Professional Documents
Culture Documents
4 2
4 2
4 2
Contents
1 Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 6
2 Chapter One Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Definition of empowerment ................................................................................................................ 7
2.2 Theories, models ................................................................................................................................. 8
2.3 Aims of the dissertation .................................................................................................................... 10
2.4 Research questions ............................................................................................................................ 11
2.5 Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 12
2.6 Scope and limitations ........................................................................................................................ 14
3 Chapter Two Literature review ............................................................................................................. 15
3.1 Employee involvement ..................................................................................................................... 15
3.2 Participative management ................................................................................................................. 20
3.3 Benefits of empowerment ................................................................................................................. 21
3.4 Employee involvement programs ..................................................................................................... 22
3.5 Individual differences ....................................................................................................................... 25
3.6 Processes, theories and seizing competitive advantage .................................................................... 25
3.7 Cultural relativity of empowerment (UK & Hungary) - Critical issues and challenges ................... 29
3.8 Musings of the past - Organisational structure & need of hierarchy ................................................ 31
3.9 Carrying out todays tasks with yesterdays tools and polices.......................................................... 33
3.10 Old habits die hard Traditional reasons ..................................................................................... 33
3.11Comfortably numb organisations The role of the management .................................................... 34
3.12 The real value of vision................................................................................................................... 35
3.13 The importance of clear communication......................................................................................... 35
3.14 Involvement vs. satisfaction ............................................................................................................ 36
3.15 Sharing of information .................................................................................................................... 37
3.16 Leadership & delegation (Servant leadership vs. trust) .................................................................. 39
3.17 Setting of boundaries ...................................................................................................................... 40
3.18 Relative perspective of power (Power vs. TQM)............................................................................ 40
3.19 Team performance .......................................................................................................................... 42
3.20 Rewards........................................................................................................................................... 42
3.21 Agency theory ethical implications.............................................................................................. 44
4
3.22 Meaningfulness sustainability education knowledge satisfaction ....................................... 45
3.23 Competence..................................................................................................................................... 46
3.24 Employee retention - productivity efficiency .............................................................................. 47
3.25 Effects of the economy on employee empowerment ...................................................................... 48
3.26 Overcoming doubt (author) ............................................................................................................. 49
3.27 Can true democracy exist in a workplace? ...................................................................................... 50
3.28 Perception gaps ............................................................................................................................... 50
4 Chapter Three Methodology ................................................................................................................. 53
4.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 53
4.2 Source of data ................................................................................................................................... 54
4.3 Data collection .................................................................................................................................. 54
4.4 Ethics & confidentiality .................................................................................................................... 57
4.5 Quantitative / Qualitative Data ......................................................................................................... 57
5 Chapter Four Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 63
5.1 Study participants.............................................................................................................................. 63
5.2 Findings & analysis of data ............................................................................................................... 63
5.3 Summary An assessment of what really matters............................................................................ 68
6 Chapter Five Conclusion....................................................................................................................... 69
6.1 Limitations of the study .................................................................................................................... 69
6.2 Practical implications ........................................................................................................................ 70
6.3 Pearls and perils of employee empowerment: Summary .................................................................. 71
6.4 A new agenda for the future .............................................................................................................. 73
7 References ................................................................................................................................................ 75
8 Appendices............................................................................................................................................... 87
8.1 Questionnaire 1 for Employees ......................................................................................................... 87
8.2 Questionnaire 2 for leaders & managers ........................................................................................... 88
8.3 Questionnaire 3 Interview Questionnaire.......................................................................................... 89
8.4 List of Figures & Tables ................................................................................................................... 90
9 References ................................................................................................................................................ 91
9.1 Presentational Requirements ............................................................................................................. 91
1 Abstract
This research observes the issue of employee empowerment and looks to present a model for its
implementation which focusesrequirements known in the study but inadequatelyfocused
before.Empowerment is described as a procedure whereby:a culture of empowerment is
improved, experience is shared, ability is expanded, and support and resources are
presented.Each of the elements of empowerment information sharing, culture, development of
ability, provision of resource, and supportis assessed in detail as concentrated in the
research.Theoretical sources of employee empowerment are observed in an important and wide
literature review.
1.1 Acknowledgements
Writing this thesis has been very demanding, challenging and time-consuming, but also
remarkable, informative and above all fun. Nevertheless, it feels great to have finally completed
my masters thesis and I am now looking forward to a nice relaxing period for recovering. It has
been both advantages and drawbacks with the limited amount of earlier research conducted
within this area, even though I faced serious troubles but sometimes the advantages of this
research luckily were in my favour and have made this research both challenging and interesting.
I would like to thank my supervisor -------, professor at -------University, who has been great in
guiding my through this thesis, helping me through the difficulties I faced during the entire
process and motivated me to work hard. Furthermore, I would like to thank all my friends, for
their contributions by sharing their perceptions and opinions with me. Above all I would like to
thank my family and teachers that provided me with valuable and constructive criticism.
more of his or her power to employees, to reduce direct supervision and to provide overall
vision. The employees enjoy more flexible job descriptions. This framework presupposes that the
amount of power in the organization is fixed; hence the management can simply distribute its
power throughout the hierarchy to empower the employees. This way, an organization could
achieve the goals of the employee empowerment creating better business outcomes, happier and
motivated workforce. The second view of empowerment is proposed by Thomas and Velthouse
(1990). They define it in term of cognitive motivational concept. It is mainly based on the
following five tasks related cognitions: (1) choice fullness, i.e., the employees feelings of
choosing what work activity they ought to put their effort on, (2) meaning, i.e., the employees
determination of the intrinsic value of a particular work role, (3) competence, i.e., self-belief in
the employees ability to fully perform specific tasks, (4) self-determination, i.e., the employees
belief that he or she has control over decisions about work-related activities and behaviours, (5)
impact, i.e., the employees belief that his or her actions can make a difference in the
organization strategies, tactics, and outcomes.
organizational success (Lawler & Mohram, 1992, 232-234). The process comes about by giving
employees a combination of information, influence, and/or incentives.
Employee involvement models primarily deal with decision making. Decision making
can either be of a participative nature or of a delegate nature. Employee participation can be
defined as joint decision making between superior and subordinates. Delegation is the process
whereby the manager transfers decision making autonomy to a subordinate. Employees can
either have partial control (participation) or complete control (delegation)
Lowin (1968) describedtake part decision making as a condition in which decisions as to
actions are reachedthrough the extremely individuals who are to accomplish those
determinations. His models effectuality was dependent onvarious features, comprising of the
attitudes and personalities of those needed; the amount, significance, and visibility of the cases;
and the measure of the participation procedure. Locke and Schweiger focused their model on the
involvement procedure. The outcome of the model was a gain of productivity ensuingas of
cognitive impressions of participation, which comprise of a improverealization of the work and
extra direct statement and motivational consequences of participation, which includes increased
faith, peer pressure, and arrogance in ones work (Locke & Schweiger, 1979, 48-49).
Saskins model focused on the psychological objective of the employee involvement.
There are four broadkinds of participation, comprising of goal setting, deciding, trouble solving,
and alteration. The several kinds of participation may generate psychological and cognitive
effects for example psychological ownership, expansion of shared values and norms, and data
flow.
10
How are human resources developed in each company and whether this compares with
How do they manage both the explicit and tacit knowledge of their employees?
3.
How receptive are employees in both local and international markets towards employee
empowerment?
4.
What are the recruitment and retention strategies of each organization and how do they
11
5.
6.
success.
8.
