I heard a couple of stories the other day intended to highlight examples of good and bad approaches to leadership empowerment.  They are simple but informative.

Ruling wisely

Consider an imaginary country.  The ruler needs to designate a deputy and after some investgation he summons the prime candidate and puts the proposition to him.

“I want to delegate these specific governance accountabilities to you”  he tells the candidate (specifying the area of responsibility).  Will you accept the role.

The candidate replied, “On one condition, that you accept my directions and decisions without question whether you agree or not as long as they are within my accountabilities.

The leader was taken aback at first arguing he had overall accountability of everything.  The candidate explained the only way he could achieve success was to be empowered.  Following discussion which included more details of the value behind the concept of empowerment, the leader agreed and the appointment was made

And now the country is thriving under strong and effective leadership that is neither overtaxed nor contradictory or confusing.

But what if?

In the alternate scenario the leader decides to uses two deputies.  Each are empowered but only as long as the agree with each other.  Otherwise decisions are raised to the overall leader for arbritration.

In this fantasy example, things do not work well.  Decision making is confused, often slowed by the need for arbritration by the leader.  Also the deputies devise ways to undermine or circumvent each other.

Clearly defined accountabilities are need for real empowerment to work.   Mandating that wo leaders will collaberate rarely succeeds.