On Managing (Em)power Dynamics
In our last post, we explored how the foundation of empowerment is respect. But to truly empower one’s team, you must imbue your team with authority, responsibility and accountability. These are the pillars of an empowered team, and without one the others falter.
Too often, people use these terms interchangeably and that muddle leads to disempowered teams. So before going further, let us use the definitions of John Kay, a British economist and the first dean of Oxford Business School, to understand what comes next.
Authority is the power to make decisions, including the power to delegate that authority. It is your license to act.
Responsibility is the duty to consider the consequences of your decisions. It's what you owe to the people affected by your choices.
Accountability is the process by which the consequences of decisions are evaluated. It's how we measure whether the authority was used wisely and the responsibility was fulfilled.
With one come all three. Or rather, it should.
Leaders intuitively delegate authority but rarely invest in nurturing a proper sense of responsibility. Rarer still is making sure that the levels of authority, responsibility and accountability align.
Consider the infamous "payment terms" debate.
CFOs hate generous payment terms. Sales teams love them. They've been at war over this issue since the first invoice came due.
Often, we see the extremes. The CFO will create a process ("No terms beyond net 30 unless they qualify against these strict criteria") without any accountability over whether more flexible terms would let the Sales team close a deal worth far more than the cost of carrying the receivable. Or sometimes the Sales leader will win out, and reps can offer whatever terms it takes to sign, without the team having accountability over the cash those terms tie up.
The middle ground is a rare exception. The CEO receives input from the CFO and sets the guardrails; the Sales leader has the authority to work within them, and is held to account if they breach them.
Where does responsibility come in?
The CEO and Senior Leadership must deliver context and transparency to allow people to be responsible. In our example, imagine an Account Executive who is ignorant of the company's tight cash position and offers a new client net 90 terms to win the deal. They cannot be responsible because they cannot fully consider the consequences of their decision.
We see the same dynamics play out over all types of decisions, from the very minor (when can one pay for a business class ticket) to the most consequential (such as hiring a senior executive).
So here is the test.
Ask three different team members of varying levels of authority what is the most consequential decision they can make without asking for permission.
Then ask them on a scale of 1-5 if they have enough context and information to make that decision.
Last but not least, reflect on whether their evaluations are judging them on those decisions.
A gap means there's work to do. But if they're all aligned? Congratulations, you’ve made empowerment not just a catchphrase but an operating system.