12
5. How does the level of choice in an employees job affect the level of employee
empowerment?
6. How does the level of impact in an employees job affect the level of employee
empowerment?
2.5 Methodology
The author plans to build the Dissertation as a case study, therefore the research will
primarily focus on literature review, a substantial part will be a combination of both
documentary and empirical research investigating and studying the depth of employee
empowerment through the three organizations selected. The author will not only have access to
data, information, statistics, and subsequent figures at her disposal but will also be provided with
available records from the organisations that will enable and enhance the research process.
Besides the narrative approach the author intends to carry out telephone based and
personal interviews, as well as supplying questionnaires to the organisations. Questionnaires are
currently in draft stage, and are being prepared for both employees and leaders of the three
organisations in question that operate within the same steel fabrication industry. Through the
process of triangulation the method of using both qualitative and quantitative research methods
the author believes that will be able to gain a better insight and will be able to answer the
research questions in more depth. The integration of different methods makes it possible to
weave back and forth between different levels of meaning (Fitzpatrick et al, 1998, p.28)
Approximately 150 employees will be asked to fill out the questionnaires across the three
organisations; the top management will be interviewed personally by the author (Wanberg, &
Banas, 2000, 142-145). It is envisaged that through the questionnaires and interviews the author
13
will be able to acquire accurate information on the employee employer relationship as well as
having the different aspects of both blue collar and white collar employees viewpoints. Robson
(1993) suggests that a case study has a significant ability to generate answers to the question
why, what, how... (Robson, 1993 cited by Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2000, p.94)
The author believes that a well-structured case study will give the work a reality feeling
and will enable her to explore the various levels of the diverse research questions, however extra
care will be taken for the objectivity of the research as this is one of the greatest pitfalls of case
studies. White (2002) notes that the analysis and interpretation need to be handled carefully and
in a very logical, systematically way (White, 2002) however, when carried out effectively, this
also extensively strengthens the presented academic argument. In order to ensure ethical
standards the author will obtain approval from the appropriate officials within each organisation.
An initial universal access was already received from the leaders of the organisations. Wells
(1994) warns that the closer the research is to actual individuals in real-world settings, the more
likely are ethical questions to be raised.(Wells, 1994 cited by Saunders et al 2000, p.131) The
authors research is aware of sensitive issues, will handle them confidentially and objectively,
during face to- face interviews minutes will be taken that will be signed off by the participants
in order to assure credibility, personal telephone interviews will be recorded and participants will
be requested to give verbal consent. A formal written advice will be issued to those employees
who have been selected for the questionnaire advising them on the purpose and intent of the
questionnaire to cover any arising ethical issues.
14
15
16
In the starting 1950s, Dr. Joseph M. Juran and Dr. W. Edwards Deming of the
U.S.travelled Japan to mentor and coach leaders, stressingcharacter and working on the brains of
every worker, not only those individual at the top of the company. Effectual teamwork
empowerment and permanent improvement were raised by Quality Circles. Creating the
character in, sooner thanvisit the products afterwards, was a core value alteration. The call for
Juran and Deming to assist the Japanese was started as of the power the American economy held.
So as for Japan to be militant, either the ordinary American business practice of mass
construction and contest focused on pricing might be carried out or further
aggressivebenefitshould be detected. The Japanese reply was to discover some other way to
contend, compete on excellence (Womack, Jones & Roos, 1991).
In the American self-propelled manufacturing plants, fabrication workers forced
themselves to finish as several products as probable (Zimmerman, 1985, 117-120). Character
was of no issue, asevery trouble would be amended when the automobile rattled down of the
assembly line. The assembly line justceased when the supervisor discovered a sufficient reason,
which was extremely rare. No employee on the production line had the confidence to break the
line, and severalvenerated that they would lose their employment if they did (Womack et al.,
1991).
The Japanese automotive producersemployedsame techniques to manufacture cars. One
of the important differences, conversely, was the capability for some worker on the floor to stop
the production line at some time with no concern of punishment (Herrenkohl, Judson, & Heffner,
1999, 373-375). The plan was that when a trouble was founded in the product being assembled,
the rebelliouspart of the production would be studied and determined at the source so
consecutive automobiles would not have the similar trouble. This meant that when the car
17
spieled off the production line, it was prepare to go into the marketplace. No retread would be
needed. The employees on the floor were authorised to make sure that the completed product met
the measures of character (Womack et al., 1991 123-139).
Through the 1960s, some other differentiationclassifiedJapanese and U.S. businesses.
Japan prompted an extra careful use of human capital and a more belligerentbase on studying at
school and on the employment (Backeberg, 1995, 10-12). Japanese employees turned out to be a
part of the company. They were regarded fixed assets, and investments in aiming were written
down on the workers. The Japanese might not compete along with the United States in the
expansion of important innovations. Rather, excellent trust was provided to the employees for
the development of freshplans. Sooner thanuse their restricted resources on freshconceptions,
they viedthrough their power to rapidlyexpandfresh applications to others inventions (R.
Ripley & M. Ripley, 1992)
Through the 1970s the United States was missing marketplace share in several industries
and assembly lines in spite of victor productivity (Shay, 2004 42-45). Through at present the
Japanese had turned their failings into intensities. Through engaging quality, worker
empowerment, kind, customization, gadget, and speed in acquiring to the marketplace, they not
just expanded the terms of competitor beyond efficiencyexcept as welldiscovered newly routes to
productions as they were created (Bandura, 1989, 191-215). Mounting proofstarted to propose
that productivity, conversely, and superiority, employee empowerment, customisation, variety,
speedy change and convenience, on the other, were not justfriendlyexcept as
wellactuallyrewarding competitive banners (R. Ripley & M. Ripley, 1992).
18
On the issue of quality in the American business world, the 1980s inaugurated a sense of
a newlyresurgence and awakening. Juran and Deming were brought back the vanguard to
instructfew organisations in the U.S. what they had instructed Japanese organisationsperiods
before. The training included of making every management employee qualified and aware of
individuals and procedures that made quality occur (R. Ripley & M. Ripley, 1992).
The 1990s started to demonstrate a marriage of every new and old economy. Newly
companiescaught the advantagesas of mass production (United States) and lean product (Japan).
Companiesattempted for productivity and volume also as variety, quality, convenience,
customization, and timeliness. The most detectable difference in these newly innovative
companies was that artisans and mass product workers were substituted through empowered
interdependent work teams. This newly, more pliablecompanyappropriated the businesses in the
U.S. to carry out benefit of the inherent possible of innovative compounding of machines and
humans. To sum up, the U.S. set the standards in the old economy. The U.S. now labours on
towards the new economy, however, dragging the dead weight of the past industrial command
and control successes along behind (R. Ripley & M. Ripley, 1992 78-84)
Understanding the processes of employee involvement, the perceptions of employee
empowerment, the perception of employee satisfaction, employee productivity, and the intent of
an employee to remain at the company has gained the attention of a great number of researchers
and employers (Bacharach, & Lawler, 1980, 5-6). Further, the relationships between these
concepts are worth examining as a means to provide causal effect or antecedents to behaviours
which drive either positive or negative conditions in the workplace (Gill, & Johnson, 1997, 6465). Since these topics involve emotional and behavioural conditions, the research is not exact in
its definition or conclusion but similar trends do become visible. Involvement entails the
19
employee perception of his importance or identity within his organization (Bandura, 1982, 1986;
Stryker, 1986). Non-executive and non-management employees have expertise that through
involvement processes can be exploited. Employee involvement is a combination of several
initiatives, and is considered in many analyses a precursor to empowerment (Lashley, 1999;
Lawler, 1986). Total Quality Management is one such initiative that spans across several
employee involvement processes (Bowen & Lawler, 1992, 31-39). A linear, causal relationship
has also been examined between employee involvement processes and employee empowerment
cognitions (Daily & Bishop, 2003, Spreitzer, 1996). Empowered employees are typically
described as self-motivated and committed individuals who feel responsible to perform at high
levels of effort. Through analyses it is also concluded that empowered employees are viewed by
their leaders as valuable assets (Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997 69-78). Empowerment has also been
associated with an emphasis on quality in the work performed by employees (Howard & Foster,
1999). Empowerment has been identified as a sense of intrinsic motivation, and goes beyond
merely self-efficacy (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995). When distinctions are made,
empowerment is considered to be distinct from employee involvement; as in the difference
between a cognitive result and a process (Corrigan, 1998, 98-102).
