Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 13

Academy of Management

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

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Tue, 28 May 2013 19:03:15 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
0 Academy of Management Review, 1988,Vol. 13, No. 3, 471-482.

The Empowerment Process:


Integrating Theory and Practice
JAYA. CONGER
RABINDRAN. KANUNGO
McGill University
Despite increasing attention on the topic of empowerment, our under-
standing of the construct and its underlying processes remains limited.
This article addresses these shortcomings by providing an analytical
treatment of the construct and by integrating the diverse approaches
to empowerment found in both the management and psychology
literatures. In addition, the authors identify certain antecedent condi-
tions of powerlessness and practices that have been hypothesized to
empower subordinates.

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

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Tue, 28 May 2013 19:03:15 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ous flaws, as we will discuss in our article. In At the organizational level, the principal
addition, the contexts most appropriate for em- sources of an actor's power over an organization
powerment and the actual management prac- have been argued to be the actor's ability to
tices that foster empowerment are poorly under- provide some performance or resource that is
stood and catalogued. Our objective is to address valued by the organization or the actor's ability
these shortcomings by providing an analytical to cope with important organizational contingen-
treatment of the empowerment construct. We cies or problems (Pfeffer, 1982). For example, Cro-
have made an attempt to integrate the diverse zier (1964) demonstrated that maintenance work-
approaches to empowerment found in both the ers in a French factory had control over a critical
management and psychology literatures. In organizational contingency-the breakdown of
doing so, this article provides a framework for machinery-which was their source of power.
studying empowerment and demonstrates its Salancik and Pfeffer (1974) found that in universi-
relevance to management theory and practice. ties the degree of department power was related
to the number of contracts and grants obtained.
The Constructs of At the interpersonal level, the principal sources
Power and Empowerment of actor power over others are argued to be
In order to critically analyze the notion of em- (a) the office or structural position of the actor,
powerment in management practice, the root (b) the personal characteristics of the actor (e.g.,
constructs of power and control from which the referent power, French & Raven, 1959), (c) the
empowerment construct is derived must be con- expertise of the actor, and (d) the opportunity for
sidered. Essentially, control and power are used the actor to access specialized knowledge/infor-
in the literature in two different ways and, con- mation (Bacharach & Lawler, 1980). Depending
sequently, empowerment can be viewed in two on what resources actors control, their bases of
different ways. power have been identified as legal (control of
Empowerment as a Relational Construct. In office), coercive (control of punishment), remu-
the management and social influence literature, nerative (control of material rewards), norma-
power is primarily a relational concept used to tive (control of symbolic rewards), and know-
describe the perceived power or control that an ledge/expertise (control of information) (Bach-
individual actor or organizational subunit has arach & Lawler, 1980; Etzioni, 1961; French &
over others (Bacharach & Lawler, 1980; Crozier, Raven, 1959).
1964; Dahl, 1957; Hinings, Hickson, Pennings, & Implied in these theories are the assumptions
Schneck, 1974; Kotter, 1979; Parsons & Smelser, that organizational actors who have power are
1956; Pfeffer, 1981). Taking its emphasis from so- more likely to achieve their desired outcomes
cial exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Emerson, 1962; and actors who lack power are more likely to
Homans, 1974;Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), this litera- have their desired outcomes thwarted or redi-
ture interprets power as a function of the depen- rected by those with power. This orientation has
dence and/or interdependence of actors. Power led theorists to focus on the source or bases of
arises when an individual's or a subunit's perfor- actor power and on the conditions that promote
mance outcomes are contingent not simply on such dependence (Hills & Mahoney, 1978; Kotter,
their own behavior but on what others do and/or 1977, 1979; Lodahl & Gordon, 1972; Pfeffer, 1981;
in how others respond (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Salancik & Pfeffer, 1974, 1977). This focus also
The relative power of one actor over another is a has led to the development of strategies and tac-
product of the net dependence of the one on the tics of resource allocation for increasing the
other (Pfeffer, 1981). Therefore, if Actor A depends power of less powerful parties and reducing the
more on Actor B than B depends on A, then B power of more powerful ones (Bucher, 1970;
has power over A. Kotter, 1977, 1979;Mowday, 1978;Pettigrew, 1972;

