviorat Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts.He is the author of "Good Communication That BlocksLearning" (HBR fuly-August 1994), a McKinsey Awardwinner. He is also a director at Monitor Company inCambridge.

ARTWORK BY BRYAN LEISTER 99

EMPOWERMENT: THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES

HOW COMMITMENT DIFFERS

External Commitment

Tasks are defined by others.

Internal Commitment

Individuals define tasks.

The behavior required to performtasks is defined by others.

Individuals define the behaviorrequired to perform tasks.

Performance goals aredefined by management.

Management and individualsjointly define performancegoals that are challenging

for the individual.

The importance of the goalis defined by others.

employees will not feel responsible for the way thesituation itself is defined. How can they? They didnot do the defining.

If manageiTient wants employees to take moreresponsibility for their own destiny, it must encour-age the developiTient of internal commitment. Asthe name implies, internal commitment comeslargely from within. Individuals are coiTimitted to aparticular project, person, or program based on theirown reasons or motivations. By definition, internalcommitment is participatory and very closely alliedwith empowerment. The more that top manage-ment wants internal commitment from its employ-ees, the more it must try to involve employees indefining w^ork objectives, specifying how to achievethem, and setting stretch targets.

We might well ask whether everyone must par-ticipate in order for empowerment to exist in anorganization. In principle, the answer is "yes"; inreality, there is a "but." It is unrealistic to expectmanagement to allow thousands of employees toparticipate fully in self-governanee. The degreeto which internal commitment is plausible inany organization is certainly limited. Moreover,the extent of participation in corporate goals andaspirations will vary with each employee's wishesand intentions.

At SmithKline Beecham, in one of the most far-reaching programs for employee participation thatI know of, management used a merger as an oppor-

Individuals definethe importance of the goal.

tunity to huild empowerment. Throughout theentire organization, more than 400 task forces werecreated. Yet to this day top management does notbelieve that internal commitment has been gener-ated throughout the entire company. Their realisticassessment is that not even all the employees onthe task forces feel empowered.

To be fair, it is iinportant to remember that em-powerment is a goal that organizations approxi-mate but never quite reach. The fact is that it is pos-sible to have various levels of commitment in anorganization and still get the job done. Curiously,employees have no trouble understanding the needto keep within bounds. In all lny work, I have yet tofind einployees who make unrealistic demandsabout empowerment. For top management, then,the essential thing to know is that there are limitsto internal commitment. EiTiployees do not under-s t and - in fact, they usually resent-executivespreaching internal commitment while continuingto demand external commitment from the rankand file. Indeed, a great source of discontent in orga-nizations is that top-level managers continuallyrisk their credibility by espousing empowermenttoo glibly.

Clearly, if it is internal eommitment that pro-vides the kind of outcomes that CEOs say theywant, then they must be realistic and judicious intheir demands for it. But the problem goes deeperhecause the framework that most organizations are

100 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW May-June 1998

EMPOWERMENT: THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES

now using to transform themselves discouragesemployees from actually taking responsibility intheir jobs.

Change Programs Increase InnerContradictionsMajor change programs are rife with inner contra-dictions. By this, I mean that even when these pro-grams and policies are implemented correctly,they do not-and cannot-foster the behavior theyare meant to inspire. If the inner contradictions arebrought to tbe surface and addressed, they can bedealt with successfully; that is, they will not inhibitthe kind of personal commitment that manage-ment says it wants. But if the contradictions re-main buried and unacknowledged, as they usuallydo, tbey become a destructive force. Not only dothey stifle the development of empowerment, theyalso sap the organization's effieieney by breedingfrustration and mistrust.

To illustrate, consider the advice tbat currentlyrepresents best practice for implementing and pro-moting organizational cbange. That advice breaksthe process down into four basic steps:• Define a. vision.• Define a eonipetitive strategy consistent with thevision.• Define organizational work processes that, whenexecuted, will implement the strategy.• Define individual job requirements so that em-ployees can carry out the processes effectively.

