Empowerment: Power, Culture and Leadership A Strategy or Fad For The Millennium?

Introduction
Empowerment: power,
Initiatives to involve employees in organiza-
culture and leadership ± tional decision making are as old as industrial
a strategy or fad for democracy, which can be traced back to the
last century (Hancock et al., 1991; Lichten-
the millennium? stein and Howell, 1993; IDE International
Research Group, 1993; Hardy and Leiba-
Steven H. Appelbaum, O'Sullivan, 1998), and as recent as team
Danielle HeÂbert and building (e.g. McCann and Galbraith, 1981;
Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998), partici-
Sylvie Leroux pation (e.g. Leana et al., 1992; Hardy and
Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998), and total quality
The authors
management (e.g. Dean and Bowen, 1994;
Steven H. Appelbaum is a Professor of Management, Spencer, 1994; Waldman, 1994; Hardy and
Faculty of Commerce and Administration, Concordia Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998). The latest variation
University, Canada. on this theme has been termed `èmployee
Danielle HeÂbert is a Management Consultant in empowerment'' (Hardy and Leiba-O'Sulli-
Montreal, Quebec, Canada. van, 1998).
Sylvie Leroux is a Human Resource Director with Pepsi- Since 1990, the number of articles with
Cola Beverages Canada, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. `èmployee empowerment'' as the key de-
scriptor has exploded (Honold, 1997). This is
Keywords partly because the term can be used to
Empowerment, Trust, Corporate culture, Control, describe both the individual aspect of the
Leadership concept as well as the organizational one
(Honold, 1997). The popularity of this latest
approach led some writers to hail the 1990s as
Abstract
the `èmpowerment era'', because businesses
Since 1990, the number of empirical and applied research appeared to be taking significant, observable
dealing with employee empowerment has proliferated.
steps toward liberating ``the creative and
This article will examine four dimensions of power:
innovative energies of employees'' benefiting
various resources to influence the outcome of decision-
making; controlling access to those processes; through
``shareholders through improvements in the
hegemonic process to legitimize power through culture bottom line, customers through value and
and norms; and determining the limits of power. A critical service, suppliers through more effective
perspective from other behavioral sciences will present partnership agreements and employees
various designs. Foucauldian Theory will challenge the through a higher quality of worklife'' (Gandz,
devolution of power via prior research attempts. 1990, p. 74; also Burke, 1986; Conger and
Contemporary research on organization culture and Kanungo, 1988; Thomas and Velthouse,
structure will be examined via the validation of six 1990; Bowen and Lawler, 1992; Ford and
hypotheses. Organizational characteristics facilitating Fottler, 1995; Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan,
empowerment such as vision, openness and teamwork,
1998). To deal with the challenges of today's
discipline and control, support and security will be
global environment and to stay competitive in
discussed, along with the impact of leadership on an
empowered workforce. Psychological dimensions of
the world marketplace, organizations need to
empowerment: choice, competence, meaningfulness and look beyond the sphere of traditional directive
progress are examined in addition to trust issues. Some management and the limited application of
conclusions and recommendations will integrate the participative management (Mahmoud et al.,
diverse theories. 1992).
While no consensus seems to have been
Electronic access reached as to the value of empowerment to
today's organization, there is certainly much
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
discussion surrounding the issue. On one
available at
hand, there are those who extol its virtues and
http://www.emerald-library.com
preach about its potential as a response to
increasingly intense competitive forces in the
Journal of Workplace Learning: Employee Counselling Today
Volume 11 . Number 7 . 1999 . pp. 233±254 market place, the rapidly changing nature of
# MCB University Press . ISSN 1366-5626 work, downsizing and restructuring, and
233
Empowerment: power, culture and leadership Journal of Workplace Learning: Employee Counselling Today
Steven H. Appelbaum, Danielle HeÂbert and Sylvie Leroux Volume 11 . Number 7 . 1999 . 233±254
shifting employee expectations while on the throughout the organization. They don't
other, there are those who see it as an old realize that it is unlikely that clarity, con-
formula in a new package, denounce its sensus, and commitment will spontaneously
problem-solving potential and point out and naturally emerge. This is the real mean-
possible risks and disadvantages such as loss ing of leading vision: transforming all the
of control by management, overconfidence, various images, hopes, fears, expectations,
abuse and misjudgment (Gandz, 1990; Umi- and desires to contribute toward a way of
ker, 1992). Empowerment exists in an talking about the organization and its affairs
organization when lower level employees feel that the majority can commit to (Cohen,
that they are expected to exercise initiative in 1993).
good faith on behalf of the mission even if it Empowerment in the workplace can be
goes outside the bounds of their normal examined through various perspectives and
responsibilities; and if their initiative should presents many facets. Some of the most
lead to a mistake ± even a serious one ± they important components of empowerment in the
trust that they will not be arbitrarily penalized workplace will be examined in this article,
for having taken that initiative (Appelbaum namely: the organizational culture and struc-
and Honeggar, 1998). ture, the concept of employee empowerment
In other words, this definition supports a and the approach to leadership that empowers.
vision that might thus be phrased: When you According to the San Diego Union-Tribune,
see something that needs to be done, do it! a recent study conducted by researchers at the
Don't wait to be told to do it, don't sweep the University of Southern California found that
problem under the rug, don't blame it on only 10 per cent of employees in Fortune 1000
someone else (Appelbaum and Honeggar,
companies are truly empowered (Johnson and
1998).
Thurston, 1997). This statement constitutes
Most of the senior managers who have read
the core guideline to this research. The
this definition are uncomfortable with it. It
consolidation of all the information yielded by
seems to them to be a license to act
the research will help form some perspective
irresponsibly. A careful reading will show that
as to whether `èmployee empowerment''
it does not encourage that at all, but the point
really is a viable and desirable management
is that it does trigger a vision of irresponsible
practice for companies in the year 2000 and
action in the minds of at least some executives
as to whether empowerment in the workplace
who are interested in empowerment philoso-
is suitable to all environments.
phy. As one executive vice president of a
Even though a debate continues to be
Fortune 50 company said after reading this
waged as to whether empowerment is simply
definition ``No, that's too extreme. Real
one of today's currently popular buzzwords, a
empowerment is telling the people what you
want from them, giving them the tools to do miracle cure for the powerlessness and burn-
it, and leaving them alone.'' Notice what a out suffered by countless workers, the latest in
very different ``vision'' of empowerment this a long line of passing management fads or a
is, and notice how much more managerial viable method for attaining organizational
control it retains compared to the first effectiveness, many managers have embraced
definition. It leaves management in charge of the concept and have tried to put it into
setting the tasks, determining the relevant practice in their organizations (Umiker,
tools, and determining the people who will be 1992). Given the variety of benefits attributed
involved. It also leaves the initiative for to empowerment on both the individual and
communication in management's hands the organizational level which include in-
(Cohen, 1993). creased productivity, enthusiasm, morale and
The contrast between these two definitions creativity; higher quality products and ser-
illustrates the problem that a managerial vices; improved teamwork, customer service
leader faces with any new idea or program. As and competitive position; increased speed and
soon as it is announced, various stakeholders responsiveness; and, lessened emotional im-
inside and outside the organization begin to pact of demoralizing organizational changes
envision what it means for them, that is, to see and restructuring, it is easy to see why it has
themselves affected in various ways by it. Too enjoyed such popularity (Umiker, 1992;
many managements forget or underestimate Shelton, 1991; Brown, 1992; Von Dran,
this often feverish visioning that is going on 1996; Appelbaum and Honeggar, 1998).
234
The term empowerment embodies a vision sense of power and prestige (Denton, 1997).
that calls for a substantial increase in the Rosabeth Moss-Kanter's studies revealed
influence that lower-level employees will have that, ``When people feel powerless, they
in an organization that adopts an empower- behave in petty ways. They become rule-
ment philosophy. In the mid to late nineties, it minded, and are over-controlling because
was an idea that many hundreds of organiza- they are trying to grab hold of some little piece
tions in all sectors of society were of the world that they do control and then
experimenting with. The surge of interest is over-manage it to death'' (in Ehin, 1995 and
due partly to the ideas of so-called total Denton, 1997).
quality management systems, as driven by The message for leaders is simple. All
W. Edwards Deming (1986) and others; is people to some degree crave power and
due partly to the Malcolm Baldrige award's prestige. We have an innate need to feel
specific support for employee empowerment; powerful. Anything that makes us feel
is due partly to excellence guru Tom Peters' powerless is a destructive force. Once ac-
and Waterman's (1982) emphasis on pushing quired, power not only will be protected, but
decision-making authority to the lowest pos- enlarged, if possible. Power is not in a steady
sible level; and is due partly to the preparation state of equilibrium. If you do not have it, you
that research on the delegation of authority want it. If you have it, you want more and it
and on so-called participative management takes extraordinary self-control for someone
has provided over the past forty years. In to give up their ``turf'' (Denton, 1997).
other words, it is not as if managers are Today's competitive climate demands that
hearing for the first time about the value of everyone feel powerful, in control and be
trying to create more autonomy and initiative willing to help carry the organization toward
at lower levels of the organization. Still, peaks of greater competitiveness. This means
empowerment has an appeal, and it has redistributing power from the few to the
received a commitment from line managers many. Whenever redistributing power, expect
that these earlier concepts never quite resistance and irrational fears. Redistribution
achieved (Cohen, 1993). Power, the founda- of power requires that you be able to both
tion block of empowerment, will be examined push and pull (Denton, 1997). Redistributing
next. power can occur through many ways. Setting
high standards and expectations that demand
cooperation pushes people toward change. It
Power can be a dangerous but effective step to let
people experience defeat because it often
The first step in gaining insight into the makes them more receptive. Pushing people
concept of empowerment in the workplace is forward is not the only, nor probably the best
to examine the notion of power itself and how way to change, redistribute power, sometimes
it influences the process of empowerment, be you can pull them forward (Denton, 1997).
it from the perspective of organizational This will put the leader at the forefront,
leadership or from the perspective of the setting an example by putting himself on the
employee. This section of the article will line first.