472

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Tue, 28 May 2013 19:03:15 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Pfeffer, 1981; Plott & Levine, 1978; Salancik & used as motivational and/or expectancy belief-
Pfeffer, 1974; Selznick, 1949). states that are internal to individuals. For in-
If we consider empowerment in terms of this stance, individuals are assumed to have a need
relational dynamic, it becomes the process by for power (McClelland, 1975) where power con-
which a leader or manager shares his or her notes an internal urge to influence and control
power with subordinates. Power, in this context, other people. A related but more inclusive dis-
is interpreted as the possession of formal author- position to control and cope with life events also
ity or control over organizational resources. The has been proposed by several psychologists who
emphasis is primarily on the notion of sharing have dealt with the issues of primary/secondary
authority. Burke's (1986)position is representative: control (Rothbaum, Weisz, & Snyder, 1982),
"To empower, implies the granting of power- internal/external locus of control (Rotter, 1966),
delegation of authority" (p. 51). The Merriam and learned helplessness (Abramson, Garber,
Webster's Dictionary similarly describes the verb & Seligman, 1980). Individuals' power needs are
to empower as "to authorize or delegate or give met when they perceive that they have power or
legal power to someone." In the management when they believe they can adequately cope
literature, this idea of delegation and the decen- with events, situations, and/or the people they
tralization of decision-making power is central confront. On the other hand, individuals' power
to the empowerment notion (Burke, 1986; House, needs are frustrated when they feel powerless
in press; Kanter, 1983). As a result, we find that or when they believe that they are unable to
most of the management literature on empower- cope with the physical and social demands of
ment deals with participative management tech- environment.
niques such as management by objectives, Power in this motivational sense refers to an
quality circles, and goal setting by subordinates intrinsic need for self-determination (Deci, 1975)
as the means of sharing power or delegating or a belief in personal self-efficacy (Bandura,
authority. 1986). Under this conceptualization, power has
This manner of treating the notion of empower- its base within an actor's motivational disposition.
ment from a management practice perspective Any managerial strategy or technique that
is so common that often employee participation strengthens this self-determination need or self-
is simply equated with empowerment (Likert, efficacy belief of employees will make them feel
1961, 1967; McGregor, 1960). However, because more powerful. Conversely, any strategy that
this line of reasoning does not adequately address weakens the self-determination need or self-
the nature of empowerment as experienced by efficacy belief of employees will increase their
subordinates, it raises important questions. For feelings of powerlessness.
example, does the sharing of authority and re- In fact, the Oxford English dictionary defines
sources with subordinates automatically em- the verb empower as "to enable." In contrast
power them? Through what psychological me- to the earlier definition of empowerment as dele-
chanisms do participative and resource-sharing gation (of authority and resource sharing), ena-
techniques foster an empowering experience bling implies motivating through enhancing per-
among subordinates? Are participation and the sonal efficacy. In the management literature on
sharing of organizational resources the only power and empowerment, often both meanings
techniques for empowerment? Are the effects of are fused together, and their relationships to each
an empowering experience the same as the other are not clear. For instance, Whetten and
effects of delegation, participation, and resource Cameron (1984) alluded to power as both gain-
sharing? ing control over limited resources and as a sign
Empowerment as a Motivational Construct. In of personal efficacy. Likewise, Neilsen (1986) con-
the psychology literature, power and control are sidered empowerment both as giving subordi-