The underlying pattern of these instruetions isconsistent with what ehange researchers and prac-titioners have learned about effectiveimplementation over the years. Startwith a clear framework-a vision-and progressively make it operationalso that it will come alive. So that noone will have any doubts about howto align the four parts of the process,management is advised to speak withone voice. This process lnakes sense.It is rational.

Yet the proeess is so riddled with in-ner contradictions that change programs that fol-low it will only end up creating confusion, particu-larly at the implementation stage. Given that allthe steps have heen so precisely described through aset of instructions, the advice actually encouragesmore external than internal commitment. Clearly,when employees' actions are defined almost exclu-sively from the outside (as they are in most changeprograms), the resulting behavior eannot be em-powering and liberating. One immediate eonse-

quence is that employees react to the ehange pro-gram hy quietly distancing themselves from it.Thus the change program is successful in terms ofimproving performance because it helps reducemistakes, as in the case of TQM, or because it helpsemployees embrace best practices. But at the sametime, it undermines internal commitment. Inshort, the advice for implementing change simplydoes not provide the new source of energy thatmany executives want.

But the real danger is that ehange programs endup poisoning the entire eorporation with long-lasting mixed messages. Internally committed em-ployees intei-pret these messages as "do your ownthing-the way we tell you." They reluctantly toethe line. Employees who prefer external commit-ment will also pick up the mixed messages; how-ever, these people will be relieved because they feelprotected from having to take any personal respon-sibility. In this way, the very working habits thatexecutives do not want to see continued in theirorganizations are strengthened and reinforced. Theresult is invariably more inner contradictions andmore inefficiency and cynicism, all of which get inthe way of real change.

CEOs Undermine EmpowermentCEOs work against empowerment both eonsciouslyand unconsciously. Surprisingly-at least to out-siders-executives do not always seem to wantwhat tbey say they need. Consider a few typical re-marks that I came across during my research. Theseremarks-excerpted from a roundtable discussion

CEOs worR agauist empoweniientconsciously and unconsciousiy;

executives do not always seem towant what they say they need.

of executives from world-class companies-indi-cate very clearly the ambivalence of CEOs towardinternal commitment and empowerment. The firstCEO noted that with "well-defined processeswhere the variances arc small and the operatinglimits are well defined," you no longer need the oldcommand-and-control approach. Workers are nowempowered, "provided they respect the process,"he said. The second CEO agreed that these"processes are liberating," while the tbird observed

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW M;iy-Junc 1998 101

EMPOWEKMENT: THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES

that many employees have a tough time under-standing what it means for processes to be "reli-able, respectable, and in control."

Let us stop a moment and ask ourselves howthere can be empowerment when there is neitherguesswork nor ehallenges - when the job require-ments are predetermined and the processes are con-trolled. For employees operating in such a world,the environment is not empowering; it is foolproof.

Employees won't feel internally committed if someonealways controlling them from the top down.

This is not a milieu in which individuals can aspireto self-governance. On the contrary, as long as theybuy in and follow the dictates of the processes, theemployees in the companies just described willonly beeome more externally motivated.

The enthusiastic use of champions in virtuallyall contemporary change programs sends a similarmixed message from CEOs to employees. Top man-agement is well aware of the dangers of piecemealimplementation and eventual fade-out in majorchange programs. They strive to overcome those

problems by anointing champions. The championspursue performance objectives with tenaeity, man-aging by decree. They have generous resoureesavailable to ensure compliance, and they monitoremployees' progress frequently. Altogether, thesebehaviors reinforee the top-down control featuresof the external commitment model. The singlevoice of fervent champions leads employees to feelthat management is in eontrol, and it drives out

the sense of internal responsibility andpersonal empowerment. How ean em-ployees feel empowered if someone isalways "selling" them or controllingthem from the top down? hideed, suchchampions would not be necessary ifemployees were internally committed.

The result of all these interventions isdisarray. Managers and the change pro-grams they use undermine the empow-erment they so desperately want toachieve. Why does this oeeur? Could itbe that today's top-level managers don'ttruly want empowered employees? Intruth, they are probably unsure. At thesame time, employees do not hold exec-utives to task for their behavior. Em-ployees have their own mixed feelingsabout empowerment.