Over the past several years, companies in every market, including manufacturing, have
made serious attempts to implement employee involvement initiatives (Katzell, & Yankelovich,
1975). Bluestein and Bluestein (1992, 29-30) indicated that this process is even becoming
prevalent in unionized environments, involving the collaboration of company management and
union representatives. This unionmanagement cooperation was also described by CohenRosenthal and Burton (1994, 643-645). The perception of how the employee views his
importance or identity within the organization has also been investigated (Bandura, 1982, 1986;
20
Beach & Mitchell, 1990; Schlenker, 1985; Stryker, 1986). The concept of the four motivation
inducement systems reward, task, managerial, and socialis another view of the processes by
with employees gain involvement and satisfaction in the work environment (Leonard, Beauvais,
& Scholl, 1995, as cited by OConnell, 1999).
Essentially, the premise by which employee involvement programs are incorporated
involves the concept that non-executive, non-management employees possess invaluable
understanding and knowledge important to the company (Dierkes, Berthoin & Nonaka, 2003,
359-381). Through employee involvement, these resources are released through the process of
incorporating practices that both require and reward employee involvement. Employee
involvement is an amalgam of many concepts and has developed out of many predecessors.
Employee involvement processes do not always share the same methods, and can include
indirect and relatively modest scope techniques such as employee suggestion boxes and
employee opinion surveys (Applebaum, & Batt, 1992, 7-8). Other techniques or processes are
more direct and larger in scope.
21
categories for comparison, they remain consistent with the processes identified by Lawler
(1986): information, power, knowledge, and rewards.
When comparing with participative management, employee involvement appears to be a
broader concept. Coye and Belohlav (1995) credit Lawler (1986) with identifying the positive
nature of attributes within participative management approach and augmenting them into an
employee involvement organizational process. Coye and Belohlav indicated that the greatest
differentiator between traditional participative management and employee involvement is the
way in which participation is viewed. They also cited employee involvement as a function of the
four organizational processesinformation, knowledge, power, and rewardscompared to a
specific program segregated from other processes, as is the case of participative management
(Ashforth, 1989, 207-242).
22
Sumukadas & Sawhney (2004) reported that employee involvement programs have
resulted in workforce agility specially the power sharing practices. Base on the literature reviews
and empiric studies; there are two kinds of benefits of empowerment. The first kind is the
tangible benefits such as: 1) it is much easier to find the best solution to a business problem, 2)
the diverse ideas are shared and implemented, 3) the decisions are made at lowest level of the
organization, 4) the workgroup is recognized for its efforts and performance, 5) the individual
have the opportunity to influence the goals of the workgroup, 6) the acquisition of new skills and
knowledge are encouraged and facilitated, 7) the organization structure becomes flattened and
less hierarchical, 8) the managers have more time to lead and not to micro-manage employees
activities, 9) this provides meaningful, measurable positive business impact (Bandura, 1977 191215).
The second kind is the intangible benefits of empowerment such as: 1) it allows
leveraging the collective strengths of all group members; 2) the group takes the ownership of the
statement of work and results, 3) it helps to create a culture of trust and collaboration, 4) it
enhances the individual self-esteem, 5) it improves the communication among the mangers and
the employees, 6) it provides a more enjoyable working environment (Bandura, 1986 69-78).
23
of employee involvement. Of the four specific facets described by Lawler (1986), information
appeared to have the highest level of integration, with 76 percent indicating the company shared
information regarding its overall operating results (Belasco, & Stayer, 1994, 29-42). The figures
were reduced when sharing information about specific work units (54 percent), business plans
and goals (47 percent), and only 20 percent of the employees surveyed said they received
information about the performance of their competitors in relation to their company (Abbott,
2002, 333-339). Interestingly, only 6 percent indicated their companies were using quality
circles, and only 11 responded that their companies offered other forms of participation groups.
There was relatively low participation in training in group decision-making and problem solving
skills, leadership skills, and business acumen training, with only 6 percent of respondents
indicating these resources were available (Tabdora, 2000, 41-44).
Dimensions of participatory management and employee involvement programs
Organizational Structure
Lean Structures
Training
Group decision making/problem solving
Business skills and job skills
Quality/statistical techniques
Team building
Performance-based rewards
24
25
26
27
Define & Communicate: It is necessary that every member of the companyunderstands the
meaning of employee empowerment. A given definition to themshould help by understanding.
Set Goals & Strategies: An organizing framework at every level of the company,containing
requirement goals and strategies, helps employees to undertake anddefine their own efforts
Training: The employees should be trained to accomplish the new given tasks tomeet the
previous given requirement goals (Bowen, & Lawler, 1992, 31-39).
Adjust the Organization's Structure: The structure should be lean and with littlebureaucracy.
An environment for greater autonomy and freedom should bedeveloped.
Adjust the Organization's Systems: Items like planning; rewarding, promotingand training
should be adjusted to support the peoples empowerment (Bowen, & Lawler, 1995, 73-84).
Evaluate & Improve: The employees perceptions should be evaluated and theprocess of
empowerment should be improved.
As seen in the chapter before, the six sub-goals of the empowerment process are
linkedtogether to a closed circle. Around this circle there are additionally some input factors
withcritical information. To implement and evaluate the process of empowerment
successfullytheses input factors also have to be considered (Brief, & Aldag, 1981, 75-88).
Meaning of Empowerment: The employees shouldn't feel overcharged bydeveloping and
extending empowerment. Therefore they have to realize the goalsof continuous improvement and
advanced performance of the business company.
Payoffs: The benefits of empowerment have to be defined and clear. This gives the employees
an anchor for their own orientation.
28
Targets for Empowerment: everyone within the company can use these targets to aim specific
opportunities for empowering themselves and others (Burger, & Cooper, 1979, 381-385).
Strategies for Empowerment: There are always different alternatives for reaching the targets
for empowerment which individuals and organizations identify (Cappelli, & Sherer, 1988, 5670).
Controls of Empowerment: How they differ from traditional forms of controlling.
Roles and Functions: Everyone has to become competent with their new tasks and the meaning
and purpose of empowerment.
