In the past, businesses were organized and
Empowerment for the
year 2000 and beyond
Nick Nykodym,
Sonny S. Ariss,
Jack L. Simonetti
and Jean Plotner
The authors
Nick Nykodym is Professor of Management; Sonny S. Ariss
is Associate Professor; Jack L. Simonetti is Professor of
Management and former Chair of the Management Develop-
ment; and Jean Plotner is Research Associate, all at the
University of Toledo, Ohio, USA.
Abstract
Analyzes recent thought relating to the forced restructuring
of businesses. In general, businesses are unable to compete
in the new global environment in their present state because
of worldwide competition; national changes involving
mergers, bank failures and company takeovers. Companies
which can incorporate a team philosophy into their organiza-
tions will have a better chance of surviving in the year 2000.
Details the new and more stringent requirements that are
placed on leadership and the empowerment of teams
through leadership. Focusses on information as to how to
choose the right leadership and teams. Uses significant
examples of businesses which have successfully restructured
to illustrate the importance of fostering a leadership style
which will advocate teamwork.
Empowerment in Organizations
Volume 3 · Number 4 · 1995 · pp. 36–42
© MCB University Press · ISSN 0968-4891
36
structured in a way that would make it difficult
for them to survive in the 1990s. The common
characteristics included: a strict hierarchy of
authority, centralized decision making, vertical
communication, and a comprehensive set of
rules. There was very little delegation and desti-
tute employee involvement. Successful organi-
zations today are embarking on a new approach
centered on teamwork. It entails the formation
of empowered teams to replace the numerous
layers in the hierarchy of authority. This new
philosophy has allowed organizations facing
endurance problems to survive the restructuring
process.
Harrison and Pratt[1, p. 22], determined that
there are four groups of teams which create the
transformation of an organization. They are as
follows: executive steering committee, process
evaluation committee, line management, and
consultants/facilitators. Each group is held
accountable and has a precisely determined part
to play in organizational restructuring. The first
team to start the ball rolling is the executive
steering committee (ESC); it composes the
organization’s vision, goals, and objectives. The
second team, the process evaluation team
(PET), does a process appraisal; it creates the
operation and layout for constructive develop-
ment. This team can create other teams to
research specific areas of potential problems or
potential opportunity. Then, the resources are
made available and modifications are actualized
by those managers who are in line positions.
The line positions are where the actual changes
occur and therefore are the most difficult. For
this reason it is crucial that line personnel are in
agreement with all phases of the plan. In addi-
tion, outside expertise can be advisable where a
fresh look is needed to overcome persistent
outdated views.
Downsizing or delayering does not in and of
itself change the rate of productivity. Because of
this, companies are changing the structure of
their organizations to eliminate the traditional
levels of hierarchy; eliminating boundaries
created by departments or functions. In its final
form, the horizontal organization might be
made up of a small group of senior executives
who are responsible for finances and human
resources. The rest of the corporation “works
together in multi-disciplinary teams that
 Empowerment for the year 2000 and beyond
Nick Nykodym, Sonny S. Ariss, Jack L. Simonetti and Jean Plotner
perform core processes, such as product devel-
opment or sales generation”[2, p. 77]. This
focus on process eliminates the layers of posi-
tions; and improves production and cuts
expenses.
Changing to a horizontal structure can be
complicated
Eliminating the neatly arranged positions people
have become accustomed to can be the ultimate
challenge. Even outlining the processes of an
organization can be complex and terribly con-
fusing. The manager has the role of convincing
people to think comprehensively and eliminate
their familiar advertising, investing, or manu-
facturing hats. “This is the hardest damn thing
to do”, says Terry M. Ennis, who heads up a
group to help Du Pont’s businesses “organize
along horizontal lines”[2, p. 78]. People who
have spent their lives climbing the corporate
ladder find it very unsettling and difficult to
make the transformation. These people are used
to having everyone in their place and respon-
sible for their own tasks. It is an achievement to
obtain cooperation between the separate
departments. It is also important to note that
employees who are task oriented and depart-
mentalized cannot see the organizational needs
as a whole.
