What Truly Empowers Institutions?

Author Bio: Dr Saleema Gulzar is a distinguished public health professional, an Associate Professor and Director of Research and Innovation at the Aga Khan University School of Nursing and Midwifery (AKU SoNaM) in Pakistan. Her extensive career spans over 20 years is marked by significant contributions to nursing, public health, and education.

Society is systemized in terms of institutions. What is the typical perspective people have regarding institutions? Is it a building with people running a system in it?

People believe that these two things are entirely discrete. This is an abstract idea; these two are mutually exclusive. Institutions are made up of individuals, yet institutions are not merely a collection of individuals. Institutions handle vital assets such as power, communication, and knowledge but don’t always live up to their potential. Institutions often disempower individuals, which results in the ineffectiveness of the institutions. A profound reciprocity exists between the notion of empowerment and institution and individual. When an institution invests in its people, it is, in essence, investing to assist in the prosperity and success of the institution itself. With great eloquence, I argue that empowering individuals ultimately bestows empowerment upon the institutions in Pakistan or elsewhere. In the succeeding reflective note, I’ve emphasized some aspects of institutions and examined the association between the individual and the institution. This analysis highlights the question: Are institutions empowered within our context?

Talking about individuals in relation to institutions inevitably directs one’s attention to one factor: internal politics. Happenings within the institution cannot and should not be considered global institutional politics. Who gets selected, who gets promoted, or who gets rejected? Is it based on meritocracy? I believe institutions need to consider ‘oppression’ and power relationships seriously. Numerous pressing matters need to be given importance rather than just focusing on meritocracy, such as to what extent the notion of oppression prevails. What are the prices institutions have paid or will be paying due to this oppressed behaviour? And what can be done to address this at an institutional level?

It appears as if institutions have invested in individuals. However, I contend that the most potent institutions contain the most influential people. The reason behind the unwavering strength of Harvard University is that its people are competent and influential in acknowledging their points of view. When institutions are developed, investing in their people is wise.  An essential aspect of an institution is that it is partly defined in terms of its activities and how it carries out those activities. Then, the question arises of what values and skills an institution should inculcate in its people.

The first attribute is characterized by a flexible attitude towards the work done, which leads to more incredible innovation and adaptability and potentially more significant competition between institutions. The second attitude involves a more rigid definition of work done, potentially reducing competition and enabling planned collaboration but seriously impedes innovation and flexibility. Another question that comes to my mind is, what sort of exposure could an institution provide to individuals who could be a resource for institutions in the future? I believe the first approach is to distinguish by empowerment through education and exposure to certain diversified avenues, empowering them to reach and achieve success beyond their current understanding of what is possible. The second is international exposure, where exposure to work in another country forces individuals to step outside their comfort zone and opens opportunities to develop new skills and experiences. The third is making an individual work in a challenging situation/environment; it would help them learn how to be productive in harsh or less conducive conditions. It would also enhance their capabilities to work in a typical environment and be more fruitful. Last but not least, it would help to assemble every individual to collaborate with various organizations; it would help them to learn different needs to address the people for whom the institution is working.

Does empowering one person mean disempowering others? Institutions can be examined regarding their ability to recognize, encourage, develop and integrate their employees’ knowledge, skills and abilities. Professional-to-professional relationships are one of the crucial aspects of many institutions, which promotes or impedes professional growth and collegiality amongst employees. Suppose an institution cannot provide sufficient recognition for the abilities of the people working for it. In that case, it can lead to serious source consequences, declining motivation and even ill organizational outcomes. Respecting each other is empowering; hence, at the institutional level, it is beneficial to make it a part of the system. I believe it is more critical for institutions to focus on questions they think need to be addressed to be more productive in the future, such as how the culture of respect and collegiality can be promoted and based on which principles. Do institutions have such a set of institutional tenets that could develop a more collegial environment?

It is usually viewed that if we support or empower someone, they will stand against us, but people who tend to share power become more powerful. Regarding individual responsibilities, I think every person should not set broader goals in life. Instead, a person should lead a balanced and successful life. A balanced life means ensuring relationships at all levels, with family, the world and perhaps with your inner being and professional-to-professional.