The paradox of

The paradox of empowerment empowerment

– a case study
Eric L. Wickisier
President, New Paradigms Inc, Bloomington, MN, USA 213
“Delight Our Customers with World Class Products, Services and Value.” That’s
the mission of Dura-Tech, one of the many organizations I have visited. As I
begin a visit, I reflect on what I see, hear, and feel, and consider questions I want
to ask. At Dura-Tech, I found a busy atmosphere, with an unusual degree of
synergism, satisfaction, and joy. I immediately asked myself – what’s
happening here? Is this real? What does this mission statement mean to Dura-
Tech employees?
As an educator in quality, I feel compelled to share what I experienced at
Dura-Tech, Inc., in order that their learnings might be passed on to others. This
is a story of how a business with six employees working out of a converted
garage grew an organization of over two hundred team members producing
close tolerance, high quality labels, dials, nameplates and panels for
components of automobile dashboards, medical and recreational equipment.
The birth of the concept began in 1977. A group of entrepreneurs wanted to
produce labels, bumper stickers, and T-shirts. They formed a partnership in
1979 and named Peter Bentz president. The organization was traditionally
structured and the culture typically entrepreneurial – informal, small, where
everyone knew each other and did whatever tasks needed to be done. Long-term
employees described it as like a family. Even Peter would join in the screening
process to get rush orders out the door. The entrepreneurial spirit encouraged
utilizing whatever resources were available, making incomplete processes and
systems work. Formal structure and policies were not necessary in this
environment. A culture was created and sustained that said, “We can do
anything!...a can-do attitude. Because of the strong work ethic, quality products
and opportunities, Dura-Tech grew at a 20% annual rate.
This rate of growth meant transitioning a small family of employees, who
worked together to do what was necessary to produce a good product, into a
new kind of organization that was, as yet, undefined. This middle growth
period was difficult and confusing to employees. As the company rapidly
expanded in size and number, employees no longer had the same alliance with
peers. Implementation of new products and systems became difficult. The
systems and methods of doing business that had worked well in a small
organization, were simply not working in the new, expanding one. What was
once known, stable, controllable and could be relied on by employees, appeared
to melt away. To regain a sense of control, a more traditional management
system was instituted. Employees were assigned specific tasks each day. Empowerment in Organizations,
Vol. 5 No. 4, 1997, pp. 213-219.
Although this appeared to be a step backward, it was accepted by most © MCB University Press, 0968-4891
EIO employees as necessary to provide a foundational structure that would
5,4 accommodate new employees, systems, challenges and products. It seemed
logical that giving specific directions to employees and making decisions for
them would reduce confusion and help stabilize the number of changes. During
this period, the new structure and policies were documented in an employee
handbook to support implementation and gain control of growth and larger
214 systems.
This brief period lasted until the middle eighties. There was an observable
schism between existing management philosophy and an inspiring vision of the
future. This showed up as an inability to cope with pressing demands for
quality improvement and increased order volume. The old cultural beliefs said
that the organization could work out any problem. Past performance reinforced
the belief. Strategies of applying more thinking and analysis, adding people,
being more careful, taking more time produced inconsistent results. The once
close-knit family split into factions that were at cross-purposes with each other.
There began a period of trials; many ideas were embraced, tried and
discarded. Quality was introduced as a systematic process intended to bring the
entire organization and processes together. Leading purveyors of quality were
read, digested and their ideas tried. Quality and process engineers were added
to implement quality into the organization. Quality teams (circles) were formed
with the expectation of wondrous results. A quality action plan was developed
and good results were expected from all employees through teamwork and
working together. However, the process lacked commitment from management
and employees. Teams were purported to be a benefit and yet their output was
chaotic and frequently non-productive. Considerable effort had been expended
and the desired results were not being achieved. What was wrong?
Management encouraged the formation and use of teams. Employees were
instructed to work as teams to solve problems and improve processes. By
directing and controlling team efforts and operations, management retained
decision-making authority. The inability of the teams to make decisions and
take full responsibility for their process was reinforced when customer
problems were brought to the attention of management. If a mistake or problem
occurred, blame was directed at a team or individual. Fear of committing
mistakes grew, leading to a reluctance to admit mistakes, reducing open and
honest communication. Fear in the culture created incentive for a win-lose
philosophy where employees often undermined one another. These employees
believed that if they appeared more skillful or knowledgeable than their peers,
they would be rewarded. This was counter to the previous friendly family
atmosphere and only resulted in confusion and resentment. The shift from an
open, friendly atmosphere to one that was closed and competitive produced
results exactly opposite of those expected from empowering employees. Time
wasted in excessive meetings and disagreements bogged down team progress.
