Our research shows that one cause of the under-management epidemic is a fundamental misunderstanding of 'empowerment' that keeps many leaders, managers and supervisors from adequately leading, managing and supervising.

This misunderstanding has been around ever since Douglas McGregor gave us Theory X and Theory Y: Theory X says that workers are motivated by external sources such as fear, coercion, and tangible incentives. Theory Y says that workers are motivated by sources internal to themselves such as desire, belief, and the quest for self-actualization. While nearly all the relevant research indicates that people are actually motivated by both internal AND external factors, it is clear that Theory Y is the "good guy" theory. That means, if you see yourself as a "good guy" manager, you probably don't want to tell your direct reports what to do and how to do it. After all, you don't want to be a micro-manager. You want your direct reports to "own" their work and make their own decisions.

Of course, it is true that people are best motivated when pursuing self-actualization. But here's the problem: Your direct reports don't own their work, do they? They were hired ---and are being paid--- to do very specific tasks and responsibilities that contribute to an ongoing business that delivers services and/or products to customers/clients in the marketplace. Right? Is it really up to them what they do and how they do it? No. So why pretend it is? The truth is that your direct reports only own their work to the extent that you ---the leader/manager/supervisor--- create that ownership through effective delegation. Your direct reports are only free to make their own decisions within defined guidelines and parameters that are determined by others according to the strict logic of profits and losses. And whether or not you tell your direct reports exactly what to do and how to do it, they are still going to be held accountable to a high standard of productivity and quality. So, are you really being a "good guy" manager by failing to provide the support and coaching that employees need in order to succeed? Responsibility without sufficient direction is false empowerment.

If you want to give your direct reports real "empowerment," then you simply must define the terrain on which they have power. That terrain consists of clear goals, with specific guidelines, and concrete deadlines. The real trick is in figuring out, with each person and each instance of delegation, the following: How large should the goals be? How far out should the deadlines be? How many guidelines are necessary with each goal? Consistently articulating with every direct report the appropriate standards and expectations ---what to do and how to do it--- is the hard work of leading, managing, and supervising. Within clearly articulated parameters, a direct report has power. Limited power? Yes. But it also has the great virtue of being real power.