In the 1960s and 1970s, it was discovered
that task orientation did not work well so matrix
teams were created, leaving the levels hierarchy
in tact. That was a partial fix for then. Execu-
tives are forced to find different solutions today
because the rules for competing have been
altered and they have been forced into an accel-
erated global market. Managers must compre-
hend what their customers require and do a
complete examination of what it will take to gain
potential customers. At this point, an organiza-
tion can begin to recognize its most important
core processes to achieve its objectives –
“Whether they are lowering costs by 30 percent
or developing new products in half the time it
normally requires”[2, p. 78]. The ultimate idea
is, as Du Pont’s Terry Ennis puts it: “Our goal is
to get everyone focussed on the business as a
system in which the functions are seamless”[2,
p. 79].
37
Empowerment in Organizations
Volume 3 · Number 4 · 1995 · 36–42
Changing views for leadership
People with the ability to lead others successful-
ly are rarely recognized before the fact. In other
words, successful leadership is not usually
predictable. “An effective leader, like a success-
ful artist, must love and be profoundly commit-
ted to a vision”[3, p. 18]. The leaders of today
who will still be here for the year 2000 are those
with vision; who have the ability to communi-
cate that vision to others; and, who have the
moral authority and credibility so that others
will follow where they lead. Principles and
values must not only be believed by leaders, but
their actions must follow their beliefs. They
should also be able to follow through with deci-
sions that support their values and beliefs. Their
visions must be meaningful and yet expandable
by the other members of their teams. The lead-
ers must have the ability to communicate their
visions to their team members and gain their
support.
‘…Leaders must recognize the human need for
recognition in other people and have the
welfare of other people on their minds…’
Innovation and imagination should be keywords
by which the teams do their brainstorming.
Furthermore, leaders must be able to motivate
others to do their best for the organization. In
addition, leaders must have the ability to give
credit to others. Likewise, when a decision goes
wrong, they must be willing to take the blame
and when it goes right, they must be willing to
give the credit. Therefore, leaders must recog-
nize the human need for recognition in other
people. Hence, leaders must have the welfare of
other people on their minds and not their own
welfare.
Survival for leaders means that they will no
longer be the authoritarian leaders of yesterday;
instead, they will be the team members of
tomorrow. This is a hefty criterion for the lead-
ers of today who still want to be leaders in the
year 2000[3]. According to Sabo[4] award
winning leaders realize that the public comes
first. “It’s so fundamental, yet a lot of people do
not keep it in the forefront of their efforts. They
forget who they are working for”, says Bell,
president emeritus of the American Advertising
 Empowerment for the year 2000 and beyond
Nick Nykodym, Sonny S. Ariss, Jack L. Simonetti and Jean Plotner
Federation, Washington, DC, and currently
president of AAF’s foundation. Equally interest-
ing, Kathryn E. Johnson, president and chief
executive officer of Western Hospitals and a
recipient of the 1993 Key Award, claims that
“Her team of staff and volunteers spent a
number of years repositioning the Health Care
Forum…to focus on creating healthier commu-
nities rather than on addressing illness-based
care”. They see themselves as “More of an
action-oriented think tank…[4, p. 124]. She too
recognizes her changing role for survival and
success in the 1990s.
Charlotte St Martin, who chaired ASAE in
1990-1991, says they worked a “back to the
future” planning model. Members envisioned
the ideal future for their organization, and then
they worked backward to create it”[4, p. 125].
She says that “We also have to find ways to
engage emerging leaders, who come from
increasingly diverse backgrounds”[4, p. 125]. In
addition, she says that she believes in multi-
generational input; that is, she wants to hear
from team members at every level of the organi-
zation. According to George D. Kirkland, presi-
dent of the Los Angeles Convention & Visitors
Bureau since 1990, “Successful management
has its roots in the willingness to look for what is
best in other people…”[4, p. 124]. Obviously,
the people already at the top see the changing
roles of leaders very clearly and are adapting
themselves to accommodate those changes.