473

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Tue, 28 May 2013 19:03:15 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
nates resources and as increasing their sense of viewed in five stages that include the psychologi-
self-worth. However, Burke (1986) recognized the cal state of empowering experience, its anteced-
distinctiveness of the two meanings, but like most ent conditions, and its behavioral consequences.
management researchers preferred to use em- The five stages are shown in Figure 1.
powerment in the sense of delegation rather than The first stage is the diagnosis of conditions
in the sense of enabling. within the organization that are responsible for
We propose that empowerment be viewed as feelings of powerlessness among subordinates.
a motivational construct-meaning to enable This leads to the use of empowerment strategies
rather than simply to delegate. In McClelland's by managers in Stage 2. The employment of
(1975) research, empowerment also is viewed as these strategies is aimed not only at removing
an enabling, rather than a delegating, process. some of the external conditions responsible for
Enabling implies creating conditions for height- powerlessness, but also (and more important) at
ening motivation for task accomplishment through providing subordinates with self-efficacy infor-
the development of a strong sense of personal mation in Stage 3. As a result of receiving such
efficacy. We argue that delegating or resource information, subordinates feel empowered in
sharing is only one set of conditions that may Stage 4, and the behavioral effects of empower-
(but not necessarily) enable or empower subordi- ment are noticed in Stage 5.
nates. The process of delegation is too constrictive
The Empowering Experience
in scope to accommodate the complex nature of
empowerment. Thus, there are various other To conceptualize empowerment in motiva-
conditions of empowering besides delegation or tional terms, we prefer to use Bandura's self-
participation. Therefore, empowerment is de- efficacy notion (1986). Translated in terms of
fined here as a process of enhancing feelings Bandura's model, empowerment refers to a pro-
of self-efficacy among organizational members cess whereby an individual's belief in his or her
through the identification of conditions that foster self-efficacy is enhanced. To empower means
powerlessness and through their removal by both either to strengthen this belief or to weaken one's
formal organizational practices and informal belief in personal powerlessness. Personal effi-
techniques of providing efficacy information. cacy is sometimes postulated to stem from inter-
nal need-states such as the intrinsic need for self-
The Empowerment Process determination (Deci, 1975), the competence mo-
The need to empower subordinates becomes tive (White, 1959), the need for power (McClel-
critical when subordinates feel powerless. Thus land, 1975), and the need for self-actualization
it is important to identify conditions within orga- (Maslow, 1954). However, we prefer not to adopt
nizations that foster a sense of powerlessness the content or need theory approach to explain
among subordinates. Once these conditions are the phenomenon of empowerment. We assume
identified, empowerment strategies and tactics that everyone has an internal need for self-
can then be used to remove them. However, re- determination and a need to control and cope
moving external conditions is not always poss- with environmental demands. Differences in the
ible, and it may not be sufficient for subordi- strength of this need among individuals can be
nates to become empowered unless the strate- explained by analyzing the underlying motiva-
gies and tactics directly provide personal effi- tional process. We therefore follow the process
cacy information to them. Bandura (1986) sug- theory approach to empowerment as a motiva-
gested several sources from which individuals tional phenomena by relating it to expectancy
directly receive information about their personal (Lawler, 1973)and self-efficacy theories (Bandura,
efficacy, and these sources should be used in 1977, 1986).
developing empowerment strategies. Conceived According to expectancy theory, an indi-
this way, the process of empowerment can be vidual's motivation to increase his or her effort in
474

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Tue, 28 May 2013 19:03:15 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
10 ~~~~~~~9UU) 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
0 ~~~~~~~ -