Employees Have Their DoubtsExternal commitment is a psyeliolog-ieal survival mechanism for many em-ployees-it is a form of adaptive behav-ior that allows individuals to get by inmost work environments. How that sur-vival meehanisni works is illustratedquite dramatically today in the formerEast Germany.

When the Berlin Wall came down, aroutine way of life for East Germanworkers came to an end. Most workershad learned to survive by complying.Eor 40 years, most plants were run in

accordance with the dictates of central planners. Ifmany East Germans had pushed for greater eontrolover their destinies, their lives might have been en-dangered. As a result. East German workers overthe years learned to define performance as doingthe minimum of what was required of them.

After the fall of communism, I participated inmany discussions with West German executiveswho were surprised and baffled by the lack of initia-tive and aspiration displayed by the East Germans.What those executives failed to understand is how

iS

102 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW May-June 1998

EMPOWERMENT: THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES

bewildering-indeed, how threatening-it can befor people to take internal commitment seriously,especially those who have lived their entire livesby the rules of external commitment. As I listenedto the West German executives who wanted tomake East German employees more internallycommitted, I thought of several cases in the UnitedStates and elsewhere where similar prohlems exist.Again and again in my experience, prolonged exter-nal commitment made internal commitment ex-tremely unlikely, because a sense of empowermentis not innate. It is something that must be learned,developed, and honed.

The question, then, is, How do you produce in-ternal commitment? One thing for sure is that theincentive programs executives have used-for in-stance, higher compensation, better eareer paths,"employee of the month" recognition awards-simply do not work. On the contrary, in all myyears as a ehange consultant, I have repeatedly wit-nessed how offering employees the "right" rewardscreates dependency rather than empowerment. In-evitahly, the power of such methods wears off withuse, and all that has been created is more externaleommitment.

Consider one company with substantial financialwoes. In that case, the CEO decided at considerablepersonal sacrifice to raise his employees' salaries.But his own research later showed that the employ-ees merely considered their raises to be in keepingwith their equity in the labor market. Internal com-mitment had not increased. Employees continuedto do only what was asked of them as long as therewards were increased. They followed the rules,but they did not take any initiative. They did nottake risks, nor did they show the sense of personalresponsibility that management sought. The CEOwas surprised, but I thought that these results wereentirely predictable for two reasons. First, pay, likeother popular incentive schemes, often advancesexternal commitment while creating a bias againstinternal commitment. Second, and more funda-mental, many employees do not embrace the ideaof empowerment with any more gusto than man-agement does. For a lot of people, empowerment isjust too much work. Like the workers in East Ger-many, almost all employees have learned to surviveby depending on external eommitment.

When it comes to empowerment, executives andemployees are engaged in shadowboxing. Manage-ment says it wants employees wbo participatemore; employees say they want to he more in-volved. But it is difficult to know who means what.Is it just a charade? Employees push for greater au-tonomy; management says tbe right thing but tries

to keep control through information systems,processes, and tools. Employees see vestiges of theold command-and-control model as eonfirmingtheir worse suspicions - that superiors want un-challenged power. Management just wants to seebetter numbers. Thus the battle between autonomyand control rages on, and meanwhile, as eompaniesmake the transition into the next century, the po-tential for real empowerment is squandered.

Change Professionals InhibitEmpowermentDuring the past decade, I have had the opportunityto work with more than 300 change experts in dif-ferent organizations. Such individuals differ intheir practices and their effectiveness, of course,but more striking than tbe differences are tbe pat-terns that recur.

Caught in the middle of the battle between au-tonomy and control, the change professional hasa tough assignment. The role of the change profes-sional, whether internal or external, is ostensibly tofacilitate organizational change and continuouslearning. In their own way, however, the vast ma-jority of change professionals actually inhibit em-powerment in organizations.