There were several drivers for change: the continued growth of sales, the size
of the company, employee turnover, and a belief in the ability of the organization
to effect change. There was a growing realization that true change could only
take place in an atmosphere of support for the entire process of empowerment. The paradox of
The challenge lay in building this foundation of support. empowerment
A significant transformation took place in 1991, when Peter Bentz attended
a Deming seminar. Peter came away with a vision of quality and improvement
that spurred transformation and continues to guide Dura-Tech’s evolution. For
the first time, the whole company went off-site for training at a Deming seminar
to imagine a new future for Dura-Tech. Employees became team members and 215
a true empowering process began with Peter Bentz motivating, encouraging
and giving a picture of what could be, if changes were to take place. The
missing pieces began to be identified. They realized that empowerment would
require training; that deciding to be empowered and telling team members that
they are empowered would not yield transformation.
In 1992, a steering committee was formed to lead implementation of the
vision. The steering committee went through the Malcolm Baldridge Award
criteria to glean out direction for improvements. The committee realized that
increasing customer demands and the need for new technology required
education and new skills. They were also aware of varying levels of team
member needs; that few had a history of or comfort with being empowered.
They needed a model of what empowerment looks like and a mentor to
demonstrate those actions. Making wise use of empowerment and choices also
meant having adequate knowledge and skills training. Team members who did
not possess this belief and ability were given training for knowledge and
decision-making skills to empower themselves.
One of the first steps was the development of leadership training for
management and team leaders. Previous leaders tended to control; the new
leader was to be an encourager and a mentor. When management and team
leaders began changing, it became acceptable for the team members to change.
A Process Improvement Coordinator was hired to implement process
improvement using teams. The team members then had role models for change
and methods to effect that change.
To meet training needs, the committee directed the development of resource
guides, which were to be manuals for regular training of tools and skills for
team members. Dura-Tech University was developed as a series of training
courses for team members to gain technical and team-building skills. These
formed the basis for a team member certification program which specified
skills and knowledge to be achieved to qualify as a certified operator. Cross-
training was encouraged resulting in team members better appreciating their
peers.
In discussing what team members needed to know to be able to make
informed decisions about their work, the steering committee realized that key
business information would need to be shared. Company meetings were used to
began to disseminate information and data about the business and customers.
The process to determine what and how much to share was slow and difficult.
It raised trust issues that were only resolved with an awareness that making
decisions at a process level reinforces ownership of that process by the team
EIO members. During this period of developing trust, Peter Bentz began “after
5,4 hours chats with the chief”. This provided an opportunity for anyone to come
and ask questions or provide feedback directly to the president. This reinforced
an open door policy that continues today. The information sharing developed
into monthly company-wide meetings and being open and honest on financial
and production information to keep all team members informed.
216 The organization was restructured by designing and implementing teams to
address compensation, training and education, and information systems.
Teams were formed for writing detailed work instructions to assist in the
instruction and training of team members. “Continuous Improvement - A
Resource Guide” was a resource book used to train team members in team
building and process improvement. Teams were authorized to make decisions
that affected all team members. This authority for making decisions was
documented in “Team Empowerment - Decision Making Guidelines”. These
guidelines discussed who should be involved and what decisions teams could
make. A history of good decisions was accumulated by teams. The teams
allowed natural leaders to seize opportunities and accept responsibilities
outside their areas. For example, when it was decided to implement the
international quality standard, ISO 9000, several ISO team leaders were tried
before finding leadership for the process. A winning combination was found
with the Quality Specialist and the Information Coordinator. Shared
responsibility allowed each team member to continue with their current tasks
and still do the design and implementation of ISO. A unique training tool
emerged from the Information Coordinator. When it was time to train team
members on how to conform with ISO, a game based on the game show
Jeopardy was developed and implemented on the PC network. Instead of a dry
presentation on ISO, the teams were challenged and winners were given small
prizes. The level of enthusiasm increased and the learning process became fun.
The steering committee was responsible for implementation, of making the
needed resources available to all team members. These included training, new
processes, equipment, tracking resources, and recommending new resources.
As the process of empowerment evolved, team members began asking, “What’s
in it for me?” This issue was addressed by integrating rewards and recognition
into each team’s process and by ensuring that all team members knew the
importance of what was being asked of them. Profit sharing and gainsharing
programs were put in place to provide a method of directly rewarding team
members for their efforts.
Where is Dura-Tech today? The entire process is described as The World
Class Quality Leadership Program. This program has placed Dura-Tech in a
position of being a leader and model for quality and empowerment. The pride
evidenced by team members has reinforced a growing reputation. The
reputation of Dura-Tech has extended far beyond the local area. This reputation
continues to draw new people who have heard positive comments about Dura-
Tech and a different kind of management.
 The last three years have produced a flatter organization. Extra management The paradox of
layers only created conflict and interfered with implementation of the vision. empowerment
The remaining organization has a full workload. A paradox exists between a
workload that must be carefully managed to ensure that necessary work gets
done and the strong desire to continually improve and change the organization
and processes. The team members must have a voice to be able to express their
feelings, concerns and still have trust and patience that conflict will result in 217
resolution.
