I came across two confusingly similar stories the other day, both dealing with the issue of empowerment.
In the first case, an old colleague of mine joined a small business. As a group leader, he was familiar with the responsibility, and over the decades he absorbed the drive for efficiency and cost reduction, so he felt his task was his own here as well, and tried to make production more efficient with his ideas and technical solutions. Given that he knew the product and the machines, and had manufactured, installed, and repaired a lot of them before, his ideas were really usable, with low costs and a quick return. He fell on deaf ears, he did not receive support for their implementation, even though his boss has no specific production and technical experience in the given field. The colleague is suffering, he knows he could do more, better, cheaper, but he can't, moreover, it doesn't coincide with his personal values, so his motivation decreases.
In the other case, a former colleague of mine got a financial administrator position at a small accounting firm. She was shocked that the bookkeeping was done completely manually in Excel, and since she knew how to use Excel in a more advanced level, she would have started simplifying it with functions and macros, speeding up the processes, and reducing the possibility of making mistakes. Her boss shot down the idea. Just because. There has also been a backlash against her, because if there is less manual work, fewer people are needed, so the commitment decreases in her case, too.
The question is, why can't they get a chance?
At a rational level, the risk in the case of 30,000 HUF worth of iron or a duplicated test Excel is insignificant compared to the fact that they might have to be replaced if they leave, which means a loss of money, time and experience for the company.
Would they jeopardize the leadership’s position?
This doesn't fit either, because both wanted to improve their work only in their own area, with their own tools and experience, and it didn't even occur to them to have a say in other areas of the business.
Or maybe we are used to the tradition that world-changing ideas can only come from managers?
Obviously, the ideas coming from the employees have to be filtered, and a lot of them fall through the cracks, especially when we reward them. Because then a lot of "brilliant" ideas pour in, and there can even be a dispute as to what comes from whom. But there are also really talented, motivated colleagues who want to do something, and they and their really valuable ideas should not be lost just because the other less successful ones have to be dealt with. Time will tell who is worth listening to.
What else could be behind it? Why don't we let them work, experience the feeling of usefulness and success?
by