29
3.7 Cultural relativity of empowerment (UK & Hungary) - Critical issues and challenges
In social anthropology it is about agreed that the core of culture is organisedthrough
deeply implanted values, which are shared through the associates of broad (sub-) populaces
(Drenth and Groenendijk, 1998). The way computers are programmed in an analogy, values are
engrained in peopleunreservedly and insentience in starting childhood, similarly that software is
established on computers (Hofstede, 1991). Covering this analogy along with the scheduling of
computers, Hofstede (1991: 5) describes culture as the collective programming of the mind
which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another(Ellickson,
2002, 343-345). The theory of Hofstede on national cultures ensuedas of an international survey
carried on among 1967 and 1973 between the workers in the subsidiaries of IBM in 72 nations
(Hofstede, 1998). The investigation resulted in the recognition of four dimensions of national
cultures, which point to four basic problems every society has to solve in its own way:
inequality, togetherness, gender roles, and dealing with the unknown (Eisenberger, Rhoades, &
Cameron, 1999, 1026-1030). These were appointedseverally power distance, individualismcollectivism, masculinity-femininity and uncertainty avoidance(Cooper, & Schindler,
2001).
30
31
32
as of higher levels of managements. This not just may cause delay except as well be defective for
employee spirit, cutting down their needs to work (Cohen, Ledford, & Spreitzer, 1996, 643-645).
A straight line structure is one where there are some layers of management. Every
manager has a broad span of management. This means a manager has duty for several
individuals or works. Relegation is important for works to be takeneffectually (Smeyers, 2001,
475-495). This structure provides employees extra duty for their work. Communication is also
quicker up and down the layers. This enables troubles to be solved more rapidly. The company
chart below demonstrates a typical hierarchical structure in anindustrialcompany. There are four
functional regions. The department of accounts has three layers of hierarchy: a manager, a
director and three assistants. The manager of accounts thus has a span of management of three,
as he or she immediatelycontrols three assistants (Fryer, 2001).
33
3.9 Carrying out todays tasks with yesterdays tools and polices
One of the most researched and studied regions of current management technique
comprises staff or employee empowerment which responsibility permits the employees to carry
on sovereignworks and adhere their choices, although the similar may call for a sure set of
guidelines, as well the subject of the subsequent paper. Severalinvestigations and studies have
discovered that employee empowerment leads to a completely nurturing atmosphere where the
employees maygrow, learn, enhance and improve their performance capabilities or
functioning.Employee empowerment as welloffers for producing an atmosphere of trust,
significance in the eyes of the workers, and as it raises the ability of the respective worker; the
similar as well leads to the production of a positive work atmosphericinside the organizational
establishment (Smeyers, 2001, 475-495).
In the diversestudies and researches of employee empowerment, for example one
accomplishedthrough Erickson et al, exposed that employee empowerment is said to happen
when the workers and management pursue aims of each own also as professional expansion for
their workers. For instance the senior leaders and managers inside the companiesmay help their
workers in enhancing their abilities, in turn raising their possible to completelyuse their abilities
(Freeman, 1978, 141-145).
34
35
36
picture, you eliminate the possibility of creating new ideas and new solutions (Burger, 1992, 8485). If that feeling pervades the work environment, it prevents people from feeling included.
37
1992, 31-39). Employee involvement is often considered process oriented, although it can be a
motivational system or participative management Lawler (1986) also argued that employee
involvement consists of four separate processes: knowledge, information, power, and rewards.
In the context of employee involvement, Eskildsen and Dahlgaard (2000, 1081-1085)
described the Hackman and Oldham (1980) Work Design Model, which develops many of the
work concepts of Herzberg (1966). This model was validated by Evans and Lindsay (1996, 1724). In the model, psychological states are influenced by job characteristics, which in turn affect
employee satisfaction and other outcomes. Eskildsen and Dahlgaard indicated that from the five
core job characteristics, both quality of work and employee satisfaction can be enhanced if the
design of the job involves involvement and information.
An emotional state resulting from experiences at work (Locke, 1976).Feeling derived
from three distinct facets:
(a) Emotional response to the work environment
(b) The relationship between expectations and outcomes
(c) Satisfaction with pay it has been determined to be directly related to psychological
empowerment (Spreitzer, 1997).
38
of an employee with respect to the goals of the company (Brockner, 1988, 213-256). The concept
of receiving pertinent and relevant information is an important process within employee
involvement. Examples of information within this context include information regarding an
employee doing their job well, being informed about what is expected in their job, having the
appropriate toolssuch as those prepared by Information Systems (IS) within the company, and
having the correct metrics to track the work group of an employee with respect to the goals of the
company. Kouzes and Posner (1987) stated without information employees will not take
responsibility. They believed that with the proper information, employees can achieve
extraordinary results. Information strengthens the resolve of an employee and provides them
with the resources to become successful. Kouzes and Posner also believed that without
information employees would not be able to direct their creative energies (Meares, 1995, 5-7).
Information may be used within the context of employee involvement to provide teams
the objective data necessary to facilitate cost reductions and quality improvements. Lawler and
Mohrman (1992) described a condition called open book management, which is a philosophy by
which executives share relevant sensitive financial information with employees in an effort to
provide meaningful input for decision making. Kanter (1989) believed that organizations
choosing to involve employees should assure that more information is available to people at all
levels, using even more sources than previously conceived. Lawler (1992) suggested that
information regarding the mission and the performance of the organization are critical to success.
Kanter (1983) also argued that information concerning the organizational mission is essential if
employees are to understand the direction of the company and feel free to move their respective
work groups towards that direction. Additionally, organizations should use all resources
available to provide these data. Information regarding the mission of an organization is an
39
important antecedent of employee empowerment because (a) it assists the employee in creating a
sense of meaning and purpose (Conger & Kanungo, 1988); and (b) it augments the ability of an
employee to make and influence decisions that are congruent with the goals and mission of the
organization (Lawler, 1992).
40
41
Mohrman, Lawler, & Ledford, (1996). Bowen and Lawler (1995) believed that there was a
distinct relationship between the TQM initiatives, employee involvement, and employee
empowerment. In their analysis, Bowen and Lawler determined that employee involvement
programs precede quality programs. Additionally, quality programs and employee involvement
programs can be separate or combined into an overarching program (Morgeson, 2006, 13211339).
When separate programs exist, however, the perception is that employee involvement is
part of TQM. Bowen and Lawler (1995, 73-84) argued this may be due to management
perception of TQM as a more acceptable initiative, one that emphasizes work process versus
power and management style. Additionally, it was concluded that TQM, involvement, and
empowerment can act as reinforcements and provide synergy (Bowen & Lawler, 1995; Lawler,
1992; Lawler, Mohrman & Ledford, 1995).
Several common concepts of TQM and other initiatives are listed in the high involvement
practices described by Bowen and Lawler (1995, 73-84). Many of these initiatives have found
their way in TQM initiatives, employee involvement processes, and employee empowerment.
These include: quality circle, job enrichment, and self-managed teams.
Mohrman, Lawler, and Ledford (1996) analyzed several aspects of organizational
performance, profitability, and employee satisfaction among companies with and without TQM
initiatives. Their research indicated there was a strong relationship to power and employee
satisfaction only among the companies with TQM initiatives. TQM relates to power in the sense
that it can be a motivational source and an enabler (Waterman, & Collard, 1994, 87-95).
42
3.20 Rewards
A process of enumerating employees believed to have a strong relationship with the
success of employee involvement initiatives (Lawler, 1986). Designed to reinforce the behaviors
of individuals, teams, and business units (Bowen & Lawler, 1992, 31-39).May be based on either
individual or group performance. Rewards may be based on both individual and group
performance. Through rewarding for group performance, leaders attempt to match employee
involvement and commitment to the success of the organization and the company (Lawler &
Mohrman, 1992). Lawler (1986) indicated this is accomplished by aligning the objectives and
interests of the employee with the goals of the organization. Within this context, rewards can
43
include both intrinsic and extrinsic motivators (Blau, 1964, 13-14). Examples include satisfaction
with the recognition received and satisfaction with the amount of pay.