examine the four dimensions of power, Power is believed to be exercised in four
present critical theory and conclude with a dimensions. Power is exercised, in the first
Foucauldian perspective before examining dimension, by using various resources to
organizational culture and structural factors. influence the outcome of decision-making
In the competitive world, individuals con- processes, in the second dimension, by con-
tinually strive for power and control over their trolling access to those processes, and, in the
environment. It is the most fundamental and third dimension, through hegemonic pro-
most easily recognized of primal needs. There cesses, which means the legitimization of
is never enough of it ± without it we feel power through cultural and normative as-
powerless. Acquiring power is in everything sumptions (e.g. Hyman and Brough, 1975;
we say, do, and read. Power has always been Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998). The first
at the center of human motivation. It can even two dimensions rest on the assumption that
affect the psyche of a nation. Whole cultures power is mobilized only in the face of conflict
are affected by the need to feel powerful. and opposition, whereas the third dimension,
People seek anything that gives them a greater through its grounding in critical theory,
235
acknowledges that power can be used to by management, such as an emphasis on

ensure that such conflict never arises. The selection, socialization, and socializing to
fourth dimension draws attention to the limits legitimate organizational goals (Stewart,
of power (Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1989; Parker, 1993; Hardy and Leiba-
1998). Each dimension of power will be O'Sullivan, 1998). Increased communication
examined. promotes organizational priorities by instilling
shared conceptions of these goals among
The first dimension of power subordinates (Roberts, 1991; Lawler, 1992;
As far as the first dimension of power is Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998). Em-
concerned, business empowerment practices powerment terminology reduces conflict by
transfer some resources (first dimension) to emphasizing consensus and cooperation,
employees. But senior managers often retain through such terms as `àssociates'', ``team
control of many important resources, espe- members'', ``players'' and ``coaches'' (Carr,
cially the right to hire, fire, promote, hand out 1991; Welter, 1991; Hardy and Leiba-
rewards, and control budgets (Stewart, 1989; O'Sullivan, 1998). Managerial control is
Bernstein, 1992; Eccles, 1993; Vloeberghs reinforced through the language of the team
and Bellens, 1996; Hardy and Leiba-O'Sulli- effort (Parker and Slaughter, 1988; Deetz,
van, 1998), rather than handing such 1992; Barker, 1993; Parker, 1993; Hardy and
resources over to employees in the manner Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998). Such peer pressure
advocated by Cardy et al. (1995). Thus, the is often more effective than managerial
control of at least some of the resources
threats. ``Workers are less likely to call in sick
associated with the first dimension of power
if they have to face team members the next
remains with existing power holders. More-
morning'' (Manz, 1990; Hardy and Leiba-
over, there is little discussion about how
O'Sullivan, 1998). Individuals who oppose
resources related to either the value created
empowerment are often ``delegitimized'' by
by empowerment, or the incentives for
being labeled ``Neanderthals'' or ``dinosaurs''
increased effort and responsibility should be
(Ledford, 1993; Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan,
assessed and/or distributed (Delbridge et al.,
1998). Dissenters, if they are not fired, may
1992; Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998).
be marginalized as uncooperative, or in need
of additional education or training (O'Con-
The second dimension of power
nor, 1993; 1995; Hardy and Leiba-
Empowered employees may secure access to
O'Sullivan, 1998).
some decision-making processes (second di-
In this way, empowerment can be viewed as
mension) from which they were previously
an exercise in the management of meaning to
excluded. However, ultimate control of these
processes usually rests with senior managers, enhance the legitimacy of organizational goals
who set the parameters within which sub- and to influence behavior unobtrusively. By
ordinates may operate (Stewart, 1989; Hardy managing meaning and using power to create
and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998). Because senior the perception that organizational and em-
management also continues to set the agenda, ployee interests converge (e.g. Foxman and
usually improved performance and profit- Polsky, 1991; Kizilos, 1990; Goski and
ability (O'Connor, 1993; Hardy and Leiba- Belfry, 1991; Velthouse, 1990; Hardy and
O'Sullivan, 1998), and to determine the Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998), empowerment pro-
strategic direction of the company, the future grams reduce the necessity of having to use
`ìs not participative but rather dictatorial'' more visible or coercive forms of power to
(McKenna, 1990; Hardy and Leiba-O'Sulli- ensure that organizational goals are met and
van, 1998). So, while some elements of the to quell resistance. The stronger such unob-
first and second dimensions of power are trusive, cultural controls are, the less likely
handed over to employees, managers con- organizational norms will be transgressed,
tinue to control other aspects of these and the more comfortable managers will
dimensions (Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan, feel in delegating power (Westley, 1990;
1998). Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998). Thus,
managers are able to provide employees
The third dimension of power with greater access to resources, yet still
Empowerment practices appear to rely on the avoid opposition by reducing the will or
increased use of the third dimension of power inclination of employees to use their
236
newfound power in an adversarial way (Hardy more rewarding work experience? In other
and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998). words, individuals may enjoy being empow-
In summary, by understanding the first ered (Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998).
three dimensions of power, we can see how Rather than dismiss empowerment out of
business empowerment practices limit the hand, as critical theorists often do, the fourth
devolution of power. Some, but certainly not dimension draws our attention to the com-
all, elements of the first and second dimen- plexity and ambiguity of empowerment as it is
sions of power may be transferred to lower experienced by those being empowered.
level employees, through wider access to While empowerment may contain a risk of
some resources and processes; but the third exploitation, it also encompasses changes in
dimension remains with senior managers. In the organizational environment that may
the case of programs emphasizing the moti- improve the experience of working life for
vational approach discussed above, there is some, even if not all, employees (Hardy and
likely to be even less power delegated to Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998). Critical theory will
employees than with the relational approach. next be presented for another design per-
However, any transfer of power that does spective.
occur is often limited to that between lower
level managers and their subordinates. The Critical perspective
power of senior level management, who Critical theory would suggest that empower-
usually dictate the form and timing of the ment programs should be designed to enable
overall empowerment initiative, remains un- disenfranchized members to overcome the
touched (Barker, 1993; Parker, 1993; forms and sources of domination associated
O'Connor, 1995; Hardy and Leiba-O'Sulli- with the first three dimensions of power. Such
van, 1998). critical forms of empowerment are typically to
be found outside the field of management,
The fourth dimension of power where they have been applied to a broad
Foucault and many other postmodern writers spectrum of groups: women, ethnic minori-
would resist the notion of providing recom- ties, aboriginals, consumers, youths,
mendations for empowerment practice; alcoholics, ex-mental health patients, and the
certainly, Foucault himself resisted any nor- poor and illiterate (e.g. Alinsky, 1969; Solo-
mative orientation (Alvesson and Willmott, mon, 1976; Rose and Black, 1985; Boyte and
1992; Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998). Riessman, 1986; Freire, 1992; Hardy and
Simply put, he would have questioned Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998). This view defines
whether empowerment can exist in a world empowerment as `à process, a mechanism by
where power is everywhere; and using it may which people, organizations, and committees
get you nowhere. Nonetheless, a Foucauldian gain mastery over their affairs'' (Rappaport,
perspective, which labels a fourth dimension 1987, p. 122; Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan,
of power, would acknowledge that practices 1998). It is designed to counter existing
that constitute business empowerment could power relations that result in the domination
result in some positive experiences for some of subordinate groups by more powerful ones
individuals. If, as Knights and Morgan (1991) (Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998).
suggest, power relations stimulate `à positive Although managers might feel tempted to
sense of self-discipline by transforming in- dismiss the critical perspective as inappropri-
dividuals into subjects who secure their sense ate to business initiatives, this approach has
of identity, meaning, and reality through much to contribute to business empower-
participating in [certain] practices'' might not ment. Critical approaches illuminate the
empowerment relations produce a similar contradictions of business empowerment,
effect? In other words, might not many of the namely, that while the language of empower-
practices of empowerment ± those that grant ment promises the acquisition of power in
autonomy, provide variety and challenge, exchange for the different kinds of effort and
relax formal controls, enhance the opportu- responsibilities that such programs engender,
nity for personal initiative, generate an practice limits the devolution of power to
emotional attachment to collective goals ± subordinates. It is in this discrepancy that the
constitute subjects who believe themselves seeds of failure of business empowerment
more highly valued, who feel more excitement may lie. Researchers have noted that such
and passion in their work, and who derive a ``promise-making language'' (Rousseau and
237
Parks, 1993; Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan, The need to empower the workforce can be
1998) creates beliefs about fairness (Rousseau critical when they feel powerless and it is,
and Aquino, 1992; Hardy and Leiba-O'Sul- therefore, critical to find out the reason there
livan, 1998) and creates a psychological is this sense of powerlessness. Once these
contract (Rousseau and Parks, 1993; Hardy conditions are found, empowerment strate-
and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998) between em- gies and tactics can be used to remove them.
ployer and employee. This contract However, this state can only succeed if the
encompasses the latter's beliefs concerning strategies and tactics directly provide personal
the commitments and obligations of the efficacy information to them (Appelbaum and
employment relationship. If the employer Honeggar, 1998). Currently, self-efficacy
meets these perceived commitments, organi- theory has much to offer with respect to
zational loyalty is fostered, and cooperation understanding the impact of such changes on
and consensus are engendered (Levinson, employees and specific actions to take with
1962; Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998). If, respect to training and retraining communi-
on the other hand, employees consider the cation programs, feedback systems, and goal-
organization to have breached the contract, setting activities. In looking at empowerment,
trust and commitment can decline, and for example where an employee would make
employees may withdraw from their obliga- confident and effective bottom-line decisions,
tions, all of which can have a negative effect this creates requirements for that person to
on performance. A critical approach shows, have a sense of competence to make that
then, how the tendency of business empow- decision, in other words a strong sense of
erment to promise, but fail to deliver on, decision-making self-efficacy (Appelbaum
matters of power may be undermining the and Hare, 1996).
success of those programs in improving Unfortunately, however, attempts to em-
commitment and performance (Hardy and power employees have been met with varying
Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998). Koch and Godden degrees of success; results of these efforts have
(in Honold, 1997) go even further by ranged from wild successes to miserable
proclaiming that employee empowerment is failures with empowerment as more myth
unworkable and that empowerment is in- than reality found somewhere in between. A
compatible with strong leadership as well as recent study which examined the extent to
an inefficient way to control an organization. which the concept is actually being practiced
The critical perspective also highlights how within North American business revealed that
mainstream management research often a significant gap exists between the perception
compounds this problem because of its lack of of empowerment held by managers and the
attention to power. Rather than deal with the reality as viewed by employees. This study of
complexity and discomfort (Pfeffer, 1992; 200 managers in Fortune 1000 companies
Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998) engen- showed that 88 per cent believed that they
dered by the term power, research on were giving employees more authority to
empowerment from the mainstream manage- make decisions and take actions than they had
ment perspective has often sought to expunge years prior. Results of independent research
all mention of it. Consider the following conducted simultaneously, however, revealed
definition of empowerment from an article that only 64 per cent of a nationally repre-
from the motivational literature to empower- sentative sample of employees believed that
ment, in which the link between power and management was giving them more authority
empowerment is completely severed (Hardy to make decisions and take action than
and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998). previously (Messmer, 1990). The results of
To empower means to give power to. another American study were similar in
Power, however, has several meanings. In a revealing that employees surveyed felt em-
legal sense, power can mean authority, so that powerment was more myth than reality in the
empowerment can mean authorization. so-called empowered organizations (Darling,
Power also may be used to describe capacity, 1996). Clearly, ``there is a significant gap
as in the self-efficacy definition of Conger and between the perception of empowerment as
Kanungo (1988). However, power also means viewed by management and the reality as
energy. Thus to empower can mean to viewed by employees'' (Messmer, 1990). The
energize (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990; Foucauldian perspective of power previously
Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998). mentioned will now be examined.