Choosing the right team members
Part of the process of restructuring into teams is
to be able to identify the personalities of the
managers you employ. According to Pitcher[5],
they are either technocrat, artist or craftsman.
“Technocrats are described by their peers and
colleagues as controlled, conservative, serious,
analytical, no-nonsense, intense, determined,
cerebral, methodical and meticulous”[5, p. 48].
Taken separately these terms could be a virtue;
but when they are found in one person – you
can have trouble. Basically, technocrats prefer to
throw out the old, including employees, and
bring in the new. “Give technocrats ultimate
authority and he or she will drive out everything
else”[5, p. 50]. Most of today’s businesses are
run by technocrats who have surrounded them-
selves with other technocrats. They focus on
38
Empowerment in Organizations
Volume 3 · Number 4 · 1995 · 36–42
short-term planning with immediate profits as
the main goal making true restructuring of the
organizational processes impossible. Bottom
line, technocrats must be recognized so they can
be placed in benign positions where their talents
are enhanced, but without the power to remove
or add team members. It is important to note
technocrats are very important to the organiza-
tional structure, as long as their power is kept
in check. Today, a company comprising too
many technocrats is a company headed for
trouble.
Next, we have the artists. The artist’s peers
and colleagues describe them as “bold, daring,
exciting, volatile, intuitive, entrepreneurial,
inspiring, imaginative, unpredictable and
funny”[5, p. 49]. They believe in convincing the
people around them to buy into their visions
and dreams; they never are middle of the road
with their opinions; and people are either clear-
cut friends or clear-cut enemies of the artists.
The artists start off very ambiguous, but their
plans become clear through their activation. If
at all possible, you certainly want at least one
artist on every team. The companies that recog-
nize the artists for their visions and dreams will
be successful in restructuring the organizational
processes. At this point in time, however, the
artists are losing out to the technocrats. This
does not mean doom and gloom for these com-
panies. It does mean restructuring of staff
within them. More often than not, the artists are
still there; they are simply not in positions of
power where their dreams and visions can be
brought to light. The companies which have the
wherewithal to restructure their staff so their
artists’ visions and dreams can become realities
will have a greater chance of survival to see the
year 2000.
Last but not least, we have the craftsmen.
These people tend to stay employed at one place
for a very long time. Consequently, they know
what took place many years ago and care very
much about what takes place presently and well
into the future. They have the experience, loyal-
ty, assurance, continuity, and organizational
adhesive that generates trust, respect, and com-
mitment among their peers. Employees will take
the long range view and make sacrifices after the
craftsmen enlighten them by explaining that the
sacrifices are for the good of the company and
not just money placed into specific pockets.
 Empowerment for the year 2000 and beyond
Nick Nykodym, Sonny S. Ariss, Jack L. Simonetti and Jean Plotner
Equally significant, the craftsmen are by nature
conventional. Most importantly though, the
craftsmen’s knowledge gained from past experi-
ence is fundamental to the decision-making
process.
Another virtue of the craftsmen is patience;
they realize that their knowledge came slowly
over the years, so they give time for acceptance
and change in other people. Craftsmen are
described as “wise, amiable, humane, honest,
straightforward, responsible, trustworthy, rea-
sonable, open-minded and realistic”[5, p. 50].
Companies that recognize their craftsmen for
their value can avoid making mistakes that were
made in the past; they can also reap the benefits
from implementation of sound long-term objec-
tives and goals.
Essentially, technocrats, artists and crafts-
men are needed for well-balanced organization-
al teams. Usually, people are a combination of
the different personalities, so it is important to
bring out their strengths by placing them in
positions that enhance their value. For real
success it takes the different personalities work-
ing together to bring about the restructuring
process. It is equally important that technocrats,
artists and craftsmen recognize one another’s
differences and the values of those differences so
that they might better be able to communicate
and work as teams.
Empowerment of teams
The best in leaders acclaim their great successes
are because they have the ability to motivate and
bring out the talents of those who work around
them. They understand that employees like and
need ownership and empowerment in order to
grow emotionally and intellectually.