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

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Tue, 28 May 2013 19:03:15 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
a given task will depend on two types of expecta- tices also may be useful in motivating subordi-
tions: (a) that their effort will result in a desired nates to persist despite difficult organizational/
level of performance and (b) that their perfor- environmental obstacles.
mance will produce desired outcomes. Bandura
Context Factors Leading to Powerlessness
(1986) referred to the former as the self-efficacy
expectation and the latter as the outcome expec- Management theorists have argued that spe-
tation. When individuals are empowered, their cific contextual factors contribute to the lowering
personal efficacy expectations are strengthened. of self-efficacy or personal power among organi-
However, their outcome expectations are not nec- zational members (Block, 1987; Conger, 1986;
essarily affected. They develop a sense of per- Kanter, 1979, 1983). Block (1987) described how
sonal mastery or a "can do" attitude regardless bureaucratic contexts and authoritarian manage-
of hopes for favorable performance outcomes. ment styles encouraged powerlessness by foster-
Empowering means enabling, and it implies rais- ing dependency, the denial of self-expression,
ing subordinates' convictions in their own effec- negative forms of manipulation, and less mean-
tiveness (successfully executing desired be- ingful organizational goals. According to Con-
havior) rather than raising subordinates' hopes ger (1986), conditions that lowered self-efficacy
for favorable performance outcomes. Even un- were found during major reorganizations, in
der conditions of failure to gain desired outcomes, start-up ventures, and in firms that had authori-
individuals may feel empowered if their efficacy tarian managers and demanding organizational
belief is reinforced by their leader's recognition goals. Kanter (1977, 1983) argued that organiza-
of their performance (i.e., "We may have lost to tional communication systems, network forming
competition, but I'm proud of your performance. arrangements, access to resources, and job de-
We will do better next time."). sign could contribute to employee powerlessness.
She noted primarily that
Behavioral Effects
people held accountable forthe resultsproduced
Empowerment as an enabling process affects by others, whose formalrole gives them the right
both initiation and persistence of subordinates' to command but who lack informal political
influence, access to resources, outside status,
task behavior. As Bandura (1977) pointed out: sponsorship, or mobilityprospects, are rendered
The strength of peoples' conviction in their own powerless in the organizations. They lack
effectiveness is likely to affect whether they control over their own fate and are dependent
would even try to cope with given situations. ... on others above them. (p. 186)
They get involved in activities and behave as- Examples of first-line supervisors, certain staff
suredly when they judge themselves capable of
handling situations that would otherwise be positions, women, and minorities were cited.
intimidating. . .. Efficacy expectations deter- In Table 1, we identify the principal contextual
mine how much effort people will expend and factors that contribute to the lowering of self-
how long they will persist in the face of obstacles efficacy beliefs in organizational members. These
and aversive experiences. (pp. 193-194) are organized into four categories: (a) organiza-
The behavioral outcomes are of special signifi- tional, (b) supervisory style, (c) reward systems,
cance to organizational leaders. Empowerment and (d) job design.
processes may allow leaders to lessen the emo- In terms of organizational factors, we hypothe-
tional impact of demoralizing organizational size that organizations that experience major
changes or to mobilize organizational members changes or transitions have an increased likeli-
in the face of difficult competitive challenges. hood of their employees experiehcing powerless-
These processes may enable leaders to set higher ness. These transitions may be spurred on by
performance goals, and they may help employ- financial emergencies, loss of key personnel, la-
ees to accept these goals. Empowerment prac- bor problems, significant technological changes,