238
Foucauldian perspective and functional, and can be shared, ostensibly

If a critical understanding challenges the to everyone's benefit. Empowerment can thus
limited devolution of power that typifies be used as a tool to motivate employees to
business empowerment programs, a Fou- achieve organizational goals. For critical
cauldian perspective serves to inform the theorists, power is domination, and so,
assumptions and limitations of the critical empowerment must provide the means to
approach to empowerment. As noted pre- combat the sources of domination. Power
viously, critical theory traditionally has had stands as a zero sum game: to gain it,
emancipatory principles and has been judged somebody else has to relinquish it. Mean-
by its ability to reveal the structures of while, the Foucauldian perspective suggests
oppression, and to offer emancipatory ideas that critical theory must resist its tendency to
that address them (Alvesson and Willmott, judge from on high. For some employees,
1992; Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998). empowerment may offer new, more mean-
Under the rubric of ``false consciousness'' and ingful identities and experiences. Foucault's
``real interests'', critical theorists assumed insights serve to remind us that researchers
themselves to be autonomous agents, and hold no monopoly on the truth but are subject
presumed to judge what their research sub- to power relations like everyone else (Hardy
jects' best interests were (Lukes, 1974; and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998). The next sec-
Giddens, 1979; Benton, 1981; Hoy, 1986; tion of this article will explore organizational
Laclau and Mouffe, 1987; Cooper and culture and structural factors.
Burrell, 1988; Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan,
1998). This approach has led to a number of
problems even from the point of view of those Organizational culture and structural
people whom critical theorists deem to be factors: some research findings
their constituency: the disenfranchised
(Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998). Organizational culture, as cited by Haskins
While critical theorists may automatically (1996) is: `À communication process by
condemn business empowerment as a man- which organizational members make sense of
agement ploy to increase its power and exploit their organization and their roles and duties''.
workers more effectively, and may dismiss This needs to be explored further to under-
employees involved in such initiatives as stand the intricacies of empowerment.
simple-minded victims, Foucauldian insights Mallak and Kurstedt (1996) have reported
suggest that this is no longer a tenable that the level of empowerment is related to
position. Articulation should not overwhelm the strength of an organization's culture.
exclamation; the academic researcher should They believe that the concept of empower-
not muffle, under the rubric of a ``false'' ment pushes participative management a step
consciousness that masks ``real'' interests, the further as it requires that employees inter-
voices of those who might wish to convey the nalize their organization's culture and make
positive benefits of their current status. Nor independent decisions. Hence, the level of
should it silence the voices of those who empowerment in organizations will vary and
experience dislocation and discontinuity de- shall depend upon the extent to which the
spite a supposedly privileged position (Hardy culture and structure promotes and facilitates
and Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998). empowerment (Honold, 1997).
Empowerment means quite a different Spreitzer (1996) conducted a study in
thing to managers and mainstream manage- which he validated six hypotheses pertaining
ment researchers than it does to critical to the relationship between empowerment
theorists. Cullen and Townley (1994) argue and the following: role ambiguity, span of
that the former have emphasized the transitive control, sociopolitical support, access to
use of the verb: to grant or bestow power, information, access to resources, and climate
while the latter have adopted the reflexive (participative as opposed to nonparticipative).
usage: to gain or assume power over someone Role ambiguity was found to have the
else. These divergent understandings have strongest relationship to empowerment. A
arisen because power, which is integral to highly flexible goal or task injects uncertainty
empowerment, also has different connota- and ambiguity. For example, a lack of goal
tions for these groups. From the mainstream definition may result in goal conflict across
management perspective, power is legitimate various stakeholders. Similarly, imprecise
239
lines of authority may create uncertainty as When people know where the organization is
individuals attempt to fulfill the expectations headed overall, they feel capable of taking
of numerous stakeholders in an organization. initiative and, if they understand how well
The results of their study also indicated that their work units are performing, they are in a
when a manager had a wider span of control, better position to make or influence decisions
he or she was less likely to micro-manage the to maintain or improve performance.
actions of subordinates, possibly because it is A participative climate, also shown to be
more difficult to closely monitor a large related to empowerment, helps employees
number of subordinates than a small number. believe that they are important assets in the
Even if a manager does not want to delegate organization and can make a difference.
decision making, the greater the number of Mission statements emphasizing employees as
subordinates that report to him or her, the critical organization assets send a signal to
more difficult it becomes to make all deci- employees about how they are valued in the
sions. company.
Sociopolitical support was also related to Among the six hypotheses studied and
empowerment. Empowered employees see contrary to expectations, access to resources
themselves as integrated into the key political was not found to be significantly related to
channels for getting work done in organiza- empowerment.
tions. Contemporary management practices, Spreitzer's (1995) use of two significant
such as self-managing or cross-functional control variables suggests some implications
teams, are likely to enhance perceptions of for empowerment. He concluded that higher
levels of education are critical for enhancing
sociopolitical support (Manz, 1990).
empowerment, particularly in terms of pro-
Through endorsement, approval, or legiti-
viding skills and abilities individuals need to
macy, individuals feel a sense of mutual trust
feel competent and that training and devel-
that breaks down forces of domination in a
opment programs are likely to have parallel
work unit and enhances empowerment.
effects on empowerment. In addition, large
Providing access to information about the
units are not necessarily seen as disempow-
strategy and goals of an organization was
ering, although the correlations do not
another key contextual factor associated with
suggest that such units are sources of greater
empowerment. By gaining knowledge of
resources or support. In support of the other
about where an organization is headed and
hypotheses as discussed in the theoretical
how it related to its external environment,
development of their research, a high-invol-
individuals feel a sense of ownership regard-
vement work unit design provides
ing the company and can begin to understand opportunities for individual behavior and is
how their work roles and behavior affect its viewed by managers as empowering. In other
success (Frey, 1993). Information helps words, a high-involvement system provides an
reduce uncertainty and equivocality by pro- environment in which individuals can assume
viding individuals with a strong a more active, rather than passive, role in an
understanding of their work environment organization.
(Sutton and Kahn, 1997). Using the employee empowerment process
Kanter suggests that in order to be em- at Colgate-Palmolive as a model, Caudron
powering, organizations must ``make more (1995) suggests that key components in-
information available to more people at more cluded: self-directed work teams; free flow of
levels through more devices'' (Spreitzer, information about company goals and direc-
1995). Kouzes and Posner (1987) stated that tion; training and continual development of
``without information you can be certain that work, management, and leadership skills by
certain people will not extend themselves to all employees; managers who are more like
take responsibility or vent their creative coaches and who empower gradually; em-
energies'' (Spreitzer, 1995). For his part, ployee control of needed resources; provisions
Lawler (1992) suggested that two specific for performance measurement; continual po-
types of information are critical for empow- sitive feedback and reinforcement on
erment: performance (Honold, 1997).
(1) information about the organization's Other studies have demonstrated that in
mission and making the transition to empowerment,
(2) information about performance. habits and expectations must change.
240
Coleman (1996) refers to this as a values- in their work rather than wait for permission
oriented approach to increased responsibility, and direction from top management. Such a
relying on new business designs/structures to vision must also provide challenge to em-
facilitate the process. He stresses the fact that ployees, stretching their capability to improve
informed employees and managers must themselves and the organization (Quinn and
collaborate in setting goals that truly clarify Spreitzer, 1997).
task and responsibilities. Lawler, in his book, From the Ground Up,
Although employee empowerment pro- articulates this lever by emphasizing the
grams similar to those implemented at the importance of developing and communicating
Sheraton Sydney Airport, the Ritz Carlton in an organizational mission in the form of a
Sydney and G.E. in Auburn, have been statement expressing ``strategic intent'' ± i.e.
reported as being successful. Others, such as an animating dream or stretch goal that
the one rolled out at the Burswood Resort energizes the company. Thus, strategic
Hotel in Western Australia (Cacciope, 1998), alignment is one key organizational lever for
have only been partially successful. This empowerment (Quinn and Spreitzer, 1997).
empowerment program did not meet all The second lever is openness and team-
expectations partly due to the fact that the work. For people to feel empowered, they
program was not initially linked to the hotel's must feel they are part of a corporate culture
business objectives and performance. Despite that emphasizes the value of the organiza-
the fact that the program involved getting tion's human assets. The Levi Strauss mission
management's and employees' commitment statement, for example, emphasizes this value
through precise guidelines and training, they by saying, ``We want our people to feel
failed to define the hotel's mission statement respected, treated fairly, listened to, and
and vision. Recognizing this weakness, the involved. We want a company that our people
hotel was forced to develop a mission state- are proud of and committed to, where all
ment and vision to be shared by all. employees have an opportunity to contribute,
Honold (1997), in reviewing the literature learn, grow, and advance.'' This type of
on employee empowerment, states that a emphasis promotes openness and teamwork
complicating factor in defining employee through participation in organizational deci-
empowerment is that by its very nature, in sion making. Empowered employees must
order to be successful, each organization must feel that the people in their unit can work
create and define it for itself. This is where together to solve problems ± that employees'
some of the problems of semantics and ideas are valued and taken seriously (Quinn
perception collide. An exploration of organi- and Spreitzer, 1997).
zational characteristics may be a starting point The third lever is discipline and control.
in demystifying the enigma. Highly empowered people report that their
organizations provide clear goals, clear lines
What organizational characteristics of authority, and clear task responsibilities.
facilitate employee empowerment? While they have autonomy, they are aware of
When an organization decides to implement a the boundaries of their decision-making dis-
new program, managers often say, ``Give me cretion. They know what they are responsible
specifics. Tell me what I need to do and for, and what others have responsibility for
when.'' Most leaders and managers crave a achieving. They have clear but challenging
simple strategy and quick action. Yet, em- goals and objectives aligned with their leader's
powerment is anything but simple and quick ± vision of the organization. This lever reduces
it demands a willingness to embrace uncer- the disabling uncertainty and ambiguity that
tainty, trust people, and exercise faith. Four so often accompany empowerment efforts
key levers have been identified as being able (Quinn and Spreitzer, 1997).
to assist in the integration of empowerment Marriott, for example, has developed ``safe
programs (Quinn and Spreitzer, 1997). zones'' so employees understand which si-
The first lever is a clear vision and tuations allow for discretionary decision
challenge. Highly empowered people feel that making and which do not. And, the Ritz-
they understand top management's vision and Carlton Corporation sets limits on the
strategic direction for the organization. Given amounts that employees can spend to please a
this understanding, they will more likely feel disgruntled guest. Without this basic level of
they have the capability to act autonomously structure and control, employees experience
241
chaos rather than empowerment (Quinn and effective leaders in guiding employees towards
Spreitzer, 1997). empowerment (Quinn and Spreitzer, 1997).