“Empowerment fosters confidence, enabling
individuals to step forward and handle situa-
tions effectively, without hesitancy or need for
approval”[6, p. 33]. The idea is to match
employee abilities with organizational needs.
There is a fancy name for this type of manage-
ment called “total quality management” or
referred to as TQM which sounds complicated
but is really only three simple steps:
(1) Do it right the first time.
(2) Communicate needs and expectations of
the customer and the provider.
39
Empowerment in Organizations
Volume 3 · Number 4 · 1995 · 36–42
(3) Empower people; enhance responsibility
with authority.
TQM can be a one step at a time procedure.
Bottom line, the goal is to get more accom-
plished for less.
As organizational needs surface, employees
are empowered according to their ability and
have complete authority over their particular
restructuring processes. Most situations can
best be managed by employees who have hands
on knowledge of their daily activities. The team
approach lines up the various individuals who
have the most abilities in a given area. However,
it is important to remember that each team is
carefully created by an executive member. Even
more important, it is crucial that once the teams
are in place, they are left on their own to do the
restructuring process – this can be a most diffi-
cult but necessary assignment for a Chief
Executive Officer (CEO)[6, p. 34].
Some examples of successful teams are as
follows: a team created to manage the general
information, publications, and public services
meets to examine their employment needs, how
they link together, and how best to distribute
information to staff persons and the press.
‘…It is a good idea to create a crisis task
force. They can make plans to prevent or
respond to any crisis situation in
advance…’
Another team meets in regard to continuing
legal education for planning and conducting the
legal education programs. They also meet
weekly to be certain that assignments do not
overlap or conflict; they become think tanks for
possible problems and report the restructuring
process. As a result of the efforts of just six staff
members, they are able to conduct more than
100 continuing legal education sessions each
year, including 40 live seminars[6, p. 34]. Bottom
line, empowerment also causes communication
back and forth from every direction. Another
positive side effect is the bonding that occurs
from that communication.
Another type of task force can be created to
prevent or avoid daily management problems.
This task force concerns itself with possible or
potential problems that might occur. One such
 Empowerment for the year 2000 and beyond
Nick Nykodym, Sonny S. Ariss, Jack L. Simonetti and Jean Plotner
committee ensures employees are cross-trained
in different areas of the organization to help
decrease payroll obligations and decrease the
employing of temporary assistance.
More importantly, it is a good idea to create a
crisis task force. They can make plans to prevent
or respond to any crisis situation in advance.
This committee tries to think of every crisis that
is imaginable. Then, they create policies and
procedures to prevent or evade each potential
crisis; they investigate ways to respond to each
possible crisis; and then they actively participate
in educating the rest of the employees about
safely getting through a crisis. This could range
from flooding, to fire, to a tornado or simply a
shortage of help due to a flu epidemic[6, p. 34].
Total quality management – success or
failure
According to Ray Strata, chairman of Analog
Devices and the $567-million-a-year maker of
electronic components, competitive advantage,
especially in knowledge-intensive industries,
comes from organizational learning. A survey of
the 500 TQM programs implemented by US
companies shows no notable improvement. In
fact, Michael Hammer, advisor and teacher of
TQM acknowledges that there is a 70 percent
failure rate. Regardless of what the statistics
show, companies everywhere are making some
degree of effort to switch over to the boundary-
less organization. The problem, says Ray Strata,
is in the communication[7, p. 19].
‘…Companies everywhere are dominated
by what McMaster terms as
“Machinespeak” language…’
Success or failure of any organization begins or
ends with communication or the lack of it. But it
is an especially visible problem in the boundary-
less organization. For example, if you are unable
to get your manufacturing department team
person to communicate openly with your finan-
cial department team person – you are doomed.
“An overriding challenge is how you get market-
ing people to talk to finance people when
they’ve thrown rocks at each other for decades”,
says Gerald Ross, co-founder of ChangeLab
40
Empowerment in Organizations
Volume 3 · Number 4 · 1995 · 36–42
International, a consulting firm that specializes
in cultural transformation[2, p. 81]. For this
reason, your first goal is to remove the tradition-
al department barriers that have existed for
years; this may be the most difficult task you
encounter. Therefore, it is vital that all team
members realize that they are changing from
their departmental hats to team hats. Once in
the team hat frame of mind, they can share
thoughts and ideas. Even with all this, there
appears to be an unknown entity that keeps
most restructuring efforts from more than
minimal success.
