Why I Will No Longer Empower People
I’ve had it wrong for years. I thought empowering people was a generous, leaderful act, one that inspired people to willingly give their all. Little did I know that “empowering” perpetuates a leadership model that is hierarchical and unsustainable.
Last week I was in midtown Manhattan with a high-growth professional services client leading a culture shaping workshop. Forty-five senior executives filled the room and engaged with vigor around ways to cultivate more innovation and engagement with their teammates. They examined their own leadership style and challenged historically successful systems that were falling short. The word “empowerment” came up multiple times.
During a break, one of the executives approached me and asked, “How do you feel about the word empowerment?” I wondered if it was a trick question. I was an empowerment junkie! The next five minutes challenged my deeply rooted beliefs. He went on to share that he believes we as humans are born empowered and that our systems, structures and widely accepted leadership models disempower us. Instead of empowering people, he suggested we encourage them. I was intrigued. I left that conversation curious to learn more and committed to reading the book he recommended, Turn the Ship Around by L. David Marquet.
“Whatever sense we have of thinking we know something is a barrier to continued learning,” states Marquet in the opening paragraph of his book. Before I went any further, I needed to relax the grip I had on knowing that empowering people was a strategy for high performance, and that an empowering leader was an effective leader. I also had to acknowledge the emotional baggage I had around “encouragement.” It felt like “cheerleading,” which had a derogatory, even sexist connotation for me. How many of you have been called a “cheerleader” by your work colleagues and felt like it was a slight, a criticism of your enthusiasm and support for others? I have. I reframed encouragement in this context not as a rah-rah to make people feel good but as an act of cultivating courage in others; believing that others already have the power to act, they might just need the courage to do so.
Marquet illustrates his learnings from the vantage point of an officer on a nuclear submarine. While most of us will never set foot on a nuclear sub, we can apply his insights to our lives and replace a leader-follower model with a leader-leader approach. Here’s what I’ve learned, the challenges I’m contemplating, and the questions I’m asking myself in support of behavior change:
LEARNING: The most impactful leaders aren’t missed when they’re gone. They are appreciated for the leaders they have grown and the sustainable nature of their contributions.
CHALLENGE: Doesn’t it stroke the ego to hear, “We miss you!” or “It’s not the same since you’ve left.” These comments perpetuate our identity, propping up our sense of irreplaceability. Perhaps what people miss is the spirit we brought to the place. More often, what people miss is having someone telling them what to do or covering for their mistakes. These sentiments can also reflect how little we invested in building an enduring culture, one that is bigger than ourselves and can outlive our place in the org chart.
QUESTION: How would a leader-leader model measure leadership effectiveness? Over what time horizon? What would be missed in the culture when a leader-leader departs?
2. LEARNING: Truly effective leaders are hands-off. They trust and equip their team to run the show.
CHALLENGE: Many leaders are in leadership positions because they are good at their craft. They know the jobs their team members do inside and out. They are technically excellent. They know what good looks like. Except they only know what good looks like through their lens. As a leader, clarifying what is needed and why is our jobs. Marquet calls it “defining the goal, not the method.” Equipping others with the skills needed and letting go of controlling how the work gets done can be difficult, particularly if you derive your value from the “doing.” Encouragement looks like believing others can run the show, ensuring they have the capability to do so, and then giving them room to accept the responsibility for the outcomes.
QUESTION: How does staying involved in the HOW of the execution let us off the hook for defining a clear WHY and building capabilities in others?
3. LEARNING: “It doesn’t matter how smart your plan is if your team can’t execute it.”
CHALLENGE: I did a full stop when I read this one. If the team you have can’t execute the plan, then you replace the team, right? Or do some of the work yourself. What if the team you have is the team you HAVE and replacements aren’t an option? Perhaps it’s the job of an encouraging leader to co-design a plan with the team that they are fully bought into and inspired to execute, either with the skills, knowledge and experience they have or will acquire. A very wise CEO I had the pleasure of working with almost 15 years ago mused, “You’re not a leader if you’re leading alone.”
QUESTION: What’s the downside of being in love with your own genius? If you’re the only one who can articulate your vision or the path to executing it, what’s the likelihood that it will become real, much less outlive you?
Leadership is an act not a role. And leadership lives within all of us. Whether we sit at the helm of an organization, are just entering the workforce, or are somewhere in between, we can all affect the courage others bring to their daily lives. What about how you empower others (perhaps subconsciously from a place of power over) diminishes their contributions and dampens their leadership fire while fueling your own identity?
What would happen if you exchanged EMPOWER for ENCOURAGE and fueled that for sixty days? Please join me in an experiment and let me know what you learn.