The fourth lever is support and a sense of It is nearly impossible for unempowered
security. In order to feel that the system really people to empower others (Quinn and
wants empowered employees, individuals Spreitzer, 1997).
need a sense of social support from their Most empowered people have four char-
bosses, peers, and subordinates. Employee acteristics in common:
efforts to take initiative and risk must be (1) Empowered people have a sense of self-
reinforced rather than punished. If this sup- determination (this means that they are
port is missing or weak, employees will worry free to choose how to do their work; they
about seeking permission before acting rather are not micro-managed).
than asking for forgiveness in case they make (2) Empowered people have a sense of
mistakes. They must believe that the com- meaning (they feel that their work is
pany will support them as they learn and grow important to them; they care about what
(Quinn and Spreitzer, 1997). they are doing).
An often-told story about UPS, now part of (3) Empowered people have a sense of
that company's culture, is noteworthy. Some competence (this means that they are
years ago, a UPS employee ordered an extra confident about their ability to do their
Boeing 737 to ensure timely delivery of a work well; they know they can perform).
trainload of packages left behind in the (4) Finally, empowered people have a sense
Christmas rush. Clearly, this employee went of impact (this means that people believe
beyond his zone of authority. However, rather they can have influence on their work
than punish the employee, UPS praised his unit; others listen to their ideas).
initiative and the story survives as proof that
the company stands behind such empowered These are not specific management practices,
efforts (Quinn and Spreitzer, 1997). but rather characteristics reflecting personal
To create an empowering environment, experiences or beliefs about their role in the
managers need to exhibit continuous long- organization. Empowerment, then, is not
term dedication to the management of all four something that management does to employ-
(Quinn and Spreitzer, 1997). The next major ees, but rather a mind-set which employees
area of this article will explore leadership, one have about their role in the organization.
of the key underpinnings of empowerment. While management can create a context that
is more empowering, employees must choose
to be empowered. They must see themselves
as having freedom and discretion; they must
Leadership perspective
feel personally connected to the organization,
From the various classical leadership models, confident about their abilities, and capable of
such as: the Ohio State leadership model, the having an impact on the system in which they
leadership grid, Fiedler's contingency model, are embedded (Quinn and Spreitzer, 1997).
the Hersey-Blanchard situational theory and The employee empowerment perspective will
the Vroom-Yetton leadership model, two be discussed more thoroughly in the following
distinctive leadership styles seem to emerge. sections.
One is characterized by a more directive, Efforts that assume an empowered em-
authoritarian style of management that fo- ployee is a passive recipient of a brilliant
cuses on the task and initiating structure. The program design are doomed. Empowered
other is characterized by sharing of informa- people empower themselves. Organizational
tion, participation, consultation, delegation, characteristics can increase the likelihood of
and joint decision making focused on em- this happening, but most ``design'' assump-
ployee orientation and consideration (Vecchio tions that we encounter fully miss this critical
and Appelbaum, 1995). point (Quinn and Spreitzer, 1997).
In order for the latter style (favorable to an
empowerment process) to exist, it stands to Characteristics of a successful leader
reason that the first criteria intrinsically Given the volumes of work written on
necessary to a management team would be leadership, several hypotheses have been
that each of its members be empowered developed about what makes a leader suc-
individuals themselves before they can be cessful. For example, measures of personality
242
have been shown to correlate with ratings of positive behaviors and also not exhibiting
leadership effectiveness (Hogan et al., 1994; negative or derailing behaviors (Hogan et al.,
Horner, 1997). Specifically, these authors 1994; Horner, 1997). Some of these negative
suggest that the big-five model of personality behaviors include arrogance, untrustworthi-
structure that is commonly accepted provides ness, moodiness, insensitivity,
a common language that encompasses the compulsiveness, and abrasiveness (Bentz,
personality factors found to relate to leader- 1990; Horner, 1997). These characteristics
ship. The big-five model holds that are more difficult to quickly identify in an
personality, as observed by others, can be assessment process, because they may or may
described by five broad dimensions (urgency, not exist in the presence of the big-five
agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional personality traits. It appears, however, that if
stability, and intellect). Using this common they emerge, regardless of the extent to which
terminology, research on leadership can be the leader demonstrates positive leadership
integrated more easily. Stogdill (1994) and behaviors, the leader will be less effective and
Bentz (1990) found significant correlation potentially will fail if the behaviors are not
between multiple measures of leadership changed (Horner, 1997).
effectiveness (ratings by others, advancement,
and pay) and surgency, emotional stability, Leadership as a process
conscientiousness, and agreeableness. These The most current theory on leadership looks
findings may be due to a wide variety of at leadership as a process in which leaders are
reasons, however, because the relationship not seen as individuals in charge of followers,
has not been found to be causational. This but as members of a community of practice
line of research can be linked to trait theories (Drath and Palus, 1994; Horner, 1997). A
of leadership, suggesting that personal quali- community of practice is defined as ``people
ties, such as dimensions of personality, are united in a common enterprise who share a
somehow related to effectiveness as a leader. history and thus certain values, beliefs, ways
Although significant results have been found, of talking, and ways of doing things''. This
the application of this research to leadership definition may be thought of as a variation of
development is limited due to the relatively organizational culture. These authors believe
stable nature of personality within individuals that the vast majority of leadership theories
over time (Horner, 1997). and research has been based on the idea that
Other empirical work determining what leadership involves a leader and a group of
makes a leader successful is disappointingly followers, and dominance, motivation, and
slim, in part because measures of effectiveness influence are the primary vehicles of leader-
are very difficult to identify and isolate ship. As reviewed above, this has been a
(Hogan et al., 1994; Horner, 1997). Some primary focus of research to date. Building on
general attributes have been identified and and modifying this view, Drath and Palus
agreed upon to some extent; for example, (1994) propose a theory of leadership as a
Bennis (1989) described leaders as people process. Instead of focusing on a leader and
who know what they want and why they want followers, they suggest studying the social
it, and have the skills to communicate that to process that happens with groups of people
others in a way that gains their support. In a who are engaged in an activity together. With
review by Lappas (1996), she states that ``the this view, leadership is not defined as the
leadership focus of knowing what you want characteristics of a leader, but instead lea-
and when you want it distinguishes excep- dership is the process of coordinating efforts
tional from average leaders.'' Yet other and moving together as a group. This group
approaches look to the productivity of the may include a leader, per se, but the dynamics
followers to measure leadership effectiveness are dramatically different than traditional
(Fiedler, 1967; House et al., 1991; Horner, leadership theories have suggested. People,
1997). Productivity, however, has consis- therefore, do not need to be motivated and
tently been difficult to use as a variable in field dominated. Instead, everyone involved in the
research due to the multitude of variables that activity is assumed to play an active role in
impact it (Horner, 1997). leadership (Horner, 1997).
Although not much research exists on why The work of Manz and Sims supports this
leaders fail, it appears that leadership success notion of leadership as a process, as they focus
depends on a combination of both exhibiting on self-leadership within each individual more
243
than the behaviors and actions of a few select appears to be largely a function of personality
people designated as formal leaders in an and charisma (McGill and Slocum, 1998).
organization (Manz and Sims, 1989; Horner, When Jack Welch, the transformational
1997). In fact, the conceptualization of leader of GE, comments on the subject, he
leadership as a process in which everyone suggested as if the concept of leadership and
actively participates may be a culmination of the character of the leader are one and the
the research to date. As theories turned same:
toward looking at the environment of leaders Good business leaders create a vision, articulate
(for example, Fiedler, 1967; Horner, 1997), the vision, passionately own the vision, and
the relationship between leaders and followers relentlessly drive it to completion. Above all else,
though, good leaders are open. They go up,
(House and Mitchell, 1974; Horner, 1997), down, and around their organization to reach
and even the organizational culture (Schein, people. They don't stick to the established
1985; Horner, 1997), researchers have been channels. They're informal. They're straight
acknowledging the highly complex, interde- with people. They make a religion out of being
pendent nature of leadership. These theories, accessible. They never get bored telling their
story (McGill and Slocum, 1998).
which will be examined, have laid the
groundwork for examining leadership as a A reasoned and realistic approach to leader-
process, taking the emphasis away from an ship can be achieved by reducing, not
individual (Horner, 1997). increasing, the scale of the problem. It begins
with a specific assessment of the leadership
Theories at large scenario, targeting leadership actions, and
With all of the attention to great leaders, it is engaging in specific leader behaviors. A
increasingly difficult to separate who leaders ``smaller dose'' of leadership can be practiced
are from what leaders do. It is hard to regardless of one's position power or personal
distinguish the person from the process. For power (McGill and Slocum, 1998). These are
this reason, theory-building has been virtually referred to as little acts of leading.
indistinguishable from personality profiles A critical factor for little-leadership acts to
(McGill and Slocum, 1998). be effective is trust. Trust results from the
Consider a dominant leadership theory of perception of the leader's ability, beneficence,
the last ten years, transformational or vision- and integrity. The trust and respect afforded
ary leadership. James M. Burns coined the leaders are results not only of what they do
term ``transformational leadership'' in 1978 in but how they do things. If a leader has been
reaction to the ``transactional'' leadership of unable to establish trust with others or if the
the previous two decades. Burns and others leader's actions have destroyed trust in the
criticized the leadership theories and contin- past, the willingness of others to comply with
gency models of the 1970s and 1980s for the leader's wishes will be greatly diminished.