According to Rothschild[7], Michael
McMaster, of the London-based consulting
firm bearing his name, claims that companies
everywhere are dominated by what he terms as
“Machinespeak” language. He gives some
examples, such as: “Overhaul the division, fine-
tune the company, tighten controls, pump up
sales, shift gears, or balance operations”. Martin
‘Bix’ Bickson of Seattle-based Bickson Seeton
says that “Language is the source of culture,
including corporate culture. Language shapes
mindset”. Machine-type talking precludes
people from changing their way of thinking, and
therefore, limits what they will learn and makes
them unable to change their behavior. Corpo-
rate restructuring efforts cause the need for
constant change and this collides head on with
the machine-age mindset that needs stability[7,
p. 19].
Rothchild also maintains the following: “As
the Information Age unfolds, a dizzying pace of
technological advance is forcing more and more
companies into nonstop restructuring”[7,
p. 20]. Frustration comes when managers dis-
cover that no one structure provides a long-term
solution. The challenge for managers becomes
not as one of finding and installing the right
structure but as one of building an appropriate
multi-dimensional and flexible decision-making
process which will sense and respond to the
complex, diverse, and changeable demands
companies face.
New biological words are being looked at to
replace the machinespeak language of yesterday.
Some examples are:
• agility;
• responsiveness;
• learning;
• adaptation;
 Empowerment for the year 2000 and beyond
Nick Nykodym, Sonny S. Ariss, Jack L. Simonetti and Jean Plotner
• food chain;
• niche;
• cooperation;
• communication; and
• intelligence.
As corporate people realize that they are strug-
gling to survive, they will also realize that their
intelligence is what is going to bring them to the
top. In other words, it is what they learn that
precipitates what they earn. Everyone involved
must have better intelligence in order to com-
municate effectively. Gerald Ross, co-founder of
ChangeLab International, a consulting firm that
specializes in cultural transformation: “Your
career will be dependent on your ability to work
across boundaries with others very different
from you”[2, p. 81]. Implicitly, the companies
that are the most successful have managed
drastic changes in communications on the
inside. This connecting business minds causes
tremendous creativity and productivity. How-
ever, “Unless an organization adopts a new
language and mindset, one appropriate to the
fast-evolving competitive terrain of the Informa-
tion Age, the company will not be able to learn
fast enough to survive”[7, p. 20].
Business successes of the 1990s
John F. Welch Jr, chairman of General Electric
Company, has created the seamless company
and has cut expenses, shortened production
cycles and increased the company’s customer
satisfaction. They have a $3 billion lighting
business where nine to 12 senior team members
manage nearly 100 processes globally, from
improving production to creating new com-
modities. In all situations, the objectives of the
process are fulfilled by team members who have
many skills working interchangeably with other
like teams[2, p. 79].
Paul White, president of Modicon Inc.,
North Andover, Massachusetts, claims that by
working in teams, using assorted team hats, they
were able to cut by one-third the time from
launching six software packages into the public
sector. Their organization is basically functional
by structure, but they also have 30 teams which
include 900 employees representing many
different departments. White says, “An engi-
neering team would have worked on this alone
41
Empowerment in Organizations
Volume 3 · Number 4 · 1995 · 36–42
with some dialogue from marketing. Manufac-
turing wouldn’t get involved until the design
was brought into the factory. Now, all the busi-
ness issues are right on the table from the begin-
ning”[2, p. 80].
Ernest W. Deavenport Jr, president of East-
man Chemical says, “It makes people take off
their organizational hats and put on their team
hats. It gives people a much broader perspective
and forces decision making down at least anoth-
er level”[2, p. 80]. On January 1, 1994, the $3.5
billion section of Eastman Kodak Company
stood alone. Many of its senior officers were
replaced with autonomous work teams. Their
teams consist of all the plant managers; in place
of a head of manufacturing for example. They
have over 1,000 teams: “It was the most dramat-
ic change in the company’s 70-year history”,
maintains Deavenport[2, p. 80].