Cappelli and Sherer (1988) indicated that pay systems, or extrinsic motivators, are based
on market analyses. Others (Dunlop, 1957, as cited in Cappelli & Sherer, 1988; Livernash, 1957,
as cited in Cappelli & Sherer, 1988) emphasized that pay comparisons and satisfaction with pay
may follow wage contours, which can effect employee satisfaction. These contours are not only
affected by market conditions, but economic conditions as well. In an analyses performed in
United States during the 1930s, Hoppock (1935) found high levels of employee satisfaction,
which was concluded to be affected by the general economic conditions and their satisfaction to
be employed when many others were not. Intrinsic rewards focus more on beliefs and feelings of
fairness in addition to other noncompensatory reward systems (Block, 1987, 15-16).
Employees have a sense of accomplishment when performing a task that is recognized by
others to be a contribution to the goals or mission of the organization (Lawler, 1986). The
perception of fairness has significant weight in this type of reward (Eisenberger, Rhoades, &
Cameron, 1999; Hackman &Suttle, 1977).When employee involvement programs are
incorporated and reward systems are utilized, decisions have to be made about the nature of
rewards.
Incentive systems that reward performance have been identified as an integral part of the
success of employee involvement initiatives (Bowen & Lawler, 1992, 31-39). One of these
decisions, although by no means a mutually exclusive one, is whether to reward based on
individual or group performance. Lawler (1986) stated that in order to be effective a reward
system should recognize the contribution of the individual employee. While reward systems for
44
45
limited liability, but the manager will have to face losses. Such a situation can be avoided by
utilizing hedging process for the activities of the shareholders (Zwerdling, 1980, 232-234).
46
proposed to have an important positive consequence on the organizational and worker result
variables for example job satisfaction and motivation.
The empowerment of employees allows them more control and responsibility over their
work. While the role of managers shifts from control to facilitation and coordination of work
processes. There is less focus on decision making and more focus on good communications,
education, training, and leadership (Hechler, & Wiener, 1974, 9-10).The relationship between
the education level of an employee and employee satisfaction has also been a subject
investigated in scholarly research. According to Bluedorn (1982, 135-153) Education levels were
not significant to job satisfaction, but they did influence the decision to leave a company by an
employee. Interestingly, the higher the education level, the more likely an employee indicated
intent to leave the company. Mohrman, Lawler, and Ledford (1996) also did not find a
significant relationship between employee education levels and employee satisfaction.
3.23 Competence
Competence refers to self-efficacy specific to one's work, or a belief in one's capability to
perform work activities with skill (Bandura, 1989, cited in Spreitzer, 2007). Comments on
employee empowerment would suggest the concern in the competence cognition has an
important negative impact on satisfaction, whereas quantitative data do not support this. Further,
the trust issues and feelings of hopelessness among some hourly employee comments in the
employee satisfaction area would suggest less overall satisfaction than engineers (Fried, 1991,
690-697). This does not suggest one is more correct than the other; rather, it indicates there are
important concerns that may not be able to be expressed as well in either words or Likert scales.
47
Information about performance is essential for employees. All individuals within the
organization should be aware of the respective performance of their organization, and through
this information, assist in the decision making process for future direction. Information on
performance is fundamental to reinforcing a sense of competence and value within the
organization (Harter, & Schmidt, 2002, 268-270).
48
convenience, and rapid change, on the other, were not only compatible but also mutually
reinforcing competitive standards (R. Ripley & M. Ripley, 1992).
Empowerment applications play a significant role in increasing employees productivity
and providing organizational efficiency. Interest in employee empowerment within the
hospitality industry has been associated with some of the key themes identified in the
development of HRM generally, namely, gaining competitive advantage through improved
service quality.
49
Roznowski, &Hachiya (1985) believed that the economy acts as a releasing agent; periods of
high alternative opportunity will allow dissatisfied employees to seek employment elsewhere.
They concluded that employee satisfaction would be a better indicator of intent to leave in
periods of low unemployment. Relationship could have a secondary effect on intent to leave;
especially when companies are experiencing poor economic conditions either specific to their
business sector or the economy in general. Many companies, especially those with union
contracts, are seniority biased; therefore, in slower economic times employees involuntarily
displaced will affect the age distribution by shifting it to a greater mean age (Bluestein, &
Bluestein, 1992, 29-30).
50
51
52
strong foundation to conduct additional research. The four cognitions identified by Thomas and
Velthouse (1990) also are adequate descriptors of separate facets within employee
empowerment. Employee satisfaction, like empowerment, is an emotional state from relations an
employee has at work. As such, there is a relationship between empowerment and satisfaction
observed in studies performed by researchers (Cohen, Ledford, & Spreitzer, 1996; Locke &
Schweiger, 1979; Scott, Bishop, & Chen, 2003; Sefton, 1999). Other factors outside of
empowerment have an effect on employee satisfaction, but there is sufficient evidence that this
relationship is relatively strong and worth further examination, especially when considering
various job-types.
53
54
55
Employees who complete the survey are also asked to identify their job-type by a code given to
them by the company, years of service, program/business unit, function, and location.
56
The media for the employee survey was both electronic and traditional paper-and-pencil.
Sixty-seven percent of the surveys were administered to employees via the company intranet.
Employees were asked to complete the survey on a voluntary basis and were made aware that
their individual responsesincluding commentswould be held confidential. The employees
were provided time to complete the survey during their regular work schedule. The response rate
for the company was very good at sixty-nine percent.
57
58
tested. From the data, specific employee involvement processes and employee empowerment
cognitions were examined. These subsets were selected from previous studies conducted by
Lawler (1986) and Thomas and Velthouse (1990). A factor analysis was conducted to determine
the appropriate survey questions to combine in each category.
In addition to the quantitative data collected and the methods and statistical techniques
that will be used to increase the probability of validity, qualitative data are collected within the
survey instrument. These data are in the form of comments resulting from an open ended
question. All comments from the survey instrument were analyzed for two separate reasons: (a)
to potentially increase the richness in understanding of the differences in the quantitative data
and (b) to compare and contrast the ordinal relationship of quantitative mean data to the ordinal
value of categorized responses from the open-ended question. This relationship is illustrated in
Figure.
59
(6)
The method of determining the meaning of the qualitative data was to delineate the
employee comments by the four job-types: (a) hourly, (b) salary non-management, (c) engineers,
and (d) management. Once segregated by job-type, all comments made by employees were
reviewed and categorized by the following areas based on the scope of this research: (a)
employee involvement, (b) employee empowerment, (c) employee satisfaction, and (d) other
comments. Once categorized by job-type and comment type, specific comments were used
within the analysis to better understand the relationships between the relationships to be tested
(Bott, 1991). Additionally, descriptive statistics were used to analyze the importance of each
category and compare it to the quantitative data to determine if there are similarities between the
attitudes and perceptions of the employees from the two research methodology types (Evans, &
Lindsay, 1996, 17-24). Through these coding practices, it is believed that the problems described
60
by Huberman and Miles (1983) concerning data overload can be mitigated. Qualitative data
need to be reduced for analysis to occur, and the choice of a reduction strategy or heuristic will
determine what kind of analysis is possible and will thus foreclose other kinds (Huberman&
Miles, 1983, p. 285). Additionally, Reduction not only allows analysis, it is analysis, in that
clusters and partitions will necessarily follow the analysts evolving sense of how the data come
together and how they address the research questions s/he wishes to answer (Bandura, 1997,
197-215). For the purpose of this research, many of the techniques outlined by Huberman and
Miles (1983) were performed to provide better analysis of the qualitative data, including (a)
coding, (b) policing, or monitoring, (c) progressing focusing and funnelling, and (d) matrices.
