The blinking cursor waited, a silent judge. Another ‘action item’ on the screen, another plea to ‘take ownership,’ and the familiar, acid taste of corporate empowerment rising in my throat. I’d just proposed a tiny shift, a design tweak that would shave 19 milliseconds off a user interaction, a seemingly innocuous decision for a project I was supposedly leading. Before the email even settled in the outbox, the reply landed, almost pre-emptive: “Great initiative! Just loop in Legal, Marketing, Engineering Lead 39, and of course, the Steering Committee for alignment.” My stomach clenched. Empowerment, they called it. I called it a sophisticated game of fetch, where the stick was always just out of reach, and fetching it it required a congressional hearing involving 49 stakeholders and a budget approval process stretching over 9 days.

It’s a peculiar form of corporate gaslighting, isn’t it?

Companies trumpet ’empowerment’ as a core value, plastering it on mission statements and internal memos, yet the lived reality for employees is often a labyrinth of required approvals, ‘dotted line’ reporting structures, and ‘strategic alignment’ meetings that feel less like collaboration and more like a collective exercise in risk aversion. You are given the responsibility for an outcome – say, improving customer satisfaction by 29% – but stripped of the authority to enact the fundamental changes needed to achieve it. You’re accountable, but utterly without control. The message is clear: ‘We trust you, but not enough to let you actually *do* anything unsupervised.’ It creates a pervasive anxiety, a sort of decision-making paralysis where every minor action feels like stepping onto thin ice, constantly glancing over your shoulder for the invisible hand of management to pull you back.

The Paradox of Control

I remember one project, years ago, where I truly believed the rhetoric. I was tasked with revamping an internal communications platform, given the mandate to ‘reinvent how we connect.’ Full ownership, they said. So, with the zealous enthusiasm of someone who fixes a leaky faucet at 3 AM rather than waiting for a committee of 19 plumbers to debate the optimal wrench size, I jumped in. I designed a new UI, streamlined content workflows, and even cut out 59 unnecessary approval steps. I presented it with pride, a tangible representation of the ’empowerment’ I’d been granted. The feedback? “It’s visionary, truly. But did you get sign-off from the Global Content Strategy Taskforce, the Regional Engagement Council, and the Chief Digital Officer’s office? Also, have you considered how this impacts our existing contract with Vendor 79, which is up for renewal on July 29th?” My mistake wasn’t in my execution or my vision; it was in believing the word ‘ownership’ meant what it actually means outside the corporate echo chamber. I had optimized for user experience and efficiency, while the organization was optimized for control and risk mitigation. I learned that day that sometimes, ’empowerment’ is just a shiny wrapper for delegated blame, a way to hold someone accountable for outcomes they never truly had the levers to control.

This isn’t a new phenomenon, of course. My great-uncle Casey W.J., a submarine cook for 39 years, had a different take on empowerment. On a submarine, he often remarked, you are given a job, and you do it. Period. When the depth charges are rocking the hull and the galley is trying to serve 979 meals, there’s no time for 29 levels of approval on whether to use frozen peas or fresh. The stakes are too high, the consequences too immediate. His ’empowerment’ came from the absolute clarity of his role and the trust placed in his competence. He had a specific mission: feed the crew, keep them healthy, keep them fed even if the power failed for 19 hours. The idea of being told he was ’empowered’ to decide what’s for dinner, only to be told to ‘loop in’ the Captain, First Officer, and Chief Engineer for a taste test and caloric review, would have been utterly alien to him. In his world, empowerment meant competence plus trust, not a permission slip with caveats.

Erosion of Trust and Innovation

The real sting of this paradox isn’t just the frustration; it’s the insidious way it erodes trust and innovation. Employees, initially eager to ‘take ownership,’ quickly learn the unspoken rules: propose nothing new without pre-vetting it through 89 channels, make no decision that hasn’t been made before, and above all, don’t rock the boat. The most effective way to stay ‘aligned’ is to do nothing, or at least nothing that deviates from the last 29 approved steps. This isn’t just about preserving the status quo; it’s about actively discouraging proactive problem-solving. Why invest your emotional and intellectual capital in solving a problem if the solution will inevitably be picked apart by people who weren’t even aware the problem existed 19 weeks ago?

There’s a certain stark clarity that comes with fixing a leaky toilet at 3 AM. No committees, no ‘alignment sessions,’ just a wrench and a rapidly spreading puddle. The problem demands a solution, not a discussion about who ‘owns’ the drip. I often wonder why we don’t apply that same brutal pragmatism to our professional lives, especially when someone hands us the metaphorical wrench, then tells us we can’t turn it without 39 sign-offs. It boils down to fear, doesn’t it? Fear of failure, fear of losing control, fear of the unknown. Leaders often confuse control with competence, believing that more oversight equates to better outcomes, when in reality, it often stifles the very ingenuity they claim to seek.

Genuine Empowerment

Genuine empowerment, the kind that actually drives progress and not just paperwork, isn’t about giving people a microphone and then dictating their script. It’s about creating a framework where people have autonomy within clearly defined boundaries, where they understand the mission, possess the necessary tools, and are trusted to navigate the path. It’s about building systems that reward initiative and learning from mistakes, rather than punishing deviation from a pre-approved, often outdated, plan. Think about it: when you give customers true control and convenience, like what you find at Smokedeck, you’re not just offering a service; you’re demonstrating a profound trust in their ability to make choices that benefit them. That’s a powerful model that many internal corporate structures could learn a thing or 9 from.

So, what do we do when we’re caught in this trap? We start by calling it what it is. We recognize the difference between genuine agency and delegated responsibility without authority. We ask specific questions about the scope of ‘ownership’ and the actual decision-making power that comes with it. We identify the real barriers, not just the rhetorical ones. And sometimes, we make those small, reversible decisions anyway, learning where the true lines of authority lie, even if it means a few uncomfortable conversations with those 39 stakeholders. Because waiting for permission to truly contribute is a career spent in suspended animation.

Moving Beyond Rhetoric

Ultimately, the paradox isn’t just frustrating; it’s a profound waste of human potential. We hire smart, capable people, give them the language of freedom, and then shackle them with processes designed for control. The challenge for any leader, or indeed any individual trying to navigate this landscape, is to move beyond the language of ’empowerment’ and instead focus on creating environments where decisions can be made swiftly, responsibly, and with actual consequences, both good and bad. It’s about building trust, not just talking about it. The ghost of decision-making can only haunt an organization for so long before its vital organs start to decay. What will you choose to own, truly, in the next 19 days?