Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
http://www.jstor.org/stable/258093 .
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy
of Management Review.
http://www.jstor.org
There has been a growing interest in the con- used by other social scientists who have dealt
cept of empowerment and related management with issues of the powerlessness of minority
practices among both management researchers groups (e.g., women, blacks, and the handi-
and practitioners (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Block, capped). Because of the widespread popularity
1987; Burke, 1986; House, in press; Kanter, 1979; of empowerment as a construct, we believe it
McClelland, 1975; Neilsen, 1986). This interest is requires critical examination.
due to several reasons. First, studies on leader- Despite the recognized role of empowerment
ship and management skills (Bennis & Nanus, in management theory and practice, our under-
1985; House, in press; Kanter, 1979, 1983; McClel- standing of the construct is limited and often
land, 1975) suggest that the practice of empower- confusing. For example, most management the-
ing subordinates is a principal component of orists have dealt with empowerment as a set of
managerial and organizational effectiveness. managerial techniques and have not paid suffi-
Second, analysis of power and control within cient attention to its nature or the processes un-
organizations (Kanter, 1979; Tannenbaum, 1968) derlying the construct. This may reflect the prag-
reveals that the total productive forms of organi- matic or practice orientation of theorists, and the
zational power and effectiveness grow with result may be an inadequate understanding of
superiors' sharing of power and control with the notion of empowerment and its theoretical
subordinates. Finally, experiences in team build- rationale for related practices. As a construct,
ing within organizations (Beckhard, 1969; Neil- empowerment has not received the same analyti-
sen, 1986) suggest that empowerment techniques cal treatment from management scholars as the
play a crucial role in group development and construct of power (or control). In many cases,
maintenance. scholars have assumed that empowerment is the
A review of the literature cited above clearly same as delegating or sharing power with subor-
attests that empowerment is an emerging con- dinates and, hence, that the construct requires
struct used by theorists to explain organizational no further conceptual analysis beyond the power
effectiveness. The construct also has been widely concept. We believe that this approach has seri-
471
472
473
E-' a~ ~~~
U
co, 0
U-' U
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
0)
C4 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I
0~~~~~~~
~~~~4 n 0 n 0)-
11.1 0) V
i0 -0() 0 0 -
0 10-d u
-- 0 QC: '
47)5 p 0) 0
476
References
Abramson, L. Y., Garber, J., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1980) Bucher, R. (1970) Social process and power in a medical
Learned helplessness in humans: An attributional anal- school. In M. Zald (Ed.), Power in organizations (pp. 3-48).
ysis. In J. Garber & M. E. P. Seligman (Eds.), Human Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
helplessness: Theory and applications (pp. 3-34). New York:
Burke, W. (1986) Leadership as empowering others. In S.
Academic Press.
Srivastra (Ed.), Executive power (pp. 51-77). San Francisco:
Bacharach, S. B., &Lawler, E. J. (1980) Power and politics in Jossey-Bass.
organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J. (1986) Empowering leadership. Working paper,
Bandura, A. (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of McGill University, Montreal.
behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Crozier, M. (1964) The bureaucratic phenomenon. Chicago:
Bandura, A. (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: University of Chicago Press.
A social-cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall. Dahl, R. A. (1957) The concept of power. Behavioral Science,
Beckhard, R. (1969) Organization development: Strategies 2, 201-215.
and models. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1982) Corporate cultures. Reading,
Beer, M. (1980) Organizational change and development. MA: Addison-Wesley.
Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear. Deci, E. L. (1975) Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985) Leaders. New York: Harper & Emerson, R. M. (1962)Power-dependence relations. American
Row. Sociological Review, 27, 31-41.
Blau, P. M. (1964) Exchange and power in social life. New Etzioni, A. (1961) A comparative analysis of complex organi-
York: Wiley. zations. New York: Fress Press.
Block, P. (1987) The empowered manager. San Francisco: French, J., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959) The basis of social power.
Jossey-Bass. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167).
480
Strauss, G. (1977)Managerial practices. In I. R. Hackman & Weiner, B. (1985)An attributionaltheory of achievement mo-
L. I. Suttle (Eds.), Improving life at work: Behavioral sci-
tivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.
ence approaches to organizational change (pp. 297-363). Whetten, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (1984)Developing man-
Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear. agement skills. Glenview, IL:Scott, Foresman.
Szilagyi, A. D. (1980)Causal inferences between leader re- White, R. W. (1959)Motivationreconsidered: The concept of
ward behavior and subordinate goal attainment, ab- competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297-333.
senteeism, and work satisfaction. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 53, 195-204.
482