These methods are consistent with the techniques described by Sadler (1981).
(7)
The relational condition of employee processes, cognitions, and characteristics and the
corresponding research questions.
61
Additionally, using the subsets described by Lawler (1986) and Thomas and Velthouse
(1990), additional research questions will be examined:
5. within employee involvement:
(a) How does the level of information received by an employee affect the level of
employee involvement?
(b) How does the level of knowledge of an employee affect the level of employee
involvement?
(c) How does the level of power of an employee affect the level of employee
involvement?
(d) How does the level of rewards received by an employee affect the level of employee
involvement?
This relationship is demonstrated in Figure using the figure previously introduced.
(8)
6. within employee empowerment:
62
(a) How does the level of meaning in an employees job affect the level of employee
empowerment?
(b) How does the level of choice in an employees job affect the level of employee
empowerment?
(c) How does the level of impact in an employees job affect the level of employee
empowerment?
(d) How does the level of competence in an employees job affect the level of employee
empowerment?
63
64
Somecomments were not included in the analysis because they were not coded by jobtype. Comments were then coded using an indexing procedure similar to the one described by
Ritchie and Spencer (1994). Many of the comments that were included were coded into more
than one category. For this reason, comments included in the analysis generated coded
comments. A description of the coded comments by category and by job-type listed in
percentages is included. Often, these multi-coded comments described a link between employee
involvement and employee empowerment, and employee empowerment and employee
satisfaction and were included in both categories (Eylon, & Bamberger, 2000, 354-372).
The total percentage of employee comments coded within the three categories selected
for analysis was 64.7 percent. This number is consistent with the percentage of variance
explained in the factor analysis, at 65.0 percent. The percentages vary by job-type; managers
having the highest percentage of employee involvement comments, engineers having the highest
employee empowerment percentage, and salary non-management having the highest percentage
in employee satisfaction.
65
(9)
(10)
The similarity between the quantitative and the qualitative percentages add to the validity
of the grouping. The difference in the percentages within the job-types adds to the interest in the
findings of the research question regarding if there is a difference in the perceptions of employee
involvement, employee empowerment, and employee satisfaction between the four job-types. It
should be noted, however, that percentages of comments in categories only give a person a
reference point; the actual comments of the employees, their emotion, and their passion provide
deep meaning to the analysis.
Employee involvement
The overall percentage of comments within the employee involvement category was 26.2
percent. Managers listed comments on employee involvement for 29.9 percent of their total
66
responses, the highest of all four job-types. Among the job-types other than management, there
was a large amount of comments involving the rewards process of employee involvement.
Specifically, many comments described the company employee incentive plan (CEIP), which is
paid to non-executive management and non-union represented salary workers (Leauby,
&Wentzel, 2002, 28-32). Engineering, hourly workers, and several of the salary nonmanagement workers are represented by a union.
Employee empowerment
The percentage of comments coded into the employee empowerment category was 17.3
percent, with engineers having the largest portion of their comments within this category at 19.2
percent. The number of employee empowerment comments was lower than the percentage of
comments coded into the employee involvement category. Some comments describe a need to
shift the company culture, and it is possible that the culture within the company is what makes
the employees perceive their issues in a process versus cognitive aspect (Leauby, &Wentzel,
2002, 28-32).
Within the context of employee empowerment, the perspectives of the comments by
engineers were more focused on the competence cognition of empowerment (Saunders, Lewis, &
Thornhill, 2000, 159-165). While engineers had the largest percent of comments within this
category among the four job-types, it did not necessarily relate to a more positive feeling about
empowerment. Their rationalization of their unique skills and amount of training in this
particular industry was a common theme, and their strong concern that through actions of the
company these skills would be lost (Palo, 2003, 321-325). While managers and salary nonmanagement employees also described these concerns, the comments by engineers were more
67
frequent and more compelling. Their concern that this loss would significantly affect the future
of the company was very different than hourly employee comments who also were concerned
about the loss of jobs, but for different reasons. The comments surrounding this topic among the
hourly workers centered more on a mistrust of management, and the overall loss of American
jobs. The comments of hourly workers on job security were typically so different that they were
not coded as competence components.
Employee Satisfaction
Overall, the percentage of comments made within this category by all four job-types was
21.2 percent, with engineers having the least comments at 17.4 percent. There were a number of
positive comments concerning employee satisfaction; however for the most part, the comments
offered suggestions based on situations they perceived as neutral or negative, perhaps most
notably in the engineering area. Typical comments within this category dealt with morale issues,
job satisfaction, perceived worth of the employee by the company, and employee diversity.
Further, in many of the comments there was a link between employee involvement, employee
empowerment, and employee satisfaction such that some comments were coded in more than one
category (Palo, 2003, 321-325).
Based on the content of the comments coded within the employee satisfaction category, it
would appear that hourly employees and engineering employees are the least satisfied. This is
especially true with hourly employee perception of the company and management being largely
responsible for job security and engineers relating their satisfaction to various empowerment
cognitions. Hourly comments were typically more negative and directed towards management,
not in an empowering or involving way, but on frequent occasion the comments indicated a
68
sense of resignation to the control managers were perceived to have over them. Salary
nonmanagement employees have some of the same concerns as both hourly and engineer
employees, but the content of their comments do not appear to be as negative.
69
70
Fifth, the effect of events in September 2001 had a significant impact to the industry in
which company operates. A large percentage of layoffs occurred between 2011, and the
economic outlook was not optimistic at the time of this survey. Because of the relative condition
of this business compared to other businesses, the survey results could be more negative than
other companies, reducing the potential for portability for these results. Sixth, the survey
questions used in this study are similar yet different than most studies focusing on employee
involvement, employee empowerment, or employee satisfaction. The reliability and validity of
the questions were determined to be acceptable within the context of this population.
Nonetheless, the results could be less portable to other companies or other populations because
of this difference(Adams, 1963, 422-436).
71
tested in this study were: (a) managers, (b) salary non-management, (c) engineers, and (d) hourly
employees. An examination of the four processes of involvement identified by Lawler (1986)
was tested against overall employee involvement.
Finally, the cognitions of empowerment described by Thomas and Velthouse (1990) were
tested against overall empowerment. One of the four cognitions, choice, was not available to be
examined because the questions from the company employee opinion survey did not represent
this facet. For this reason, one sub-hypothesis was not tested in the study by an international
division of three companies. Employee participation was on company time and voluntary;
employees were invited to participate through various methods, including interoffice
correspondence and management coaching. The survey being used by the specific business unit
examined in this analysis different questions, although only twenty-seven were determined to be
within the scope of this analysis. 140 participants responded to the employee survey, accounting
for approximately sixty-nine percent of the business unit population. In addition to the
quantitative portion of the survey, an open-ended question was asked at the end of the survey.
72
cognitions have more relevance depending on the job-type, especially when reviewing the
qualitative data.
Employee involvement is dependent on the perception of all four processes. Previous
research indicated the strongest relationship is with power, but this study concluded that
information and rewards are equally as important. Employees felt the lack of clear
communication and inaccurate data were inhibitors to employee involvement. Additionally,
incentive plans and pay for performance were strongly related to the potential success of
involvement. For a company to be successful, a harmony between the four processes must exist.