476

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Tue, 28 May 2013 19:03:15 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Table 1 and rules may no longer be clearly defined. Re-
Context Factors Leading to Potential sponsibilities and power may shift dramatically.
Lowering of Self-Efficacy Belief Uncertainty may be experienced by a large part
of the organization. Certain functional areas,
divisions, or acquired companies may experi-
Organizational Factors ence disenfranchisement because they perceive
Significant organizational changes/transitions their responsibilities as being diminished or sub-
Start-up ventures
ordinated to others. Therefore, transitions pro-
Competitive pressures
Impersonal bureaucratic climate duce a period of disorientation (Tichy & Devanna,
Poor communications/network-forming systems 1986). As a result, major organizational changes
Highly centralized organizational resources may seriously challenge employees' sense of con-
trol and competence as they deal with the uncer-
Supervisory Style tainty of change and accept new responsibilities,
Authoritarian (high control) skills, and guidelines for action and behavior.
Negativism (emphasis on failures)
Lack of reason for actions/consequences
Start-up ventures can present similar condi-
tions of uncertainty that lead to lowered feelings
Reward Systems of self-efficacy for employees. During the initial
Noncontingency (arbitrary reward allocations) start-up phase, there may be uncertainty sur-
Low incentive value of rewards rounding the market potential for the company's
Lack of competence-based rewards products and services. This can translate into
Lack of innovation-based rewards lowered efficacy feelings among organizational
Job Design
members regarding their competence in direct-
ing and managing the organization. With a
Lack of role clarity
Lack of training and technical support
company's success and accompanying growth,
Unrealistic goals other conditions of powerlessness may be
Lack of appropriate authority/discretion fostered. As Greiner (1972) pointed out, employ-
Low task variety ees who are accustomed to informal organiza-
Limited participation in programs, meetings, decisions tional systems and relations may find the organi-
that have a direct impact on job performance
Lack of appropriate/necessary resources
zation and its systems becoming increasingly
Lack of network-forming opportunities formalized and impersonal. As control systems
Highly established work routines grow in importance, they may diminish em-
High rule structure ployees' sense of autonomy and responsibility.
Low advancement opportunities As the company grows, managers' responsibili-
Lack of meaningful goals/tasks
Limited contact with senior management
ties may increase, requiring them to attain skill
levels beyond their existing competencies. Prob-
lems may arise with role clarity and adequate
acquisition or merger activity, major changes in training for employees. Furthermore, as the firm
organizational strategy, rapid growth, and/or the grows, entrepreneurial executives may be reluc-
introduction of significant new products or new tant to relinquish control to subordinates.
management teams. In any case, these events Bureaucratic organizations are characterized
induce significant alterations in organizational by patriarchal management/employee contracts
structures, communication links, power and au- (Block, 1987)and direct member behavior through
thority relations, and the organization's goals, established rules and routines. These factors in-
strategies, and tactics. In these cases, existing hibit self-expression and limit autonomy. As
organizational norms and patterns of action are noted earlier, Block (1987) and Kanter (1983) ar-
likely to change (Nadler, 1980). As the organiza- gued that bureaucracy and "segmentalism" cre-
tion seeks new guidelines for action, its goals ate serious inequities in the distribution of organi-
477

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Tue, 28 May 2013 19:03:15 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
zational power and lead to a diminished sense devices are more likely to be empowering
of self-efficacy for employees. (Kanter, 1983).
Authoritarian management styles can strip Leadership and/or supervision practices that
control and discretion from subordinates, thereby are identified as empowering include (a) ex-
heightening the sense of powerlessness for em- pressing confidence in subordinates accompan-
ployees (Block, 1987; Conger, 1986). As Kanter ied by high performance expectations (Burke,
(1979) suggested, a satisfactory degree of discre- 1986; Conger, 1986; House, 1977, in press; Neil-
tion is important for fostering empowerment on sen, 1986), (b) fostering opportunities for subordi-
the job, and this discretion is something auto- nates to participate in decision making (Block,
cratic managers often remove. 1987; Burke, 1986; Conger, 1986; House 1977, in
The literature on reward systems (e.g., Kanter, press; Kanter, 1979; Neilsen, 1986; Strauss, 1977),
1979; Kanungo, 1987; Lawler, 1971, 1977; Vroom, (c) providing autonomy from bureaucratic con-
1964)and job design (e.g., Hackman, 1978; Hack- straint (Block, 1987;Kanter, 1979;House, in press),
man & Lawler, 1971;Hackman, Oldham, Janson, and (d) setting inspirational and/or meaningful
& Purdy, 1975) also describes conditions that goals (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Block, 1987; Burke,
lower the self-efficacy of organizational mem- 1986; McClelland, 1975; Tichy & Devanna, 1986).
bers. When organizations do not provide rewards It also has been suggested by House (in press)
that are valued by employees and when rewards that leaders/managers should be selected on the
are not offered for employee competence, initia- basis of their inclination to use power in a pos-
tive, and persistence in innovative job behavior, itive manner.
employees' sense of powerlessness increases It is argued that reward systems that empha-
(Sims, 1977; Szilagyi, 1980). Furthermore, when size innovative/unusual performance and high
jobs provide very little challenge and meaning incentive values foster a greater sense of self-
and when they involve role ambiguity, role efficacy (Kanter, 1979). Jobs that provide task
conflict, and role overload, employees' beliefs in variety, personal relevance, appropriate auton-
personal efficacy suffer. We argue that these con- omy and control, low levels of established rou-
textual factors should be the focal points for diag- tines and rules, and high advancement pros-
nosis and the interventions aimed at rectifying pects are more likely to empower subordinates
sources of powerlessness among employees. (Block, 1987;Kanter, 1979;Oldham, 1976;Strauss,
1977).
Empowerment Management Practices
These practices can be viewed from the differ-
Organizational theorists have proposed or ent perspectives of formal/organizational mecha-
identified a number of management practices nisms or individual/informal techniques. For
that heighten a sense of self-efficacy. At the or- example, when organizations engage in partici-
ganizational level, it has been suggested that pation programs, they establish formal systems
organizations design selection and training pro- that empower organizational members through
cedures to ensure requisite technical, linguistic, the sharing of formal power and authority. But
and social influence skills (House, in press; Mc- in order for this sharing of power to be effective
Clelland, 1975) and that company policies and at the individual level, employees must perceive
cultures emphasize self-determination, collabo- it as increasing their sense of self-efficacy-
ration over conflict/competition, high perfor- something a manager can accomplish through
mance standards, nondiscrimination, and meri- more informal practices.
tocracy (House, in press). In addition, organi-
zations that provide multiple sources of loosely Sources of Self-Efficacy Information
committed resources at decentralized or local In order to be effective, the empowerment prac-
levels, that structure open communications sys- tices outlined above must directly provide infor-
tems, and that create extensive network-forming mation to employees about their personal effi-
478

