THE EMPOWERMENT FRAMEWORK – BLUNT TOOL OR REFINED INSTRUMENT?

One of the first benefits of the Care and Growth leadership model is that it provides managers with a common leadership language. With only limited exposure to the Care and Growth criteria (2-4 days) at least a dozen words of Schuitamese become common parlance. Over time, regular reference to ‘intent’, ‘care’, ‘growth’, ‘means’, ‘ability’, ‘accountability’ etc typically helps to reinforce the criteria and encourages their incorporation into the fabric of an organisation.

Leaders who have made the greatest strides with the Care and Grow criteria however are indubitably those who have gone beyond articulation to actual implementation of the Care and Growth model. As leaders they have deliberately and consistently applied the concepts over a period of time.

This is particularly true with respect to the Empowerment Framework and the three variables associated with it; namely, ‘means’, ‘ability’ and ‘accountability’. Leaders who have reaped dividends from the framework have done so by developing real finesse in its application. They have, in essence, used the framework as a refined diagnostic and remedial instrument, rather than as a blunt tool.

Those who have become skilful in applying the framework diagnostically are distinguished by the following:
- They avoid making assumptions about each of the empowerment components. They do not assume that a current incumbent in a role has the ‘means’ just because their predecessor got the job done. They do not assume that someone has the ability just because they have the requisite qualifications and long service. Finally, simply because an individual demonstrated willingness by initially applying for a position, they do not assume that the person is currently willing or motivated in the role.
- They ascertain the actual ‘means’, ‘ability’ and ‘accountability’ issues at play by going into the field – be it the factory, the outlet, the mineshaft, the market place – to observe and ask questions. They diagnose by “watching the game” in real time, not by means of speculation and hearsay.
- They know that for a contribution to be made all three aspects of empowerment need to be in place. At the same time they are crystal clear about the different added value made by each of the variables. Specifically, they are cogniscent that means ‘allow’ a person to contribute, that ability accounts for whether they ‘can’ do so and that accountability determines whether the person ultimately ‘will’ do so.
- They take all of the elements within an empowerment category into consideration by drilling down to ascertain what specifically is at issue in each case. In terms of ‘means’ they go beyond tools/ resources to include other critical means issues such as standards and authority. They consider both the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ of ability. They deal with the entire accountability spectrum from deliberate malevolence through carelessness and carefulness to deliberate benevolence.
- Finally, they track the ‘means’, ‘ability’ and ‘accountability’ issues all the way up the line of command to the most senior levels in the hierarchy if necessary.They do not cut off the diagnosis at the frontline person or at the supervisory level.

Those who have become skilful in remediation are notable for the following reasons:
- They take remedial action which is aligned to the diagnosis which was made. They provide the requisite means when one or more of the means are inadequate. They train/coach to enhance ability unless the issue is capability in which case they remove the person from the role. Finally they engage peoples’ will by holding them appropriately accountable.
- They avoid making both the ‘hard’ and the ‘soft’ mistake. They do not sanction people whose failure to contribute is a function of a lack of means and/or ability. They do not train/coach or provide additional means when reward or punishment is called for.
- They are consistent in their application of the empowerment framework across levels and functions in the organisation. This is because as leaders they share and discuss contribution issues on a regular basis and are consequently calibrated or aligned with each other when applying the framework.
- Finally they evidence both the courage and the generosity to hold people accountable. They censure when standards are not being adhered to and discipline for malevolence. They have the courage to differentiate those that make a reasonable contribution from those who consistently go the extra mile and reward them in a manner which is commensurate with their contribution.

In the realm of empowerment, they have both honed their ability to accurately read the text and to effect their insights. Phenomenal growth in people is the product of their having done so.