The present study also provides support for the strong relationship between employee
involvement and employee empowerment. Further, empowerment should be decomposed into its
cognitions for better definition and implementation. The data also revealed through the
comments from the open-ended questions that psychological empowerment can produce
betterresults than structural empowerment, as the actual passion and emotion of the employees
isessential in the success of this component. Many employees, including managers, still perceive
empowerment from a structural perspective, and until a transition is made to psychological
empowerment the full benefits cannot be achieved. Employee involvement may be a more
powerful enabler than through the integration with employee empowerment in some cases. This
could be especially true in businesses that are process and procedural oriented. The power of
employee involvement in relation to employee satisfaction and the intent to remain at the
company should therefore not be discounted. Empowerment and satisfaction are related and
companies can realize benefits through implementing procedures that augment this linkage. This
is especially true if retention of employees is important to the company. The root of employee
satisfaction and the intent to remain with the company is the first stage of the process: employee
73
involvement. Organizations who manage their efforts with respect to the four processes of
employee involvement, perhaps through a balanced scorecard approach, should achieve more
favourable results in employee satisfaction.
74
comparisons between initiatives put in place by company and employee satisfaction could be
made to better understand their benefit.
The relationship between employee involvement and employee satisfaction in the large
manufacturing environment could be another direction for further research. In businessessuch
as the one examined in the present studyfocused on processes and procedures, the
psychological empowerment component may act as a filter versus an enabler to the conduit
between these two facets. The correlation between employee involvement without the
intermediate step of employee empowerment and employee satisfaction is worth investigation.
Additionally, with the problematic distinction between structural empowerment and
psychological empowerment, there may be conditions where the cognitions of employee
empowerment may reduce the benefits of employee involvement with respect to employee
satisfaction as opposed to enhancing the effect. This direct relationship is worth investigating,
especially in cultures that are more systematic and procedurally oriented. Finally, future research
could be conducted on the groups of questions established within this study for employee
involvement could be used outside company. Studies with other organizations in various
business settings could be analyzed to determine if the relationships are similar to those found
within the company. Further, testing the significance of difference between job-types would be
appealing.
75
7References
Abbott, J. (2002). Does employee satisfaction matter? A study to determine whether low
employee morale affects customer satisfaction and profits in the business-to-business
sector. Journal of Communication Management, 4, 333-339.
Adams, J. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 68, 422-436.
Allen-Meares, P. (1995). Applications of qualitative research: let the work begin. Social Work
Research, 1, 5-7.
Al-Mashari, M. & Zairi, M. (2000).Revisiting BPR: a holistic review of practice and
development. Business Process Management Journal, 6, 10-12.
Ancona, D., Kochan, T., Scully, M., Van Maanen, J., &Westney, D. E. (1999) Managing for the
future: Organizational behavior and processes.Cincinatti, Ohio: South-Western College
Publishing, pp. 9-10
Applebaum, E. & Batt, R. (1992).The new American workplace. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.pp. 7-8
Argyris, C. (1998) Empowerment: The emperors new clothes, Harvard Business Review, May
June, pp. 98-105
Armstrong, M. (2007) Employee Reward Management and Practice. 2nd ed. London: Kogan
Page 56-59
76
77
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 11751184.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Barbee, C.
&Bott, V. (1991).Customer treatment as a mirror of employee treatment.Advanced
Management Journal, 1, 27.
Bass, B. (1960). Leadership, psychology, and organizational behavior. New York: HarperRow.
37-40
Bayfield, H. & Crockett, W. (1955).Employee attitudes and employee performance.
Psychological Bulletin, September, 415-422.
Beach, L.& Mitchell, T. (1990). Image theory: A behavioral theory of decision making in
organizations. In B. Staw& L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior.
JAI Press, Inc.Pp. 38-41
Beer, V. (1991).Guerrilla tactics for employee empowerment. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 4, 62-70.
Belasco, J. & Stayer, R. (1994). Why empowerment doesnt empower: The bankruptcy of
current paradigms. Business Horizons, 2, 29-42.
Bell, N. &Staw, B. (1989).People as sculptors versus sculpture.In Arthur, M., Hall, D., &
Lawrence B. (Eds.) Handbook of career theory: 232-251. New York: Cambridge
University Press. 30-35
Bennett, R.(1991) What is management research?. In: Smith, N.C. & Dainty, P. (eds.) The
Management Research Handbook. London: Routledge, pp. 67-77
78
Bennis, W. &Nanus, B. (1985) Leaders: The strategies of taking charge. New York: Harper &
Row. 70-72
Bennis, W. (1989). Why leaders cant lead. San Francisco: Harper & Row. Pp. 75-78
Blanchard, K.H., John, P.C. & Alan, R. (1996) Empowerment Takes More than a Minute. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Pp. 65-68
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. 13-14
Block, P. (1987). The empowered manager. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pp. 15-16
Bluedorn, A. (1982). A unified model of turnover from organizations. Human Relations, 2, 135153.
Bluestein, B. & Bluestein, I. (1992).Negotiating the future: A labour perspective on American
business. New York: Basic books. 29-30
Bowen, D. & Lawler, E. (1992). The empowerment of service workers: What, why, how and
when. Sloan Management Review, spring, 31-39.
Bowen, D. & Lawler, E. (1995).Empowering service employees.Sloan Management Review,
summer, 73-84.
Brief, A. & Aldag, R. (1981). The self in work organizations: A conceptual review. Academy
of Management Review, 1, 75-88.
Brief, A. & Nord, W. (1990).Meanings of occupational work. Lexington, KY: Lexington Books.
Pp. 65-68
79
Brockner, J. (1988). The effects of work layoffs on survivors: Research, theory, and practice.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 213-256.
Brossoit, K. (2000). Understanding employee empowerment in the workplace: Exploring the
relationships between transformational leadership, employee perceptions of
empowerment, and key work outcomes. Claremont Graduate University.UMI ProQuest
Digital Dissertations No.AAT 9984244. 26-28
Burger, J. (1992). Desire for control: Personality, social and clinical perspectives. New York:
Plenum Press. 84-85
Burger, J. M. & Cooper, H. M. (1979).The desirability of control. Motivation and Emotion, 3,
381-393.
Burke, W. (1986).Leadership as empowering others. In Srivastva, S. (Ed.) Executive Power, 5177. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.42-45
Busing, A. & Bissels, T. (1998). Different forms of work satisfaction: Concept and qualitative
approach. European Psychologist, 3, 209-218.
Campbell, D. (2000). The proactive employee: Managing workplace initiative. The Academy of
Management Executive, 3, 52-66.
Cappelli, P. & Sherer, P. (1988). Satisfaction, market wages, &labour relations: An airline study.
Industrial Relations, 1, 56-73.
Carsten, J. & Spector, P. (1987). Unemployment, job satisfaction, and employee turnover: A
meta-analytic test of the Muchinsky model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 3, 374-381.
80
81
Dierkes, M., Berthoin Antal, A., Child, J., & Nonaka, I. (eds.). (2003) Handbook of
organizational learning & knowledge. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.Economics, 3, 359-381.
Eisenberger, R., Rhoades, L., & Cameron, J. (1999). Does pay for performance increase or
decrease perceived self-determination and intrinsic motivation? Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, 5, 1026-1040.
Ellickson, M. (2002).Determinants of job satisfaction of municipal government employees.
Public Personnel Management, 3, 343-358.
Eskildsen, J. & Dahlgaard, J. (2000).A causal model for employee satisfaction. Total Quality
Management, 8, 1081-1094.