To understand how that occurs, consider whathappens as Tom, a change agent, tries to work withJack, a line manager. [Both are composite figurestypical of those I encountered in my research.) Jackis told by his boss to work with Tom, who is thereto "help" Jack empower his organization. Thechange program begins with a series of meetingsand diseussions. Tom talks passionately aboutopenness, honesty, and trust as the foundations ofempowerment. Many employees leave these meet-ings feeling hopeful about the direetion that thecompany is taking toward more open communica-tion. A month into the program, however, Tom ob-serves that Jack has fallen back into his old style ofmanagement. He decides that he had better con-front Jack:

Tom's unspokenthoughts:

TOM: Things aren'tgoing well.

What Tom and Jack say:

TOM: SO how's every-thing going?

JACK: Things are goingpretty well. There's a lotof pressure from above,but we're meeting thenumbers.

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW May-lunc 1998 103

EMPOWERMENT: THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES

TOM: Oh great. All Jackcares about is the num-bers. Empowermentisn't even on his agenda.

TOM: Just what I feared.Jack's not "walking thetalk." He just doesn'tget it at all.

TOM: Great. Super. But Iwas also wondering howwell we're doing at get-ting people more com-mitted to their johs.How empowered do youthink people feel ?

JACK: Well, I think we'redoing okay. If there areprohlems, people eometo me and we work itout. Sure, some peopleare never satisfied. Butthat's just a few people,and we can handlethem.

TOM: Look, Jack, ifyou solve all their prob-lems, how are we goingto empower our em-ployees?

TOM: This is hopeless!There's got to be an eas-ier way to make a liv-ing. I'll never getthrough to him. I wish Icould tell Jack what Ithink, but I don't wantto put him on the defen-sive. I've got to staycool

JACK: Well, to be honestwitb you, Tom, tbe sig-nal I'm getting fromabove is that my job isto produce the numberswithout, you know, up-setting people. To befair, I think I'm doingthat.

What's happening here? The change program thathegan with great enthusiasm is clearly in deep trou-hle. It's a pattern I've observed over and over again.After the initial excitement passes, reality in-evitably settles in. Put aside the nice rhetoric ofempowerment, employees will have probleiTis.They will ask their managers for help, and theirmanagers will tell them what to do. That is howmost work gets done and how organizations meettheir numbers. And in many cases, there's ahsolutely

notbing wrong with tbis, except that it goes againsttbe theory of empowerment.

What does Tom do wben be observes Jack tellinghis employees wbat to do? Instead of figuring outwbetber Jack is doing tbe right thing in tbis situa-tion, cbange experts like Tom will almost alwaysbe dismayed, because the managers aren't walkingthe talk of empowerment. Rarely have I seen achange professional help a manager deal effectivelywith heing caught between a rock and a hard place.Even more uncominon is a change agent wbo offerspractical advice to the manager about what to do.

Not only is Tom unwilling to acknowledge thereal problem Jack is having, but he papers over bisown thoughts. He tries to act as if be still believesthe program can he successful when, in fact, he basgiven up bope. Tom himself is guilty of not walkingthe talk of openness, honesty, and trust.

In lTiy experience, line managers are far lnorewilling to acknowledge the inner contradictions ofcbange programs-at least, in private. They will ad-mit to distancing themselves from the soft stuff-two-way participation, internal commitment, anddiscontinuous thinking-to focus instead on thenumbers. Managers like Jack often conclude-rightly, I'm afraid-that tbe cbange agent does notknow bow to belp theiTi. So Jack listens politely asTom warns him about the dangers of hackslidingand exhorts bim to be more persistent. And thenJack goes on about his business.

In tbe end, everyone is frustrated. In theory, em-powerment should make it easier for organizationsto meet their numbers. But when change programsare imposed witbout recognizing the limitations ofempowerment and Wien managers and employeesarc not helped to deal effectively and openly witbtbem, tbe organization ends up worse off tban itwas to begin witb. Empowerment too often entersthe realm of political correctness, which meanstbat no one can say wbat he or she is thinking: thisis just nonsense. In this scenario, if you challengethe cbange agent, you become an enemy of change.

So instead of feeling more empowered, peoplethroughout the organization feel more trapped andless able to talk openly about what's really goingon. Is it any wonder that change prograins don'tsucceed and tbat tbey actually undermine the cred-ibility of top management?