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Tue, 28 May 2013 19:03:15 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
cacy. Bandura (1977, 1986) identified four sources Words of encouragement, verbal feedback,
of such information: enactive attainment, vicari- and other forms of social persuasion often are
ous experience, verbal persuasion, and emo- used by leaders, managers, and group mem-
tional arousal state. Examples of empowerment bers to empower subordinates and co-workers
techniques under each efficacy information cate- (Conger, 1986). According to Bandura (1986),
gory are presented below. "People who are persuaded verbally that they
Information in personal efficacy through enac- possess the capabilities to master given tasks are
tive attainment refers to an individual's authen- likely to mobilize greater sustained effort than if
tic mastery experience directly related to the job. they harbor self-doubts and dwell on personal
When subordinates perform complex tasks or are deficiencies when difficulties arise" (p. 400). Deal
given more responsibility in their jobs, they have and Kennedy (1982) described how Mary Kay
the opportunity to test their efficacy. Initial suc- Ash, president of Mary Kay Cosmetics, used an-
cess experiences (through successively moder- nual sales meetings as forums for praising and
ate increments in task complexity and responsi- encouraging the exceptional performance of or-
bility along with training to acquire new skills) ganizational members. However, the effect that
make one feel more capable and, therefore, persuasion has on strengthening personal effi-
empowered. For example, managers can struc- cacy expectations is likely to be weaker than ef-
ture organizational change programs in such a fects developed from one's own accomplish-
way that initial objectives are sufficiently attain- ments.
able and subordinates are able to execute them Finally, one's personal competence expecta-
successfully (Beer, 1980). tions are affected by one's emotional arousal
The feeling of being empowered also can come state. Emotional arousal states that result from
from the vicarious experiences of observing sim- stress, fear, anxiety, depression, and so forth,
ilar others (i.e., co-workers) who perform suc- both on and off the job, can lower self-efficacy
cessfully on the job. During job training, model- expectations. Individuals are more likely to feel
ing techniques often are used to empower em- competent when they are not experiencing strong
ployees. Very often, a supervisor's exemplary aversive arousal. Empowerment techniques and
behaviors empower subordinates to believe that strategies that provide emotional support for sub-
they can behave in a like manner or that they ordinates and that create a supportive and trust-
can at least achieve some improvement in their ing group atmosphere (Neilsen, 1986) can be
performance. For example, Bennis and Nanus more effective in strengthening self-efficacy
(1985), in their study of leaders, described how beliefs. An example of such behavior is found in
William Kieschnick, president of ARCO, leamed Kidder's Soul of a New Machine (1981) in which a
to be an innovative risk taker through the model- Data General manager, Tom West, provided ef-
ing of leaders he served under (p. 204). Vicari- fective emotional and group support that ensured
ous efficacy information, however, is not as effec- the completion of an extremely difficult computer
tive in empowering subordinates as enactive project. On many occasions, employees' stress,
attainment experience. But as Bandura (1986) anxiety, and tension on the job can be reduced
suggested, modeling effects can have a signifi- by managers clearly defining employees' roles,
cant impact on efficacy expectation: reducing information overload, and offering them
People convinced vicariously of their inefficacy technical assistance to accomplish job tasks. The
are inclined to behave in ineffectual ways that, impact that depression and self-doubt have on
in fact, generate confirmatory behavioral evi- subordinates as a result of their failure on the
dence of inability. Conversely, modeling influ- job could be lessened by their attributing this
ences that enhance perceived self-efficacy can
weaken the impact of direct experiences of fail- failure to external and unstable factors such as
ure by sustaining performance in the face of task difficulty, inadequate support systems, and
repeated failures. (p. 400) so forth, rather than attributing it to their efforts
479