According to Byrne[2, p. 78], some AT&T
units operate on processes and not on function.
Some such areas are their global communica-
tions network and their maintenance. For exam-
ple, AT&T’s Network Services Division found
130 processes and narrowed them down to 13
processes. This division has 16,000 employees
so this is a pretty sizable undertaking. Each of
the core processes has an owner who focusses
on daily routines. There is also a champion who
makes sure that the processes of the organiza-
tion are always intact with the plans, procedures
and objectives. They make their financial plans
according to processes and give employees extra
compensation according to consumer assess-
ments.
Monte Peterson of Thermos Corporation
took it over in 1990 with the idea of totally
reinventing the company. Thermos, the compa-
ny famous for their glass-lined thermos bottles
also sold outdoor grills, but had become run of
the mill with nothing outstanding for many
years.
The revolutionary change in the world
market is what caused Peterson to search for
drastic changes within the company. He chose
the process-driven team method in order to
create a new space-age outdoor grill. He claims
that many companies give their team members
too many responsibilities. So, the members on
his teams had one responsibility and that was
their outdoor grill project. In this way, Peterson
managed to bring a dying company back to life.
 Empowerment for the year 2000 and beyond
Nick Nykodym, Sonny S. Ariss, Jack L. Simonetti and Jean Plotner
Thermos revenues are up 13 percent with most
of the growth coming from new products and all
of it from the process-driven team method.
Conclusion
Because of global changes in the world market,
companies find themselves unable to compete.
Because of this, companies are being forced to
restructure to adapt to a rapidly changing envi-
ronment resulting from a dynamic worldwide
market; national changes involving mergers,
bank failures and company takeovers. Compa-
nies that will be around in the year 2000 will be
those who are able to survive downsizing by
promoting a leadership style which emphasizes
teamwork. These companies see the global
challenge as one of building and maintaining a
complex decision-making process rather than of
finding the right formal structure. The critical
task is to develop a new management perspec-
tive which entails empowering the workforce as
a source of strategic advantage. Firms that take
this different perspective are often able to out-
perform their rivals successfully. However, do
not hurry to write off functional management
altogether. No organization has completely
eliminated functional specialization; even pro-
moters of restructuring do not foresee the end
of managers who are experts in manufacturing,
finance, etc. Reengineering should only occur
42
Empowerment in Organizations
Volume 3 · Number 4 · 1995 · 36–42
after the company has been streamlined and the
organization is still not working to its potential.
In fact, a condensed vertical structure might be
correct for some industries. Eventually, most
organizations will be combinations of both[2].
References
1 Harrison, D.B. and Pratt, M., “Transforming the enter-
prise”, Canadian Business Review, Vol. 20, Summer,
1993, pp. 22-5.
2 Byrne, J., “The horizontal corporation”, Business Week,
No. 3351, December 20, 1993, pp. 76-83.
3 Castonguay, H., “A personal view of leadership”,
Business Quarterly, Vol. 58, Winter 1993, pp. 17-20.
4 Sabo, S., “Award-winning leadership”, Association
Management, Vol. 45, 1993, pp. 122-7.
5 Pitcher, P., “Balancing personality types at the top”,
Business Quarterly, Vol. 58, Winter 1993, pp. 47-57.
6 Greene, C., “Teaming up for success”, Association
Management, Vol. 45, July 1993, pp. 32-7, 100.
7 Rothschild, M., “Wanting to grow? Watch your lan-
guage”, Forbes ASAP, Vol. 152, 1993, pp. 19-20.
Further reading
Association Management, “CEO to CEO: A panel to answer
your questions”, Association Management, Vol. 45,
October 1993, p. 143.
Welch, J., “A master class in radical change”, Fortune,
Vol. 128, 1993, pp. 82-4, 88, 90.