What Is to Be Done?Despite all tbe rhetoric surrounding transforma-tion and major cbange programs, the reality is tbattoday's managers bave not yet encountered changeprograins that work. As we have seen, the reasons

104 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW May-|une 1998

EMPOWERMENT: THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES

for that are complex. Although managers sharesome of the responsibility for undermining internalmotivation in their organizations, the change pro-grams tbat could create high levels of internal com-mitment and empowerment in corporations do notyet exist. That is why I believe it is time to beginthe research and experimentation that is requiredto find some viable answers. But for now, let me be-gin with some recommendations thatmay help executives think more sen-sibly about empowerment.• Recognize that every company hasboth top-down controls and programsthat empower people, and that someinconsistencies are inevitable andmust simply be managed. When theseinner contradictions beeome appar-ent, encourage individuals to bringthem to the surface; otherwise, a cred-ibility gap will be created that can pollute the orga-nization for many years to come.• Don't undertake blatantly contradictory pro-grams. For instance, stop creating change programsthat are intended to expand internal eommitmentbut are designed in ways that produce externalcommitment. Make sure that what is being es-poused will not contradict what actually happens.• Understand that empowerment has its limits.Know how mueh ean be created and what can beaccomplished. Know that empowerment is not aeure-all. Do not evoke it needlessly. Once it hasbeen ereated, do not misuse it. Be clear about whohas the right to change things. Specify the likelylimits of perinissihle change.• Realize that external and internal commitmentcan coexist in organizations but that how they doso is erucial to the ultimate success or failure ofempowerment in the organization. For instance,external commitment is all it takes for perfor-mance in most routine johs. Unnecessary attemptsto increase empowerment only end up creatingdownward spirals of cynicism, disillusionment,and inefficiencies. As a first precaution, distinguishhetween jobs that require internal commitmentand those that do not.• Establish working conditions to increase empow-erment in the organization. If you want to help in-dividuals move away from external eommitment,encourage them to examine their own behavior. It

has been my experience that many employees arewilling to become inore personally cominitted ifmanagement is really sincere, if the work allows it,and if the rewards reinforce it.• Calculate factors such as morale, satisfaction, andeven commitment into your human relations poli-cies, but do not make them the ultimate criteria.They are penultimate. The ultimate goal is perfor-

Empowerment too often entersthe realm of political correctness,

which means that no one cansay what he or she is thinking.

mance. Individuals can he excellent performers andreport low morale, yet it is performance and notmorale that is paramount. When morale, satisfac-tion, and sense of einpowerment are used as the ul-timate criteria for success in organizations, theycover up many of the problems that organizationsmust overcome in the twenty-first century.• Help employees understand the choices theymake ahout their own level of commitment. One ofthe most helpful things we can do in organiza-tions - indeed, in life-is to require that human be-ings not knowingly kid themselves about theireffectiveness.

Finally, remember that empowerment can runcontrary to human nature, and be realistic abouthow to achieve and use it. To paraphrase AbrahamLincoln: You can empower all of the people some ofthe time and some of the people all of the time, butyou can't empower all of the people all of the time.In the last analysis, nobody should expect morethan that.

1, For a description of the similarities and differences in employee-involvement, recnginccring, and TOM programs, see Susan AlbertsMohrman, J.R. Galbraith, and Edward E. Alwair, Tomorrow's Or^nniza-tion (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, i99*^h ]• Hendry, "Processing Reengi-neering and the Dynamic Balance of the Organization," Europetm Man-agement Journal, vol, r3, no. i, pp. 5^-57; T. Eecles, "The DeceptiveAllure of Empowerment," Long Riime Planning, vol- 26, no. 6, pp-13-21;and B.G. Jackson, "Rcengincering the Sense of Self: The Managers andthe Management Gurus," Journal of Mannf^ement Studies, 1996, vol. 33,no. 5, pp. 571-590.

Reprint 98302 To order rq)rints, see the last page of this issue.

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW May-June 1998 105