being contractual, mechanical, and promot- The relationship between a leader's actions,
ing procedures over purpose. These observers however small, and followers, speaks more
argued the need for a leadership that would be loudly than words.
unifying and encouraging from the heart Effective leaders model leadership ± they set
rather than merely utilitarian (McGill and examples of the behaviors they seek in others,
Slocum, 1998). consistent in their own words and actions
It has been difficult for the potential-leader- (McGill and Slocum, 1998). Effective leaders
in-the-trenches to distinguish between the manage leadership ± they see every conversa-
transformational leadership of today and the tion with others as an opportunity to exert
charismatic, great man, ``leaders are born not leadership by constantly engaging in the less
made'' theory of old. Attempts to clarify this exotic acts of leadership while monitoring
distinction by focusing on concepts such as relationships. As a consequence of this,
common vision, core values, and empower- leaders mentor leadership; that is, they exhibit
ment have only clouded the issue. Too often, a personal interest in the leader behaviors of
the examples given evoke the traditional others, teaching leadership as they practice it,
perceptions described earlier. Creating and encouraging from the heart, and fostering
communicating a common vision seems to collaboration by giving power away. A little
many to be a task beyond comprehension, let leadership has what followers want and what
alone completion. The ability to inspire others leaders can do. Moreover, it can be learned.
via value-related activities or empowerment No less important, it is exactly the amount
244
and kind of leadership that most organizations tions of all ± a series of questions grounded in
need (McGill and Slocum, 1998). our definition of empowerment. Again we
suggest that every leader in the company must
Can leader characteristics facilitate ask these questions of himself or herself:
employee empowerment? (1) To what extent do I have a sense of
Quinn and Spreitzer's (1997) research pro- meaning and task alignment, and what
vides some important insights on how the can I do to increase it?
behavior of top management must change in (2) To what extent do I have a sense of
order for empowerment to take root in an impact, influence, and power, and what
organization. They convey these insights by can I do to increase it?
posing two sets of questions every executive, (3) To what extent do I have a sense of
manager, and supervisor should ask himself competence and confidence to execute
or herself. my work, and what can I do to increase it?
Set 1: some hard questions. The four ques- (4) To what extent do I have a sense of self-
tions in this set are as follows: determination and choice, and what can I
(1) If a sense of a clear strategic vision is a do to increase it?
characteristic of an empowering environ-
These questions imply that before we can
ment, am I continuously working to
create an environment through which others
clarify the sense of strategic direction for
can be empowered, we must empower our-
the people in my own stewardship?
selves. We must lead by example and begin by
(2) If openness and teamwork are character-
changing ourselves, because leaders who
istics of an empowering environment, am
transform themselves trust themselves. Em-
I continuously striving for participation
powered people are empowering people. This
and involvement in my own stewardship?
leads to the next section of this article
(3) If discipline and control are characteris-
focusing on the impact upon employees.
tics of an empowering environment, am I
continuously working to clarify expecta-
tions regarding the goals, tasks, and lines
of authority in my own stewardship? Employee perspective
(4) If support and security are characteristics
A review of the literature demonstrates that
of an empowering environment, am I
organizations have a long history of trying to
continuously working to resolve the con-
encourage employee participation (Cacciope,
flicts among the people in my own
1998). This can be tracked back to the 1960s
stewardship?
when companies started to work on job
The questions all emphasize the word ``con- enlargement, job enrichment, management
tinuously'' in an attempt to break through the by objectives and quality circles, as they
human tendency to adopt a checklist men- realized the benefits of giving employees the
tality, i.e. `Ìf you want me to do something, power to influence their own work environ-
give me a checklist and I will get it done and ment. Confusion over how to define
then go on to the next thing in my busy empowerment is one of the first obstacles
schedule''. Most people who design empow- confronting any organization considering the
erment programs collude with this mentality introduction of empowerment (Cacciope,
by designing `èmpowerment in a box'' 1998) Cacciope suggests that the literature on
programs. Once people check off an item the topic and definition of empowerment vary
from their list, they tend to forget about it and greatly depending on who is describing it.
return to their normal pattern of behavior.
Unless we continuously monitor ourselves Employee control or perceived control
(reinforcement theory) on our new behavior, As previously mentioned, all people seek
change will not occur. some form of power and prestige. One of the
Set 2: some harder questions. If, as suggested assumptions made by researchers is that
above, creating an empowered environment employee control over the decision-making
requires continuous attention over time, then process is desirable for both employees and
empowerment is more difficult to achieve. organizations. Two broad lines of evidence
Empowerment, however, requires even more. suggest that high levels of worker control over
We consider now the most important ques- decision making are associated with high
245
levels of psychological well-being and job are more likely to cooperate with manage-
satisfaction (Parker and Price, 1994). The ment's policies. Thus, managerial control is
first series of organizational behavior litera- again increased. Other studies have revealed
ture concerning worker control over decision that without having some sense of control
making (Cotton et al., 1988; Dachler and over a stressful situation, individuals will
Wilpert, 1978; Ganster and Fusilier, 1989; withdraw into an utter state of helplessness
Hackman, 1986; Miller and Monge, 1986; (Greenberg and Strausser, 1986).
Schweiger and Leana, 1986; Tannenbaum et Management theorists in general, have
al., 1974) demonstrates that the level of defined empowerment as the process of
worker control over decision making is encouraging employees, including manage-
positively associated with worker satisfaction ment, to utilize their skills and experience by
and emotional well-being (e.g. Tannenbaum giving them the control or power to use more
et al., 1974) and inversely associated with judgment and discretion in their work. (Cac-
stress (e.g. Karasek, 1979). ciope, 1998). Some of the psychological
A second line of evidence regarding the underpinnings of empowerment are worthy of
effects of worker empowerment comes from examination.
the psychological literature on perceived
control. Blumberg (1969) proposed that The psychological dimension of
people's desire for increased participation at empowerment
the workplace reflected a more generalized Other researchers have gone beyond the study
need for control. Much of the psychological of management practices that include dele-
research had focused on the effects of gation of decision making from higher
perceived rather than objectively observed organizational levels to lower ones and in-
control. Power and perceived control which creasing access to information and resources
translates into the belief that one has control for individuals at the lower levels (Spreitzer,
to influence decisions (Conger and Kanungo, 1995; Blau and Alba, 1982; Bowen and
1988; Parker and Price, 1994; Spreitzer, Lawler, 1992; Neilson, 1986)
1995; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990) have Conger and Kanungo (1988) define em-
been identified as important components of powerment as a motivational concept of self-
empowerment. What makes this component efficacy. They take an individual motivation
attractive is the association that is made with approach to empowerment which they define
the perceived control and physical and mental as a process of enhancing feelings of self-
health of employees, longevity, concentration, efficacy of employees through the identifica-
task persistence and overall job performance tion of conditions that foster powerlessness
and job satisfaction (Bandura, 1986). A study and the removal of these conditions (Cac-
conducted by Parker and Price (1994) fo- ciope, 1998).
cused on the relationship between the Thomas and Velthouse (1990) go a little
worker's perceived control and the worker's further when they argue that empowerment is
perception of managerial control and support. in fact multifaceted and cannot be captured
Their model reveals that workers' perceived by a single concept as they advocate seeking
control was highest when workers believed alternative perspectives on empowerment that
that their managers were both supportive and distinguishes between situational attributes
empowered. This research reports that con- (e.g. management practices) and job incum-
trol can have little effect unless it is perceived bent cognitions about those attributes (e.g.
by the employee. psychological empowerment) (Spreitzer,
Tannenbaum believes that perceived con- 1995). Thomas and Velthouse (1990) built
trol reflects actual control and has concluded on Conger and Kanungo's work with their
that the actual `ìnfluence pie'' is expandable cognitive model of empowerment. They
(Parker and Price, 1994; Tannenbaum, 1968; defined empowerment as increased intrinsic
1986; Tannenbaum et al., 1974). Such task motivation which `ìnvolves those generic
expansion might be accomplished if managers conditions by an individual, pertaining di-
assume that the amount of control is ex- rectly to the task, that produce motivation
pandable. They are thus likely to encourage and satisfaction'' (Thomas and Velthouse,
subordinates to participate, which, in turn, 1990) and identified four cognitions or task
increases worker control. Workers who are assessments which they felt to be the basis of
encouraged to participate in decision making worker empowerment: sense of impact,
246
competence, meaningfulness and choice. Im- individual about the consequences of ongoing
pact ``refers to the degree to which behavior is task behavior and about conditions and
seen as `making a difference' in terms of events relevant to future behavior'' (Thomas
accomplishing the purpose or task, that is, and Velthouse, 1990). This data, along with
producing the intended effects in one's interpretive style and global assessments,
environment'' (Thomas and Velthouse, shapes and influences the individual's task
1990). Competence ``refers to the degree to assessments relative to impact, competence,
which a person can perform these activities meaningfulness and choice. Interpretive styles
skillfully when he or she tries'' (Thomas and `àdd interpretive information to data from
Velthouse, 1990). Meaningfulness ``concerns external events to produce additional infor-
the value of the task, goal or purpose, judged mation for task assessments'' (Thomas and
in relation to the individual's own ideals or Velthouse, 1990). Three styles identified by
standards'' (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990) the authors are evaluating, attributing and
and choice `ìnvolves causal responsibility for envisioning; they provide information relative
a person's action'' (Thomas and Velthouse, to ``how well things are going, about what
1990). In other words, ``whether a person's may have caused past events and about what
behavior is perceived as self-determined'' could happen in the future'' (Thomas and
(Thomas and Velthouse, 1990) or not. A Velthouse, 1990). Global assessments ``re-
fuller explanation of these four cognitions is present cumulative learnings from past task
given: assessments and are used to help `fill in the
(1) Choice is the opportunity you feel to select gaps' in assessing novel situations'' (Thomas
task activities that make sense to you and and Velthouse, 1990). The remaining ele-
to perform them in ways that seem ment in the model is interventions and refers
appropriate. The feeling of choice is the to ``deliberate attempts to produce empow-
feeling of being free to choose ± of being erment . . . through changes in the
able to use your own judgment and act environmental events that impinge upon
out of your own understanding of the individuals, or through changes in these
task. individual's manner of interpreting those
(2) Competence is the accomplishment you events'' (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990).
feel in skillfully performing task activities To summarize, Thomas and Velthouse
you have chosen. The feeling of compe- improved upon Conger and Kanungo's
tence involves the sense that you are model of empowerment in three ways: by
doing good quality work on a task. making the concept of empowerment as
(3) Meaningfulness is the opportunity you feel motivation more precise by identifying the
to pursue a worthy task purpose. The type of motivation, intrinsic task motivation;
feeling of meaningfulness is the feeling by specifying the task assessments that pro-
that you are on a path that is worth your duce this motivation and by outlining the
time and energy ± that you are on a cognitive processes by which workers arrive at
valuable mission, that your purpose mat- these assessments (Appelbaum and Honeg-
gar, 1998).
ters in the larger scheme of things.