Evans, J. & Lindsay, W. (1996).The management and control of quality. St. Paul:
WestExecutive, 1, 17-24.
Fairholm, G. (1998). Perspectives on leadership: From the science of management to its spiritual
heart. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.31-35
Fitzpatrick, J., Secrist, J., Wright, D. J. (1998) Secrets For A Successful Dissertation. London.
Sage Publications.28.
Ford, R. &Fottler, M. (1995). Empowerment: A matter of degree. Academy of Management
Executive, 3, 21-31.
Fosam, E., Grimsley, M., & Wisher, S. (1998).Exploring models for employee satisfaction with
particular reference to a police force. Total Quality Management, 9, 235-248.
82
83
Hartman, M. (2000). The influence of practice organization form and payment sources on the job
stress and satisfaction of dentists. University of Sarasota.UMI ProQuest Digital
Dissertations No.AAT 9963932. 45-50
Hechler, P. & Wiener, Y. (1974).Chronic self-esteem as a moderator of performance
consequences of expected pay.Organizational Behavior& Human Performance, 1, 9- 10.
Herrenkohl, R., Judson, B., & Heffner, J. (1999). Defining and measuring employee
empowerment. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 3, 373-389.
Huntington, S. (1993) The clash of civilizations, Foreign Affairs, [Online] Available from:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/48950/samuel-p-huntington/the-clash-ofcivilizations.(Accessed on 2nd July 2011)
Journal of Organizational Analysis, 1, 20-51.
Journal of Training & Development, 3, 203-216
Kaplan, R. & Norton, D. (2000). Having trouble with your strategy? Then map it. Harvard
Business Review, 5, 167-176.
Kaplan, R. & Norton, D. (2001a).Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance
management to strategic management: Part I. Accounting Horizons, 1, 87-104.
Katzell, R.A. & Yankelovich, D. (1975) Work, Productivity, and Job Satisfaction: An
Evaluation of Policy-Related Research, Psychological Corporation, [Online] Available
from:
http://www.questia.com/read/93924906?title=Work%2c%20Productivity%2c%20and%2
84
0Job%20Satisfaction%3a%20An%20Evaluation%20of%20Policy-Related%20Research
(Accessed on 20th of July 2011)
Leauby, B. &Wentzel, K. (2002). Know the score: The balanced scorecard approach to
strategically assist clients. CPA Journal, 1, 28-32.
Marchington, M. (1993) Fairy tales and magic wands: new employment practices in
perspective, Employee Relations, 17 (1), pp. 88-95
Menon, S. (2001). Employee empowerment: An integrative psychological approach. Applied
Psychology, 1, 153-180.
Morgeson, F. P., (2006) the Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and Validating a
Comprehensive Measure for Assessing Job Design and the Nature of Work, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91 (6), pp. 1321-1339
Nyham, R. (2000). Changing the paradigm: Trust and its role in public sector organizations.
American Review of Public Administration, 1, 87-109.Organizations, 2, 1-18.
Palo, S. (2003).Measuring effectiveness of TQM training: An Indian study.
InternationalPublishing Company. 321-325
Eylon, D. & Bamberger, P (2000). Empowerment cognitions and empowerment acts:
Recognizing the importance of gender. Group & Organization Management, 4, 354-372.
Ren, Y. (2001). Employee satisfaction and firm performance: An analysis of commercial bank
branches. The University of Minnesota.UMI ProQuest Digital Dissertations No.AAT
3032002. 200-220
85
Saunders, M.; Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2000) Research Methods for Business Student. 2nd ed.
Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall. 159-170
Scandura, T. & Williams, E. (2000). Research methodology in management: Current practices,
trends, and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 6, 12481264.
Scott, D., Bishop, J., & Chen, X. (2003). An examination of the relationship of employee
involvement with job satisfaction, employee cooperation, and intention to quit in U.S.
invested enterprise in China. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 1, 3-19.
Senthil, V., Devadasan, S., Selladurai, V. and Balahandayutham, R. (2001). Integration of
BPRand TQM: past, present, and future trends. Production Planning & Control, 7, 680688.
Sharp, J. & Howard, K. (1996) the management of a student research project. 2nd ed. Aldershot:
Gower. 86-90
Shay, P. (2004).A psychometric analysis of an employee satisfaction index.Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, The University of Oklahoma. 42-45
Smeyers, P. (2001). Qualitative versus quantitative research design: a plea for paradigmatic
tolerance in educational research. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 2, 477-495.
Swetnam, D. (2008) Writing your Dissertation. 3rd ed. Oxford: Howtobooks. 42-45
Tabdora, C. (2000). Leadership, teamwork, and empowerment: Future management trends. Cost
Engineering, 10, 41-44.
86
87
8 Appendices
8.1 Questionnaire 1 for Employees
1. Did you receive enough information and detail to do your job well?
2. Are you quite satisfied with the nature of the work you do at your job?
3. Do you feel motivated by the monetary and non monetary rewards given for good work?
4. Do you have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in your job?
5. Do you agree that people who are hardworking and result oriented are praised and
rewarded in the organization?
6. Did you get the required training which will provide you with the knowledge and skill to
better accomplish your job?
7. Did organizations senior executives clearly communicate the vision and mission of the
organization?
8. Are you satisfied with your supervisor or manager?
9. Are you allowed to take appropriate actions without waiting for approval from your boss?
10. Can you can only put forward your suggestions and proposals and cannot directly
participate in decisions?
11. Did you receive the needed coaching and feed back about your performance?
12. Do you like your job very much?
13. Dont you feel a sense of satisfaction at your job?
14. Do you feel scared to try something new on your job due to strict supervision?
15. Are you are provided with the necessary educational and training environment?
88
89
90
(1)
(2)
Pp 25
Pp 27
(3) pp 31
(4)
Pp 54
(5)
Pp 55
(6)
Pp 58
(7)
Pp 59
(8)
Pp 60
(9)
Pp 63
(10)
Pp 64
91
9 References
9.1 Presentational Requirements
Ayers, K. E. (2008) Engagement is not enough: You need passionate employees to achieve your
dream. Charleston, South Carolina: Elevate
Chan, A. (2010) Inspire, Empower, Connect: Reaching across cultural differences to make a real
difference. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman
Stonebauer, J. & Lowman, D. (2008) Closing the engagement gap. How great companies unlock
employee potential for superior results. New York: Portfolio
Yeung, R. (2011) I am for influence: The new science of persuasion. London: Pan Macmillan
Huq, R. (2010) Employee Empowerment- the rhetoric and the reality. Devon: Triarchy Press.
Johnson, R. & Redmond, D. (1998) the art of empowerment the profit and pain of employee
involvement. London: Pitman Publishing
Potterfield, T.A. (1999) the Business of Employee Empowerment Democracy and Ideology in
the Workplace. Westport: Quorum Books
Johansson, C.R., Frevel, A., Geiler-Gruber, B. &Strina, G., (2004) Applied participation and
Empowerment at Work Methods, Tools and Case Studies. Lund: Student literature
Cartwright, R. (2002) Empowerment. Oxford: Capstone Publishing
Applegarth, M. (2006) Leading Empowerment. A practical guide to change. Oxford: Chandos
Publishing
92
Smith, J. (1996) Empowering people: How to bring out the best in your workforce. London:
Kogan Page Ltd.
Gebauer, J. & Lowman, D. (2008) Closing the engagement gap. How great companies unlock
employee potential for superior results. New York: Portfolio