Success in recent history has been based on a committed management team
that consistently paints the picture with words of empowerment and quality.
The empowered organization prospers from unreserved encouragement for all
team members fostering creativity in attaining its vision. The management
team tells stories of how others changed, giving clear examples or parables. By
building on the strengths from within and maintaining a flat organization,
values like trust, respect, a willingness to learn, adaptability and flexibility,
continue to grow and gain strength throughout the organization. These values
are reinforced by leaders who know what is important and keep a balance of
priorities within the teams. Internal and external communication constantly
improve through utilizing the principles of networking and exploring all
information sources.
I asked team members who embodies the true nature or spirit, who would be
the best representative, of what Dura-Tech is all about? The consistent answer
was Peter Bentz. Team members say that Peter embodies what he teaches,
knows how to work with people, and is constant in his purpose. Peter readily
admits that he is “obsessed” with empowerment and quality improvement. He
frequently tells the story of the many changes the organization has realized,
how people are the foundational element for success and a picture of the future.
As President, he begins the day at 7:30 and leaves at 5:00. He spends two to five
hours each evening reading to keep current with changing technology,
organizations and human relations. Peter is active in presenting the benefits of
empowerment to the community.
Today the organization can be described as maturing. Respect and trust
among the team members exists where it was not before. Employees know
more of what is expected of them and there is a general attitude of win-win, “If
we find a mutually beneficial action, we and the company benefit”. However,
paradoxes continue to exist. Learning and growth are frequently slower than as
first envisioned. The culture and process changes require changes in the belief
systems of individuals, groups and the entire organization. What sounded
beneficial and desirable to achieve has not been an easy road. The level of
discomfort was higher than expected. The paradox is that wanting to be
empowered and truly being empowered are usually far apart. True
empowerment embodies commitment and ownership that stems from being
deeply involved with the workplace and its processes. The process requires
allowing for mistakes, rewarding the risk-takers, avoiding blame, and
management giving up control.
EIO Empowerment does not exist equally for everyone. There is a group of team
5,4 members who are empowered; there are those who are partially empowered;
and there are those who are waiting to see if empowerment is real. In discussing
empowerment with the partially empowered and those who are not
participating, a commonality emerges. Fear appears to be the main roadblock to
218 committing to the process. Fear closes the mind and heart to change. What is
heard is, “My family or my former company are different from people here at
Dura-Tech. If I tell them how I really feel, I will not be perceived as a team
player.” Another paradox is that even with all the good mentors and models,
there are reversions to old behavior of directing or control. Instead of seeing
these as temporary behaviors, the disempowered see them as examples of truth
and what the future will be. For the partially empowered and those still waiting,
the challenge is to continually keep a clear picture of the vision in front of them,
and to reinforce teamwork and decision-making at the process level.
Dura-Tech is a self-healing organization. It reaches deep within to educate
itself, going outside for expertise it does not have available within. Leaders are
home grown. This was accomplished by having the insight to look at its
wounds, to clean the wounds and then allow healing to take place. Healing
encourages balance – -a balance to decide if a decision needs to be made by an
individual or by a team; how meeting and decision-making time can be
allocated for the process versus how much time is available.
Another question remains: Is it better to hire empowered team members or
do team members need to be grown from within the organization? Team
leaders, if given the choice, would like to grow the team members. The leaders
believe that a cultural fit and personal attributes are more important than
having technical skills in the screen printing business. The organization
believes that employment at Dura-Tech offers opportunities for personal
improvement, and hiring people with good potential requires caring for that
potential by offering growth opportunities so that team members will stay with
the company over the long-term. An incongruity appears: most of the technical
people within have a high school education and have been educated within the
Dura-Tech system; but recently, mature, college-educated technical members
have been hired. While this is inconsistent with training from within, the effect
has been to provide stability and mentors for the younger workforce.
When members of an organization are given the opportunity to be creative
and express what was formerly hidden within themselves or the organization, a
new belief system develops that disregards the limits and scope of tradition. Not
only does collaboration become a conscious and desired effort, but the outcome
is frequently beyond what had been envisioned. The true paradox of
empowerment occurs when power and control are given away; something
unexpected happens that is far greater than what was foreseen.
Learnings from Dura-Tech: The paradox of
• Empowerment can provide benefits such as customer and employee empowerment
satisfaction, innovative systems, and contribute to the “bottom line”.
• A bond (frequently called commitment, trust and joy) enables the
organization to be self healing.
• The vision is kept alive with training and a constancy of purpose. 219
Dura-Tech has overturned the paradigms of the traditional organization which
were: limit focus to efficiency and quality; having fun is unproductive; experts
tell the uninformed how the system should work; and team decision-making
requires too much effort and time. Dura-Tech has given us a true success story,
worthy of acknowledgment and applause, and worth emulating.