Thomas and Velthouse's model of em-
(4) Progress is the accomplishment you feel in
powerment embodies four distinct concepts:
achieving the task purpose. The feeling of
intrinsic motivation, internal justification for
progress involves the sense that the task is
decision making, shared responsibilities, and
moving forward, that your activities are
integration for problem solving. These con-
really accomplishing something.
cepts are more specifically defined as follows:
Further, they constructed a model which (1) Intrinsically motivated behavior refers to
reflects the process by which employees arrive people behaving consistently with an
at task assessments which in turn produce organization's culture because they have
motivation and satisfaction and lead to internalized the culture's values and
behaviors. Elements in this process include traditions.
environmental events, task assessments, glo- (2) An intrinsically motivated employee is
bal assessments, interpretative styles, more likely to have internal justification
behaviors and interventions (Thomas and for actions taken. Senior workers who
Velthouse, 1990). In their styles, model, have assimilated into the culture's value
`ènvironmental events provide data to the system know what to do and help others
247
learn the culture by intervening where (1980). Consequently, from this cognitive
they see behavior that is inconsistent with perspective, it is possible for individuals to
their company's culture. experience empowerment even if their `òb-
(3) When sharing responsibilities, manage- jective'' job characteristics are not enriched,
ment releases some of its responsibility and vice versa. Third, empowerment is
and authority to the levels or units in the focused at the level of the individual in
organization that deal directly with the relation to his or her work environment, but
product or service. Day-to-day decision- notions of job enrichment are frequently
making responsibility is left in the hands applied to both the individual and the team
of workers who have learned the culture level of analysis (Hackman and Oldman,
and have been empowered. 1980). However, because the four dimensions
(4) Integrating with co-workers for problem reflect the individual's relationship with his or
solving is often a key component of a her work unit, which may include teams, team
participative management process, yet dynamics can contribute to feelings of em-
small, local-group, problem-solving ef- powerment. According to Spreitzer (1996),
forts take on greater significance in an this conceptualization of empowerment draws
empowered work unit. These problem- on and extends earlier work on job enrich-
solving groups are often spontaneous, ment. In a 1995 study, he concludes that self-
arising out of the need for the work unit esteem, which is defined as a feeling of self
to solve a problem that has arisen from its worth (Brockner, 1988) is positively related to
being empowered. psychological empowerment. Individuals who
hold themselves in high esteem are likely to
Thomas and Velthouse believe that empow- extend their feelings of self-worth to a work-
erment should be integrated into an specific sense of competence (Spreitzer, 1995;
organization's culture in a progressive man- Bandura, 1977). Through self-esteem, indi-
ner. That is, initially one follows another's viduals see themselves as valued resources
lead, then that person models his/her behavior having talents worth contributing, and are
after that of the leader, next he/she begins to thus more likely to assume an active orienta-
develop an understanding of empowerment tion with regard to their work (Spreitzer,
themselves and act accordingly, and finally 1995; Gist and Mitchell, 1992).
the individual becomes a leader and model for Other researchers suggest that the most
others. Management's role in empowerment successful orientation of empowerment hap-
then, is to understand that this is a gradual pens when leaders focus on the liberation of
process and to assist individuals as they move human potential and on personal and orga-
through the four developmental phases. nizational development (Cacciope, 1998;
Spreitzer (1996) further argues that these Vogt and Murrell, 1990). They insist on the
four cognitions reflect an active, rather than a notion that this type of empowerment is the
passive, orientation to the work role. realization that power can be created and
Although it has common roots with job expanded when people are given greater
enrichment theory (Lawler, 1992), this mul- freedom of decision making, whereas many
tidimensional conceptualization of previous approaches assume power is shared
empowerment extends notions of job enrich- or given up by one party when given to
ment in a number of ways. First, it is based on another (Cacciope, 1998). Vogt and Murrell
the assumption that individuals can have a (1990), who also view empowerment as being
high level of ``voice'' in shaping and influen- multifaceted, identify six dimensions to em-
cing organizational activities. The impact powerment: educating, leading mentoring/
dimension of empowerment extends the no- supporting, providing, structuring and one
tion that individuals have some control over that incorporates all of the preceding. Em-
their own jobs to imply that they have some powerment in their perspective may be
influence over larger organizational matters initiated by oneself or by others (Honold,
(Ford and Fottler, 1995). Second, the four 1997). However, the notion of trust becomes
dimensions of empowerment are viewed from an ingredient in the empowerment enigma.
the perspective of the individual; these cog-
nitions complement the more objective, job- Dimension of trust
oriented characteristics and individual differ- The notion of control has been combined by
ences developed by Hackman and Oldham other researchers with the notion of trust and
248
trustworthy relationships. This view has creative potential of their workforce and gain
become more and more important to organi- that extra competitive advantage. In the
zations that are looking for ways to promote business world, what compels companies to
cooperation between people and groups to implement the empowerment process is the
enhance their performance (Jones and promise of enhanced operational and finan-
George, 1998). When managers share con- cial performance as it results from an increase
trol, they demonstrate significant trust in and in overall employee ownership, involvement
respect for their employees (Whitener et al., and job satisfaction.
1998; Rosen and Jerdee, 1977). Employees Employee empowerment is a management
value being involved in decision making, concept that has been the subject of research
because it affirms their standing and worth in for over 50 years. As a matter of fact, the
an organization (Tyler and Lind, 1992). Jones research literature to be found concerning this
and George (1998) have examined the notion new direction is much more abundant,
of trust in the context of organizations who surprisingly, than that of critical theory. It
have sought to increase participation and generally shows that despite an increasing
cooperation between groups by reengineering popularity of the `èmployee empowerment
their structures into flatter, more team-based movement'', very few companies today are
forms, in which authority is decentralized to truly empowered and programs intended to
`èmpowered'' lower-level employees. They empower meet with very little success.
have concluded that empowerment is only Furthermore, empowerment, and the strate-
likely to enhance cooperation and, ultimately, gies for implementing it, is far from being a
organizational performance, however, if trust simple ``quick fix''. It actually encompasses a
exists in an organization. Their model makes very complex and multifaceted continuous
a theoretical distinction between conditional process. This may in part explain why,
and unconditional trust, rooted in the inter- although the theory of empowerment seems
actions among values, attitudes, and moods to be positively conclusive, few companies are
and emotions to explain why organizational implementing it and, of the one trying to
cooperation does or does not occur, as well as implement it, why it does not seem to work.
why different kinds of degrees of cooperation To best illustrate this discussion and high-
develop. However, the development of trust light the findings, the following three
(conditional or unconditional) is a function of dimensions: organizational culture; leadership
an organization's ability to create the setting and power; and the workforce itself will be
within which trust can develop over time. examined.
Does the work environment and context
promote positive attitudes and positive moods Organizational culture
and emotions? Does the organization endorse Research reveals that one of the success
and encourage the expression of the values factors required in implementing empower-
underlying trust (Fiol, 1991)? Are individuals ment programs or empowerment strategies
given the opportunity to explore shared consists in the strength of an organization's
values? Does the organization's structure culture. Companies must make sure they
provide the appropriate set of task and define what empowerment means to them as
reporting relationships that facilitate the they start with a clear vision or mission
development of positive attitudes and moods? statement. Once this initial step has been
These questions can serve as a diagnostic for achieved, the next crucial step consists in
management to assess the readiness and having all members of the organization buy
efficacy of empowerment. into this new culture as they internalize the
company's culture. This can be operationa-
lized through clarification of roles, widening
Discussion and conclusions of managerial span of control, providing
access to information, giving support, en-
In order to survive in a competitive environ- couraging creativity and risk taking and,
ment characterized by deregulation and finally, fostering a participative climate. This
converging markets, complex customer process requires that organizational systems
needs, corporate restructuring, and down- and staff's view of themselves and their work
sizing, today's organizational leaders are change. The empowerment strategy adopted
searching for innovative ways to enhance the must address the needs and culture of each
249
entity within the organization. Empowerment The line is very fine between controlling
cannot materialize itself without structural individuals and having control over the
and procedural changes within the organiza- decision making process, but the mastery of
tion. There must be a congruence between this concept is essential to becoming a good
corporate goals, management goals and the leader in the context of an `èmpowered''
goals of the organization's employees. In organization. Managers have to assume that
order to be successful, it is essential that control is expandable as they are more likely
companies define these corporate goals at the to involve employees and encourage employ-
onset. ees to participate in the decision making
The organization must provide for a climate process. As some managers fear losing control
that promotes open communications, active if they share all their information, they often
listening and encourages personal risk, trust- talk the language of empowerment but are
worthy behavior and initiative. For unable to put into action. Our findings have
individuals to feel empowered they must also revealed that trust is built by sharing
perceive their working environment as being information. Given the increasing complexity
liberating rather than constraining. Therefore, of global environment, it is no longer con-
the role of leading assumes a crucial place in ceivable for managers to be the source of all
this environment of empowerment. knowledge, therefore managers need to con-
sult and involve workers in the decision
Leadership making process as opposed to simply expect-
Since most organizations have functioned ing worker compliance.
through the years with a traditional approach In terms of actual implementation, the
to leadership and therefore situated power in literature suggests that effective leadership
the top echelons, it follows that the empow- can come under many different styles.
erment strategies need to start where the Although not one particular style can be
power lies, at the top. Managers, having been identified as the best, leaders who have
mostly characterized as being the decision succeeded in implementing empowerment
makers, need to fully comprehend what programs seem to possess the following
empowerment means for them and for their characteristics: the ability to delegate, there-
employees before they can commit to im- fore share control and power; model
plementing the changes necessary to its trustworthy behavior; ability to obtain em-
success. In other words, they must become ployee commitment; ability to clarify roles
empowered people themselves, having inte- and procedures; and, reward and recognize
grated a mix of the four characteristics that initiative and risk taking.
are intrinsic to empowerment: a sense of self- Assuming that the organization has clearly
determination, a sense of meaning, a sense of defined and stated its vision and mission and
competence and a sense of impact. that the characteristics of the `èmpowered
Once managers have come to terms with leader'' have been integrated by managers,
the fact that empowerment is the way to go employee empowerment will be achieved if
for their organization, they must commit to employees feel valued, supported, have high
the process of transforming ``being in charge self-esteem, understand the company's di-
of their employees'' into ``being a member of a rection and have internalized the company's
team''. The launching of empowerment stra- culture and values. The managers' role is to
tegies builds expectation at the employee help create a work environment where em-
level. Talking about empowerment is one ployees take action for intrinsic reasons more
thing, but delivering is the key to the success than extrinsic reasons since, as the research
of any empowerment program or strategy. has revealed, employees are empowered when
When managers meet these perceived com- they are intrinsically motivated and have
mitments, employees express greater loyalty internal justification for taking action consis-
and commitment, which, in turn, has proven tently with an organization's culture. It is
to have a positive effect on performance. important to know that in an empowering
This process is not an easy one since it environment, employees play a much more
involves going from leading by dominating, active role as opposed to a passive role.
motivating and influencing a group of fol- In view of the preceding information, it
lowers to functioning as the coordinator of a becomes apparent that implementing em-
group's efforts while moving together with it. powerment programs cannot be done
250
overnight. As we have seen, many barriers Blumberg, P. (1969), Industrial Democracy: The Sociology
have to be removed before any attempts Of Participation, Shocken, New York, NY.
