This 3 page paper discusses a case by the same title from the Harvard Business Review. The writer discusses specifically why two managers view the prospect of instituting an empowerment program in their company and what the CEO did wrong that undid the effort. Bibliography lists 1 source.
Name of Research Paper File: MM12_PGsptfr.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
and morale was very low. Personnel knew all this, even commenting that this company was once great and could be again. But, there is a big difference between knowing something,
even agreeing that things have to change and being willing to make the necessary changes. George Marlow, vice-president for manufacturing, and Harry Lewis, a 30-year veteran at the company, perceived
the call for empowerment from vastly different positions. Although friends, George and Harry had nothing in common in terms of their thoughts about empowerment. Harry was not at all supportive,
quite the opposite. It is clear from his behaviors and comments that he did not want any changes made. George had an advantage over Harry. A senior management team
had been held the previous week at which time the new CEO announced his plan to institute an empowerment scheme in the company. CEO Martin Griffin was young, enthusiastic and
energetic. Harry had seen too much, he had been through the downsizing movement, reengineering, restructuring, all of it. None of it helped the company. In fact, he said that
if they really wanted the company to improve they should jut give out raises, have faith in the people and then get out of the way of the departments.
They could do it themselves. Clearly Harry was very stuck in his ways, he was opinionated and did not welcome new ideas. He does not know what empowerment is or
what it can do. He sees this as just another top management fad that will have no positive effect on the company. Unfortunately, George has significant influence in the company.
If he is so strongly against something, he can easily bring others to his side of the issue. George, on the other hand, had been involved in a meeting where