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Tue, 28 May 2013 19:03:15 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
or abilities (Weiner, 1985). These techniques as- appropriate intervention strategies. In addition,
sist in the empowering process by reducing the they should investigate and test the effect em-
negative effects of aversive emotional arousal powerment has on specific behaviors, such as
on the development of self-efficacy beliefs. initiation and persistence.
Finally, a more direct link between empower-
ment practices and leadership should be studied.
Conclusions Empowerment may prove to be a vital form of
Although empowerment has been discussed influence for leaders attempting to induce and
by several management scholars, little empiri- manage organizational change. Field research
cal work has been performed. This may be be- directed at this aim could contribute significantly
cause of an inadequate conceptualization of the to our understanding of effective leadership.
process. The process we have described may Although we have focused on the positive ef-
provide a useful framework for researchers. Our fects of empowerment, it is conceivable that such
discussion suggests some important new direc- management practices may have negative ef-
tions for research on empowerment. First, the fects. Specifically, empowerment might lead to
effectiveness of the model should be tested. overconfidence and, in turn, misjudgments on
Specifically, the concept of self-efficacy should the part of subordinates. Because of this sense of
be further operationalized and tested. Because false confidence in positive outcomes, organiza-
Bandura's (1986) research was conducted mainly tions might persist in efforts that are, in actuality,
in therapeutic settings, direct links to organiza- tactical or strategic errors. It is important that
tional contexts should be drawn. Researchers future researchers investigate the possibilities of
also should investigate and validate the proposed such effects and discern whether or not a system
antecedent conditions of powerlessness and the of checks and balances could be developed.