Bowen, D. and Lawler, E. (1992), ``The empowerment of
towards empowerment are made. Managers
service workers: what, why, how, and when?'',
also have to be aware of the danger of Sloan Management Review, Vol. 33, pp. 31-9.
adopting ``fantasy versions of empowerment'' Boyte, H.C. and Riessman, B. (1986), The New Populism:
and of being repelled by the reality of it. The Politics Of Empowerment, Temple University
Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan (1998) describe Press, Philadelphia.
the following: Brockner, J. (1988), Self-Esteem At Work, Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA.
How lovely to have energetic, dedicated workers
Brown, D. (1992), ``Why participative management won't
who always seize the initiative (but only when
work here'', Management Review, pp. 42-6.
`àppropriate''), who enjoy taking risks (but never
Burke, W.W. (1986), ``Leadership as empowering others'',
risky ones), who volunteer their ideas (but only
in Srivasta, S. and Associates (Eds), Executive
brilliant ones), who solve problems on their own
Power, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 51-77.
(but make no mistakes), who aren't afraid to
Cacciope, R. (1998), ``Structured empowerment: an
speak their minds (but never ruffle any feathers),
award-winning program at The Brunswood Resort'',
who always give their very best to the company
Leadership and Organization Development Journal,
(but ask no unpleasant questions about what the
Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 264-74.
company is giving back). How nice it would be,
Cardy, R.L., Dobbins, G.H. and Carson, K.P. (1995), ``TQM
in short, to empower workers without actually
and HRM: improving performance appraisal, re-
giving them any power.
search, theory and practice'', Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 106-15.
Carr, C. (1991), ``Managing self-managed workers'',
References Training and Development, Vol. 45 No. 9, pp. 36-42.
Caudron, S. (1995), ``Create an empowering environ-
Alinsky, S.D. (1969), Reveille For Radicals, Vintage Books, ment'', Personnel Journal, Vol. 74 No. 9, pp. 28-36.
New York, NY. Cohen, A.R. (1993), The Portable MBA in Management,
Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (1992), `Òn the idea of John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, NY.
emancipation in management and organization Coleman, H.J. (1996), ``Why employee empowerment is
studies'', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 17 not just a fad'', Leadership and Organization
No. 3, pp. 432-64. Development Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 29-36.
Appelbaum, S.H. and Hare, A. (1996), ``Self-efficacy as a Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988), ``The empower-
mediator of goal setting and performance: some ment process: integrating theory and practice'',
human resource applications'', Journal of Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 3,
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 33-47. pp. 471-82.
Appelbaum, S.H. and Honeggar, K. (1998), `Èmpower- Cooper, R. and Burrell, G. (1988), ``Modernism, post-
ment: a contrasting overview of organizations in modernism and organizational analysis: an
general and nursing in particular ± an examination introduction'', Organization Studies, Vol. 9 No. 1,
of organizational factors, managerial behaviors, job pp. 91-112.
design and structural power'', Empowerment in Cotton, J.L., Vollrath, D.A., Froggatt, K.L., Lengnick-Hall,
Organizations, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 29-50. M.L. and Jennings, K.R. (1988), `Èmployee partici-
Bandura, A. (1977), ``Self-efficacy: toward a unifying pation: diverse forms and different outcomes'',
theory of behavioral change'', Psychological Review, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 73,
Vol. 84, pp.191-215. pp. 103-12.
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Cullen, D. and Townley, B. (1994), `Àutonomy and
Action: A Social-Cognitive View, Prentice Hall, empowerment: new wine in old bottles'', paper
Englewood. Cliffs, NJ. presented at the Western Academy of Management,
Barker, J.R. (1993), ``Tightening the iron cage: concertive Santa Fe, New Mexico.
control in self-managing teams'', Administrative Dachler, H.P. and Wilpert, B. (1978), ``Conceptual
Science Quarterly, Vol. 38, pp. 408-37. dimensions and boundaries of participation in
Bennis, W. (1989), On Becoming A Leader, Addison- organizations: a critical evaluation'', Administrative
Wesley, New York, NY. Science Quarterly, Vol. 23, pp. 1-39.
Benton, T. (1981), `Òbjective interests and the sociology Darling, M. (1996), `Èmpowerment: myth or reality'',
of power'', Sociology, IS No. 2, pp. 161-84. Executive Speeches, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 23-8.
Bentz, V.J. (1990), ``Contextual issues in predicting high- Dean, J.W. and Bowen, D.E. (1994), ``Management theory
level leadership performance: contextual richness as and total quality: improving research and practice
a criterion consideration in personality research with through theory development'', Academy of Man-
executives'', in Clark, K.E. and Clark, M.B. (Eds), agement Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 392-418.
Measures Of Leadership, Leadership Library of Deetz, S. (1992), ``Disciplinary power in the modern
America, West Orange, NJ, pp. 131-43. corporation'', in Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H.
Bernstein, A.J. (1992), ``Why empowerment programs (Eds), Critical Management Studies, Sage, London,
often fail'', Executive Excellence, Vol. 9 No. 7, p. 5. pp. 21-45.
Blau, J.R. and Alba, R.D. (1982), `Èmpowering nets of Delbridge, R., Turnbull, P. and Wilkinson, B. (1992),
participation'', Administrative Science Quarterly, ``Pushing back the frontiers'', New Technology and
Vol. 27, pp. 363-79. Employment, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 97-106.
251
Deming, W.E. (1986), Out of Crisis, MIT Center for members'', The Journal of Business Communications,
Advanced Engineering Study, Cambridge, MA. Vol. 33, p. 85.
Denton, K.D. (1997), ``The heart of the beast: acquiring Hogan, R., Curphy, G.J. and Hogan, J. (1994), ``What we
and redistributing power in modern organizations'', know about leadership'', American Psychologist,
Empowerment in Organizations, Vol. 5 No. 3. Vol. 49, pp. 493-504.
Drath, W.H. and Palus, C.J. (1994), Making Common Honold, L. (1997), `À review of the literature on employee
Sense: Leadership As Meaning-Making In A empowerment'', Empowerment in Organizations,
Community Of Practice, Center for Creative Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 202-12.
Leadership, Greensboro, NC. Horner, M. (1997), ``Leadership theory: past, present and
Eccles, T. (1993), ``The deceptive allure of empowerment'', future'', Team Performance Management, Vol. 3
Long Range Planning, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 13-21. No. 4.
Ehin, C. (1995), ``The ultimate advantage of self- House, R.J. and Mitchell, R.R. (1974), ``Path-goal theory of
organizing systems'', Journal for Quality and leadership'', Journal of Contemporary Business,
Participation, Vol. 18 No. 5, p. 37. Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 81-98.
Fiedler, F.E. (1967), A Theory Of Leadership Effectiveness, House, R.J., Spanger, W.D. and Woycke, J. (1991),
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. ``Personality and charisma in the US presidency: a
Fiol, C.M. (1991), ``Managing culture as a competitive psychological theory of leadership effectiveness'',
resource: an identity based view of sustainable Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36,
competitive advantage'', Journal of Management, pp. 364-96.
Vol. 17, pp. 191-211. Hoy, D.C. (1986), ``Power, repression, progress: Foucault,
Ford, R.C. and Fottler, M.D. (1995), `Èmpowerment: a Lukes, and the Frankfurt school'', in Hoy, D.C. (Ed.),
matter of degree'', Executive, Vol. 9 No. 3, Foucault: A Critical Reader, Basil Blackwell, Oxford,
pp. 21-31. pp. 123-47.
Foxman, L.D. and Polsky, W.L. (1991), ``Share the Power'', Hyman, R. and Brough, I. (1975), Social Values And
Personnel Journal, Vol. 70 No. 9, pp. 116-20. Industrial Relations, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Freire, P. (1992), Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Continuum IDE International Research Group (1993), Industrial
Press, New York, NY. Democracy In Europe Revisited, Oxford University
Frey, R. (1993), `` Empowerment or else'', Harvard
Press, Oxford.
Business Review, Vol. 71, pp. 80-94.
Johnson, R.D. and Thurston, E.K. (1997), `Àchieving
Ganster, D.C. and Fusilier, M.R. (1989), ``Control in the
empowerment using the empowerment strategy
workplace'', in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I. (Eds),
grid'', Leadership and Organization Development
International Review of Industrial and
Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 64-73.
Organizational Psychology, John Wiley and Sons,
Jones, G.R. and George, J.M. (1998), ``The experience and
New York, NY, pp. 235-80.
evolution of trust: implications for cooperation and
Gandz, J. (1990), ``The employee empowerment era'',
teamwork'', Academy of Management Review,
Business Quarterly, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 74-9.
Mississippi State, pp. 531-46.
Giddens, A. (1979), Central Problems in Social Theory,
Karasek, R.A. (1979), ``Job demands, job decision latitude
MacMillan, London.
Gist, M. and Mitchell, T.N. (1992), ``Self-efficacy: a and mental strain: implications for job redesign'',
theoretical analysis of its determinants and malle- Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24,
ability'', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 17, pp. 285-301.
pp. 183-211. Kizilos, P. (1990), ``Crazy about empowerment?'', Training,
Goski, K.L. and Belfry, M. (1991), `Àchieving competitive Vol. 27 No. 12, pp. 47-56.
advantage through employee empowerment'', Knights, D. and Morgan, G. (1991), ``Strategic discourse
Employment Relations Today, No. 2, pp. 213-20. and subjectivity: towards a critical analysis of
Greenberg, D.B. and Strausser, S. (1986), ``Development corporate strategy in organizations'', Organization
and application of a model of personal control in Studies, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 251-73.
organizations'', Academy of Management Review, Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (1987), The Leadership
Vol. 11, pp. 164-77. Challenge, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Hackman, J.R. (1986), ``The psychology of self-managed Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (1987), ``Postmodernism without
organizations'', in Pallack, M. and Perloff, R. (Eds), apologies'', New Left Review, Vol. 166, pp. 79-106.
Psychology And Work: Productivity, Change And Lappas, G.E. (1996), `À comparison of the transforma-
Employment, American Psychological Association, tional attributes of community college presidents
Washington, DC, pp. 89-136. with selected American corporate chief executive
Hackman, J.R. and Oldman, G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, officers'', unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni-
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. versity of Texas, Austin.
Hancock, M.D., Logue, J. and Schiller, B. (1991), Lawler, E.E. (1992), The Ultimate Advantage, Jossey-Bass,
Managing Modern Capitalism: Industrial Renewal San Francisco, CA.
and Workplace Democracy in the United States and Leana, C.R., Ahlbrandt, R.S. and Murrel, A.J. (1992), ``The
Western Europe, Praeger, New York, NY. effects of employee involvement on unionized
Hardy, C. and Leiba-O'Sullivan, S. (1998), ``The power workers' attitudes, perceptions, and preferences in
behind empowerment: implications for research and decision making'', Academy of Management
practice'', Human Relations, New York, April, Journal, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 861-73.
pp. 451-483. Ledford, G.E. (1993), `Èmployee involvement: lessons and
Haskins, W.A. (1996), ``Freedom of speech: construct for predictions'', in Galbraith, J.R., Lawler, E.E. and
creating a culture which empowers organizational Associates (Eds), Organizing for the Future: The
252
New Logic For Managing Complex Organizations, Pfeffer, J. (1992), `Ùnderstanding power in organiza-
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. tions'', California Management Review, Vol. 35,
Levinson, H. (1962), Men, Management, and Mental pp. 29-50.
Health, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Quinn, R.E. and Spreitzer, G.M. (1997), ``The road to
Lichtenstein, N. and Howell, J.H. (1993), Industrial empowerment: seven questions every leader should
Democracy in America, Cambridge University Press, consider'', Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 26 No. 2,
Cambridge. Autumn.
Lukes, S. (1974), Power: A Radical View, Macmillan, Rappaport, J. (1987), ``Terms of empowerment/examplars
London. of prevention: toward a theory for community
Manz, E.E. (1990), ``Beyond self-managing work teams: psychology'', American Journal of Community
toward self-leading teams in the workplace'', in Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 121-48.
Woodman, R. and Pasmore, W. (Eds), Research in Roberts, J. (1991), ``Strategy and accounting in a UK
Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 4, conglomerate'', Accounting, Organizations and
pp. 273-99. Society, No. 1/2, pp. 107-26.
Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr (1989), SuperLeadership, Rose, S.M. and Black, B.L. (1985), Advocacy And
Prentice Hall Press, New York, NY. Empowerment: Mental Health Care In The
Mahmoud, S., Lazarus, H. and Cullen, J. (1992), Community, Routledge and Kegan Paul,
``Developing self-managing teams: structure and Boston.
performance'', Journal of Management Rosen, B. and Jerdee, T.H. (1977), `Ìnfluence of
Development, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 34-33. subordinate characteristics on trust and use of
Mallak, L.A. and Kurstedt, H.A. Jr. (1996), `Ùnderstanding participative decision strategies in a management
and using empowerment to change organizational simulation'', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62,
culture'', Industrial Management, Vol. 38, pp. 8-10. pp. 628-31.
McCann, J.E. and Galbraith, J.R. (1981), `Ìnterdepart- Rousseau, D.M. and Aquino, K. (1992), ``Fairness and
mental relations'', in Nystrom, P.C. and Starbuck, implied contract obligations in job terminations: the
W.H. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Design, role of contributions, promises and performance'',
Oxford University Press, New York, NY, Vol. 2, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12,
pp. 60-84. pp. 287-99.
McGill, M.E. and Slocum, J.W. Jr (1998), `À little Rousseau, D.M. and Parks, J.M. (1993), ``The contracts of
leadership, please?'', Organizational Dynamics, individuals and organizations'', Research in
Vol. 26 No. 3, Winter. Organizational Behavior, pp. 1-43.
McKenna, J.E. (1990), ``Smart scarecrows: the wizardry of Schein, E.H. (1985), Organizational Culture and
empowerment'', Industry Week, Vol. 239 No. 14, Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
pp. 8-19. Schweiger, D.M. and Leana, C.R. (1986), ``Participation in
Messmer, M. (1990), ``How to put employee empower- decision making'', in Locke, E.A. (Ed.), Generalizing
ment into practice'', The Woman CPA, p. 25. From Laboratory To Field Settings, Lexington Books,
Miller, K.L. and Monge, P.R. (1986), ``Participation, Lexington.
satisfaction, and productivity: a meta-analytic Shelton, K. (1991), ``People power'', Executive Excellence,
review'', Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29, p. 7-8.
pp. 727-53. Solomon, B.B. (1976), Black Empowerment: Social Work
Neilson, E.H. (1986), `Èmpowerment strategies: balancing In Oppressed Communities, Columbia University
authority and responsibility'', in Srivastva, S. and Press, New York, NY.
Associates (Eds), Executive Power, pp. 78-110. Spencer, B.A. (1994), ``Models of organization and total
O'Connor, E.S. (1993), ``Paradoxes of participation: a quality management: a comparison and critical
textual analysis of case studies documenting evaluation'', Academy of Management Review,
employee involvement efforts'', paper presented at Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 446-71.
the Academy of Management, Atlanta. Spreitzer, G.M. (1995), ``Psychological empowerment in
O'Connor, E.S. (1995), ``Paradoxes of participation: a the workplace: dimensions, measurement and
literary analysis of case studies on employee validation'', Academy of Management Journal,
involvement'', Organization Science, Vol. 16 No. 5, Vol. 38, pp. 1442-65.
pp. 769-804. Spreitzer, G.M. (1996), ``Social structural characteristics of
Parker, L. and Price, R. (1994), `Èmpowered managers psychological empowerment'', Academy Of
and empowered workers: the effects of managerial Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 2, p. 483.
support and managerial perceived control on Stewart, T.A. (1989), ``New ways to exercise power'',
worker's sense of control over decision-making'', Fortune, 6 November, pp. 48-53.
Human Relations, Vol. 47, pp. 911-29. Sutton, R. and Kahn, R. (1997), ``Prediction, under-
Parker, M. (1993), `Ìndustrial relations myth and shop- standing, and control as antidotes to stress'', in
floor reality: the `team concept: in the auto Lorsh, J. (Ed.), Handbook Of Organizational
industry''', in Lichtenstein, N. and Howell, J.H. (Eds), Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
Industrial Democracy in America, Cambridge Uni- pp. 272-85.
versity Press, Cambridge. Stogdill, R.M. (1994), Handbook Of Leadership: A Survey
Parker, M. and Slaughter, J. (1988), ``Managing by stress: Of Theory And Research, Free Press, New York, NY.
the dark side of team concept'', ILR Report, Vol. 26 Tannenbaum, A.S. (1968), Control In Organizations,
No. 1, pp. 19-23. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. (1982), In Search of Tannenbaum, A.S. (1986), ``Controversies about control
Excellence, Harper and Row, New York, NY. and democracy in organizations'', in Stern, R.N. and
253
McCarthy, S. (Eds), International Yearbook Of Vloeberghs, D. and Bellens, S. (1996), ``Human resource
Organizational Democracy for the Study Of aspects of ISO 9000 in Belgian organizations'',
Participation Co-Operation And Power, Volume III, International Journal of Human Resource
The Organizational Practice Of Democracy, John Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 413-36.
Wiley And Sons, New York, NY, pp. 279-303. Vogt, J.F. and Murrell, K.L. (1990), Empowerment in
Tannenbaum, A.S., Kavcic, B.A., Rosner, M., Vianello, M. Organizations: How To Spark Exceptional
and Weiser, G. (1974), Hierarchy in Organizations, Performance, University of Associates, San Diego,
Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA. CA.
Thomas, K.W. and Velthouse, B.A. (1990), ``Cognitive Von Dran, G.M. (1996), `Èmpowerment and the man-
elements of empowerment: an ìnterpretative' agement of an organizational transformation
model of intrinsic task motivation'', Academy of project'', Project Management Journal, pp. 12-17.
Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 666-81. Waldman, D.A. (1994), ``The contributions of total quality
Tyler, T.R. and Lind, E.A. (1992), `À relational model of management to a theory of work performance'',
authority in groups'', in Zanna, M. (Ed.), Advances Academy Of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 3,
In Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 510-36.
pp. 115-91. Welter, T.R. (1991), `À winning team begins with you'',
Umiker, W.D. (1992), `Èmpowerment: the latest motiva- Industry Week, Vol. 240 No. 9, pp. 35-42.
tional strategy'', Health Care Supervisor, Vol. 11 Westley, E. (1990), ``Middle managers and strategy: the
No. 2, pp. 11-16. microdynamics of inclusion'', Strategic Management
Vecchio, R.P. and Appelbaum, S.H. (1995), Managing Journal, No. II, pp. 337-51.
Organizational Behaviour: A Canadian Perspective, Whitener, E.M., Bordt, S.E., Korsgaard, M.A. and Werner,
Harcourt Brace and Company, Canada. J.M. (1998), ``Managers as initiators of trust: an
Velthouse, B.A. (1990), ``Creativity and empowerment: a exchange relationship framework for understanding
complementary relationship'', Review of Business, managerial trustworthy behavior'', The Academy of
Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 13-18. Management Review, Vol. 23, pp. 513-30.
254

Empowerment: Power, Culture and Leadership A Strategy or Fad For The Millennium?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Empowerment: Power, Culture and Leadership A Strategy or Fad For The Millennium?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Empowerment: Power, Culture and Leadership A Strategy or Fad For The Millennium?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction

acknowledges that power can be used to by management, such as an emphasis on

Foucauldian perspective and functional, and can be shared, ostensibly

You might also like