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

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Tue, 28 May 2013 19:03:15 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Likert, R. (1961) New patterns of management. New York:
Research. McGraw-Hill.
Greiner, L. (1972)Evolutionand revolution as organizations Likert, R. (1967) The human organization. New York:
grow. Harvard Business Review, 50(4), 37-46. McGraw-Hill.
Hackman, J. R. (1978) The design of work in the 1980's. Lodahl,J., &Gordon,G. (1972)The structureof scientificfields
Organizational Dynamics, 7(1), 3-17. and the functioning of university graduate departments.
American Sociological Review, 37, 57-72.
Hackman,J. R., &Lawler, E. E. (1971)Employee reactions to
job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology Mono- Maslow, A. H. (1954) Motivation and personality. New York:
graph, 55, 259-286. Harper.
Hackman,J. R., Oldham, G. R., Janson,R., &Purdy,K. (1975) McClelland, D. C. (1975)Power: The inner experience. New
New strategy for job enrichment. CaliforniaManagement York:IrvingtonPress.
Review, 17(4),57-71.
McGregor, D. (1960) The human side of enterprise. New York:
Hills, F. S., & Mahoney, T. A. (1978)Universitybudgets and McGraw-Hill.
organizational decision making. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 23, 454-465. Mowday, R. (1978) The exercise of upward influence in
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 137-
Hinings, C. R., Hickson, D. J., Pennings, J. M., & Schneck, 156.
R. E. (1974) Conditions of intra-organizational power.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 378-397. Nadler, D. (1980) Concepts for the management of organiza-
tional change. New York: Organizational Research &
Homans, A. (1974) Social behavior: Its elementary forms. Consulting, Inc.
New York:HarcourtBrace Jovanovich.
Neilsen, E. (1986)Empowerment strategies: Balancing au-
House, R. J.(1977)A 1976theory of charismaticleadership. In thorityand responsibility. In S. Srivastra (Ed.), Executive
J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting power (pp. 78-110). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
edge (pp. 189-207).Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univer-
sity Press. Oldham, G. R. (1976)The motivational strategies used by
House, R. J. (in press) Power and personality in complex supervisors' relationships to effectiveness indicators.
organizations. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15,
Research in organizational behavior: An annual review of 66-86.
critical essays and reviews. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Parsons, T., & Smelser, N. J. (1956)Economy and society.
Kanter, R. M. (1979)Power failure in management circuits. New York:Free Press.
Harvard Business Review, 57(4), 65-75. Pettigrew, A. M. (1972)Informationcontrol as a power re-
Kanter,R. M. (1983)The change masters. New York:Simon source. Sociology, 6, 187-204.
& Schuster. Pfeffer, J. (1981) Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA:
Kanungo, R. N. (1987)Reward management: A new look. In Pitman.
S. L. Dolan & R. S. Schuler (Eds.), Canadian readings in Pfeffer, J. (1982) Organizations and organizational theory.
personnel and human resource managements (pp. 261- Marshfield,MA:Pitman.
275). St. Paul: West.
Plott, C. R., & Levine, M. E. (1978)A model of agenda influ-
Kidder,T. (1981)Soul of a new machine. Boston:Little,Brown. ence on committee decisions. American Economic Review,
Kotter,J. P. (1977)Power, dependence, and effective man- 68, 146-160.
agement. Harvard Business Review, 55(4), 125-136. Rothbaum,F. M., Weisz, J. R., &Snyder, S. S. (1982)Chang-
Kotter,J. P. (1979)Power in management. New York:Ama- ing the world and changing self: A two process model of
com. perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 42, 5-37.
Lawler, E. E., I (1971)Pay and organizational effectiveness:
A psychological view. New York: McGraw-Hill. Rotter,J. B. (1966)Generalized expectancies for internal ver-
sus external controlof reinforcement.Psychological Mono-
Lawler, E. E., III (1973) Motivation in work organizations. graphs, 80 (1, Whole No. 609).
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Lawler, E. E., II (1977)Reward systems. In J. R. Hackman & Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1974)The bases and use of
L. J. Suttle (Eds.), Improving life at work: Behavioral sci- power in organizational decision making: The case of a
ence approaches to organizational change (pp. 163-226). university.Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 453-473.
Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear. Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977)Who gets power-and
481

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Tue, 28 May 2013 19:03:15 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
how they hold on to it: A strategic-contingency model of Tannenbaum,A. S. (1968)Controlin organizations.New York:
power. Organizational Dynamics, 5(3), 3-21. McGraw-Hill.
Selznick, P. (1949) TVA and the grass roots. Berkeley: Univer- Thibault,J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959)The social psychology
sity of Califomia Press. of groups. New York:Wiley.
Sims, H. P. (1977)The leader as a manager of reinforcement Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986)The transformational
contingencies. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leader- leader. New York:Wiley.
ship: The cutting edge (pp. 121-137).Carbondale: South-
ern IllinoisUniversityPress. Vroom,V. H. (1964)Workand motivation. New York:Wiley.

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.

Jay A. Conger (D.B.A., Harvard University)is Assis-


tant Professor of Organizational Behavior, Faculty of
Management, McGill University.Correspondence re-
garding this article can be sent to him at: McGill
University,Faculty of Management, 1001Sherbrooke
Street West, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3A 1G5.
RabindraN. Kanungo (Ph.D.,McGillUniversity)is Pro-
fessor of OrganizationalBehavior,Faculty of Manage-
ment, McGill University.

482

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Tue, 28 May 2013 19:03:15 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi