Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
An Apprenticeship Model
John Fox
Abstract
This thesis examines the topic of employee empowerment and seeks to provide a model for its
implementation which addresses needs identified in the literature but insufficiently addressed
previously. Empowerment is defined as a process whereby: a culture of empowerment is
developed, information is shared, competency is developed, and resources and support are
provided. Each of the components of empowerment—culture, information sharing, competency
development, resource provision, and support—is examined in detail as addressed in the
literature. The benefits of employee empowerment are noted, and objections to it are addressed.
Theoretical foundations of employee empowerment are examined in an extensive literature
review.
A model for understanding and implementing employee empowerment is provided based
upon the precepts of apprenticeship. The apprenticeship model suggests that employees be
viewed first as apprentices while their skills and knowledge within a given task set are
developing, then as journeypersons through continued development, and finally as masters of
their craft. An assessment of organizational empowerment is provided and training responses
based upon this assessment are suggested.
Acknowledgements
Dr. Sandra Morgan. Every time I talked to her it was like moving to a higher plane of
intellectual existence. Sandra is down-to-earth person with deep empathy, an infectious
enthusiasm, and an enviable intellect. Someday I hope to be like my friend and teacher, Sandra
Morgan.
Dr. Mel Donoghue, who taught several of my core courses. Mel's comfort in the classroom
and emphasis on creativity are inspirational. Her friendship is one I cherish.
My colleagues in the Office of Residential Life at the University of Hartford, without who's
support over the past five years I could not have completed my course of study. I especially
appreciate their tolerance of my absence while writing this thesis.
Jean Long—without her advice and counsel I may never have completed this work.
And most especially, my wife, Kathleen Fox. By agreeing to live far from home and in
student residence halls for the past seven years, K has been my biggest supporter in my effort to
attain a degree. It is she who introduced me to the concept of empowerment and who was my
first teacher on the subject. It is she who has tolerated my stress response during the completion
of this thesis. It is for her and our future life together that I have made the effort.
Dedication
To
Kathleen G. Fox
Table of Contents
Abstract
Acknowledgements
Dedication
Introduction
Literature Review
Definition of Empowerment
Benefits of Empowerment
Objections Overcome
A Culture of Empowerment
Management Role
Information Sharing
Developing Competency
Importance of Resources
Sufficient Support
Theoretical Foundations
Implementation Timeframe
Situational Implementation
Assessment
Journeyperson level
Master level
Training Responses
Introduction
Employee empowerment is one of those terms that everyone thinks they understand, but few
really do. Ask a dozen different people and you'll get a dozen different answers to the question,
"What is employee empowerment?". In fact, research a dozen organizational theorists and you'll
get as many answers to the same question. This paper seeks to answer that question in a way that
it can be understood by a greater number of people. Some writers indicate that empowerment
consists of sharing power and authority. Others say that empowerment occurs when the
organization's processes are set-up to allow for it. If you keep in mind the secondary dictionary
definition of "to give faculties or abilities to: enable" (Grove, 1971, p.744), with all that this
word implies, then you will be on the right track for the purposes of this paper.
This paper also seeks to answer the question above in such a way that people who work
within organizations can apply the information to enhance employee empowerment. "Why
would we want to enhance employee empowerment?" you may be asking. That detailed answer
will be provided in the in the literature review section under the heading "benefits of employee
empowerment". However, it has been shown that employee empowerment results in increased
employee satisfaction, increased productivity, and increased customer satisfaction.
"Aren't there some strong objections to the implementation of an empowerment program
which must be overcome if we are to receive these benefits?" The short answer is yes.
Empowerment, if it is to be implemented effectively, calls for a culture change for the typical
organization. Leaders must learn to be visionaries who can provide an idea to which employees
will want to dedicate themselves. Supervisors must change their ways of supervising and learn
to be coaches and mentors. All members of the organization must dedicate themselves to sharing
information and to training. Each of these issues will be addressed in turn.
Since this is an academic paper, I would be remiss if I did not include a section on the
theoretical foundations upon which the concepts of employee empowerment are built. While
there are few theorists who have delved very deeply into what makes up empowerment, what
they have mined is rich. There are more researchers who have attempted to provide a framework
for what they have observed; their ideas which have merit will be addressed.
Implementation of empowerment programs seems to be the biggest challenge organizations
face. The popular press often writes about "failed" empowerment efforts. What has become
evident to me is that there are some speed bumps on the road to empowerment; often these so
called failures are only rough patches which will be overcome. However, it is also evident that
the implementation often takes years, especially if the organization has a bureaucratic culture. It
also seems that empowerment implementation efforts are often haphazard. By providing an
easily understood definition of empowerment, some information about what must take place, an
assessment of how empowering your workplace is, and a model for implementation based upon
what is commonly understood as an apprenticeship system, I hope to address unmet needs with
this paper.
Literature Review
Definition of Empowerment
The common dictionary definition of empowerment, "to give official authority to: delegate
legal power to: commission, authorize" (Grove, 1971, p. 744) is the one most understood by
most people. As an example, Gandz (1990) writes, "Empowerment means that management
vests decision-making or approval authority in employees where, traditionally, such authority
was a managerial prerogative." (p. 75) However, this is not the definition of what is usually
called employee empowerment. One author notes empowerment is, "easy to define in its
absence—alienation, powerless, helplessness—but difficult to define positively because it 'takes
on a different form in different people and contexts'" (Zimmerman, 1990, p.169). When most
people refer to employee empowerment they mean a great deal more than delegation. It is for
this reason that many authors provide their own definitions.
Some of these are vague, and meant to be so. Block (1987) describes empowerment as "a
state of mind as well as a result of position, policies, and practices." (p. 65) One has to read an
entire chapter to understand what he means when he says,
"To feel empowered means several things. We feel our survival is in our own hands. . . .We
have an underlying purpose. . . .We commit ourselves to achieving that purpose, now." (Block,
1987, p. 65). Other authors (Blanchard, Carlos & Randolph, 1996; Blanchard & Bowles, 1998)
use their entire book to define empowerment. Still others provide an excellent perspective of
effective empowerment without mentioning the word even once (Freedman, 1998).
Other author provided definitions are simplistic on the surface, but have far greater
implications than a first reading would suggest. For example, Caudron (1995) articulates
empowerment as, "when employees 'own' their jobs; when they are able to measure and
influence their individual success as well as the success of their departments and their
companies." (p.28) The casual reader may think that owning one's job is what the postal
worker's union seeks to provide their members. Most would agree, however, that job security is
not empowerment. Many employees must measure their jobs by submitting reports. Seeking
one's own individual success is what the American dream is all about. And knowing that one
makes a contribution to the success of the department and the company is a given in all but the
largest organizations. It is only when these ideas are taken together in one package that they
approach a definition of employee empowerment. Ettorre's (1997) definition of empowerment
as, "employees having autonomous decision-making capabilities and acting as partners in the
business, all with an eye to the bottom-line" (p.1) is more accessible to many readers. While
many employees understand their contribution to the work at hand, how many know their
contribution to the bottom line?
It is this essential ingredient, information with which to make decisions, from which
empowerment is created. Bowen and Lawler (1992) indicate, "We define empowerment as
sharing with front-line employees four organizational ingredients: [the first being] information
about the organization's performance. . . .[another is] knowledge that enables employees to
understand and contribute to organizational performance" (p. 32). The other two ingredients
Bowen and Lawler note are, "rewards based on the organization's performance [and] power to
make decisions that influence organizational direction and performance." In a later article these
authors conclude that, "research suggests that empowerment exists when companies implement
practices that distribute power, information, knowledge, and rewards throughout the
organization." (Bowen & Lawler, 1995, p. 73) The authors go on to note that, "if any of the four
elements is zero, nothing happens to redistribute that ingredient, and empowerment will be zero."
(Bowen & Lawler, 1995, p. 74)
Another author uses this type of combination of concepts to define empowerment. Spreitzer
(1995) indicates, "psychological empowerment is defined as a motivational construct manifested
in four cognitions: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact. Together these four
cognitions reflect an active, rather than a passive, orientation toward a work role." (p. 1442).
Spreitzer notes, "the four dimensions are argued to combine additively to create an overall
construct of psychological empowerment. In other words, the lack of any single dimension will
deflate, though not completely eliminate, the overall degree of felt empowerment." (p. 1442)
This additive construct is distinct from Bowen & Lawler 's (1995) construct noted above which
is multiplicative, indicating that the absence of any one of their four elements (power,
information, knowledge, and rewards) will completely eliminate empowerment.
Researchers tend to provide definitions of the concept of empowerment which reflect
observed end results or their research into concepts which are known and are or may be
precursors to empowerment. In his 1995 dissertation, Menon indicates, "the empowered state
was defined as a cognitive state of perceived control, perceived competence and goal
internalization. . . .The empirical results supported the view that empowerment is a construct
conceptually distinct from other constructs such as delegation, self-efficacy and intrinsic task
motivation.". In this case the constructs of delegation, self-efficacy and intrinsic task motivation
are known quantities, each with its own previously tested validity. Conger and Kanungo (1988)
note in their literature review that, "scholars have assumed that empowerment. . . .[is] the process
by which a leader or manager shares his or her power with subordinates. Power, in this context,
is interpreted as the possession of formal authority or control over organizational resources. . .
.This manner of treating the notion of empowerment from a management practice perspective is
so common that often employee participation is simply equated with empowerment." (p. 471).
However, they also note, " We believe that this approach has serious flaws." (p. 471) Instead,
the authors offer this definition, "empowerment is. . . a process of enhancing feelings of self-
efficacy among organizational members through the identification of conditions that foster
powerlessness and through their removal by both formal organizational practices and informal
techniques of providing efficacy information." (Conger & Kanungo, 1988, p. 474). Implied here
are new roles for managers and supervisors, that is, removing conditions that foster
powerlessness and providing feedback about performance, in other words mentoring.
Other researchers have attempted to classify what has been written and practiced previously,
and found it lacking. Quinn and Spreitzer (1997) provide two such classifications. In the,
"mechanistic approach" (p. 38) managers and researchers "believed that empowerment was about
delegating decision making within a set of clear boundaries. . . . Delegate responsibility; and
Hold people accountable for results." (p. 37) In the, "organic approach to empowerment" (p. 37)
researchers and managers "believed that it [empowerment] was about risk taking, growth, and
change. . . .understanding the needs of the employees; model empowered behavior for the
employees; build teams to encourage cooperative behavior; encourage intelligent risk taking; and
trust people to perform." (p. 38) However, they found these two approaches lacking; some
combination of the two was needed. In the end, they indicate, "empowerment must be defined in
terms of fundamental beliefs and personal orientations. . . . Empowered people have a sense of
self-determination. . . .Empowered people have a sense of meaning. . . .Empowered people have
a sense of competence. . . . empowered people have a sense of impact." (Quinn & Spreitzer,
1997, p. 40)
The most comprehensive definition of empowerment in the literature can be found in Thomas
and Velthouse's 1990 article entitled "Cognitive elements of empowerment: An 'interpretive'
model of intrinsic task motivation". The definition they provide is:
To empower means to give power to. Power, however, has several meanings…authority, so that
empowerment can mean authorization. . . .capacity. . . .However, power also means energy.
Thus to empower also can mean to energize. This latter meaning best captures the present
motivational usage of the term. Our perception is that the word empowerment has become
popular because it provides a label for a nontraditional paradigm of motivation. . . .change [has]
forced a search for alternative forms of management that encourage commitment, risk-taking,
and innovation. . . .the newer paradigm involves relaxed (or broad) controls and an emphasis on
internalized commitment to the task itself. . . .We use the word empowerment to refer to the
motivational content of this newer paradigm of management. (p. 667)
In her excellent literature review of employee empowerment, Linda Honold indicates, "to be
successful, each organization must create and define it [empowerment] for itself. Empowerment
must address the needs and culture of each unique entity." (Honold, 1997, p. 202) It is in this
spirit that I offer my own definition of empowerment. I have drawn on several of the authors
noted above and below for concepts. I will provide credit in the appropriate sections below.
Benefits of Empowerment
Objections Overcome
Management's fear of letting employees make decisions which can impact the profitability of
the company is a major factor in the ineffectiveness of many empowerment programs, and yet is
still a major objection. Even Kanter (1979) who, as noted above, is often cited as providing
evidence of the effectiveness of empowerment indicates,
One might wonder why more organizations do not adopt such empowering strategies. There are
standard answers: that giving up control is threatening to people who have fought for every
shred of it; that people do not want to share power with those they look down on; that managers
fear losing their own place and special privileges in the system…and so forth. But I would also
put skepticism about employee abilities high on the list. (p. 74)
This objection can be overcome if the managers in question can be assured that the employees
are ready for the level of authority being placed with them.
The apprenticeship model emphasizes the growth and training of the employee into readiness
to be empowered. Only when employees are trained in the ramifications of their actions and are
able to see the big picture should they be allowed and encouraged to make decisions. The role of
the supervisor is as mentor and coach. The worker must be given the opportunity to make
decisions about less significant things and then the outcomes of these decisions reviewed so that
learning can occur.
For example, when residential life staff members at the University of Hartford plan a bar-b-
que meal for the residents of a building they are given a budget and encouraged to shop for
sufficient food to feed the number of people expected. If the worker has little experience, a list
of items to purchase is discussed prior to the shopping trip, however the quantity and brand
selection are left to the worker so that the budget can be maximized in the store. A common
mistake less experienced workers make is purchasing brand-name soda in cans. This is a very
expensive way to ensure that drinks are available. As a result less food is able to be purchased
within the budget provided. The worker learns that brand-name canned soda is quickly drunk by
the people who arrive first and then no drinks are available to later attendees. It is better to buy
inexpensive soda in bulk bottles, or some sort of drink mix, than to provide brand-name soda
because it meets the need and does not inspire greed. This lesson is best learned through direct
experience and review of the results with the supervisor. Being told this reality is not nearly as
effective.
Just as we would not expect a person with an associate's degree to articulate ground-breaking
new theories in their field; so too we should not expect untrained employees to make decisions
which affect the bottom line. The manager who has been involved in the training of the worker
will have greater confidence that the worker will make a decision which is in the best interests of
the company. The benefit of empowerment is that it allows each employee to bring his or her
experience and creativity to bear on the decision.
Middle managers often object to employee empowerment because they perceive that the
effort will take power away from them. The view is, as Blanchard & Bowles (1998) indicate,
"Managers must…give up the levers of control they've worked a lifetime to get hold of". I call
this the "hazing theory of management". One of the reasons initiation activities and hazing are
still a part of many fraternal organizations is that the current members want the opportunity to do
onto others as was done onto them. If, as a pledging member, they had to run errands for the
brothers then they want the opportunity to have pledges run errands for them once they become
brothers. Running errands are the "dues" pledges must pay in order to join the brotherhood.
Working for the organization for years and being subjected to the decisions of others are the
"dues" middle managers have paid to obtain their positions.
This type of thinking is called zero sum change. That is, in order for you (the worker) to gain
something I (the manager) must lose an equivalent amount of that thing, in other words, win-lose
thinking. In order for an employee empowerment implementation to be successful, managers
with this objection must change their attitude. Ward (1996) asks the questions these managers
might ask, "How can I give up control when I am accountable for the results? How can I give
greater decision-making authority to employees, yet ensure the results are of good quality and
are consistent with corporate objectives? How can I manage the empowerment process so
employees feel the project is their own?" (p. 21).
The answer to these questions, and the way this needed change is accomplished through
training. Managers must see that they still have a role despite authority being shared with
empowered employees. This new role is as mentor, coach, and facilitator. Training should be
provided for each aspect of this role. Acting as mentor comes easily to some people, however
others have difficulty seeing themselves as able to offer anything beyond direction. Proper
training can show the reluctant mentor how to improve his or her skills. Coaching is another
skill some people have difficulty with. Again, training is called for in this instance. Because
empowered employees often are formed into self-managing teams they often need someone to
facilitate their discussions until this skill is developed among the members of the group—this
initially becomes the role of the manager. Later on, as cross-functional teams are formed, the
manager's facilitation skills are called for again. Many managers will require training to enhance
their ability to facilitate discussions.
Managers who take on these new roles of mentor, coach, and facilitator begin to recognize
that they are still needed. A new win-win attitude replaces the old win-lose attitude in those
managers who are successful at implementation of empowerment. As the benefits of
empowering employees become apparent, the properly trained manager will become a strong
proponent of empowerment—he or she will recognize the value inherent in taking advantage of
everyone's experience and creativity. If one accepts the premise that empowered employees are
more satisfied with their jobs, and the premise that satisfied employees result in satisfied
customers, then logic dictates that managers will seek empowerment opportunities in an effort to
grow the business and increase revenues.
Bowen & Lawler (1992) note other objections which are raised by management as a result of
these proposed changes, "a greater dollar investment in selection and training. . . . higher labor
costs. . . . slower or inconsistent service delivery. . . . violations of 'fair play'. . . . giveaways and
bad decisions." (p.34-35). Still other management objections are noted by Conger & Kanungo
(1988), "Specifically, empowerment might lead to overconfidence and, in turn, misjudgments on
the part of subordinates." (p.480). These objections are valid in some respects; proper training
will overcome some of them, but not all. However I believe the benefits of employee
empowerment outweigh the detriments.
Union leaders often express some of the same reservations regarding employee empowerment
as do middle managers. Most union contracts call for seniority as the guiding principle for
increased benefits. If one perceives decision-making authority as a benefit, then the union will
argue that those with the most seniority should receive it before those with less. If a team is
made up of employees of varying seniority, and all are empowered to make decisions after
simultaneous training then the union may object to less senior members receiving a benefit at the
same time as more senior members.
Unions perceive that their power comes from collective bargaining with management on
behalf of the workers. Employee empowerment breaks down barriers to communication
between individual workers and the organization's management thereby reducing the role of the
union. It has been my experience that unions object when their roles are reduced.
Both of these objections may be valid. Both call for a shift in the focus of the union and an
emphasis on new roles. Instead of using seniority as a guiding principle, unions may be
convinced of the increased organizational viability resulting from a guiding principle of ability.
That is, those with the greatest skills, rather than those with the longest tenure, should receive
benefits first. Most managers, I think, would agree that what is best for the organization to
continue its competitive position is a greater focus on ability over seniority. Unions are in the
business of ensuring jobs for their members. If union jobs are lost because an organization goes
out of business as a result of inflexibility on the seniority versus ability issue, then the union has
not been successful. If, however, the union changes its focus to ability, and the organization
grows, more jobs will be created.
Beyond the issue of seniority versus flexibility, unions can change the focus of their efforts
from communicating with management on behalf of employees to providing training and pre-
qualification of skill-sets for an empowered workforce. Trade unions already serve this function;
witness the carpentry trade. The carpenter's union provides training opportunities for apprentice
carpenters, and the union bestows journeyperson and master status onto workers who have
completed established parameters. These parameters may be number of hours on the job,
completion of training programs, demonstration of skills and abilities, etc. A union contract for a
given job will call for a set number of master level, journeyperson level, and apprentice level
carpenters; the union is then able to provide appropriately trained individuals to fill the positions
available. This could be the case for other unions as well. For example, a manufacturer might
have need for workers skilled in a specific process. The union runs a training program which
teaches workers the skills needed for this process and certifies their level of training. Workers
are then assigned to work on this process based upon their level of training and upon that which
is needed at that time.
Employees, too, sometimes object to empowerment efforts. Aeppel (1997) noted that one of
the complaints by Eaton employees is the responsibility the group has for each individual, "with
everyone watching everyone else, it can feel like having a hundred bosses" (p.1) Another
common employee objection is that they don't want any more responsibility than they already
have. My experience is that an employee with this complaint is already not sufficiently
motivated, and some management response is called for. Perhaps she or he is not aware of the
benefits which accrue to the organization because of her or his work. Perhaps the employee
lacks the understanding that purposeful work is often less demanding than what she or he may
already be doing. Perhaps there are difficulties in other aspects of that employee's life which
could benefit from timely intervention by a caring supervisor. In any case, it is likely that this
objection can be overcome.
Conger and Kanungo (1988) raise the possibility of, "major organizational changes…
seriously challenge[ing] employees' sense of control and competence as they deal with the
uncertainty of change and accept new responsibilities, skills, and guidelines for action and
behavior." (p. 477). Bridges (1991) indicates, "Stability through change demands clarity about
what you are trying to do. . . .[there must be] a clear sense in people's minds of how their
activities contribute to the entire undertaking." (p. 76). It is the responsibility of the leader to
provide the vision which assists employees to have this peace of mind.
At the Eaton plant noted above, an additional objection is, "The plant's emphasis on fitting
into the group can seem almost cultish. . . .Some people do well with all the physical aspects of
the work, but fall short by other measures--such as their communications skills." (Aeppel, 1997,
p. 1). In response to this objection I bow to the more articulate Linda Honold (1997) who states,
"The critiques of employee empowerment emanate from what appears to be half-hearted
attempts by employers that allow for a very limited degree of decision making and control by
employees." (p. 210).
A Culture of Empowerment
An organization's culture is a complex thing, not easily described. Yet it is upon this
foundation that empowerment is built. The organizations which successfully implement
employee empowerment will have certain values at their core from which the process of
empowerment can flow. Among these values are respect and appreciation for individuals and
the value they bring to the organization. Values alone do not make up an organization's culture,
and respect for individuals is only one of the outward signs of an empowered culture.
Edgar Schein defines organizational culture as,
a pattern of basic assumptions—invented, discovered, or developed by a given group as it learns
to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration—that has worked well
enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to
perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. (Schein, 1985, p. 9)
However coherent this definition seems, the concept is much more complex. Schein uses the
bulk of his book Organizational Culture and Leadership to provide a more complete
understanding of what culture really is. Such in depth study of this single concept is beyond the
scope of this paper and I would refer the reader to Schein's book for a deeper understanding.
Nonetheless, the culture of the organization must support the thrust of empowerment if there
is any chance for success. I am resolved to discuss the "'artifacts' and 'values' that are the
manifestations or surface levels of the culture" (Schein, 1985, p. 6-7) since that is within the
scope of this thesis. Other authors try to get at this essence that is organizational culture which
must be supportive for empowerment to succeed. By Schein's definition, they tend to focus on
the surface manifestations, though several try to imply the greater depth.
For example, Quinn and Spreitzer (1997) indicate, "empowerment must be defined in terms
of fundamental beliefs and personal orientations" (p. 40), which is an apt description of
organizational culture. Yet they go on to note the manifestations, "Empowered people have a
sense of self-determination. . . .Empowered people have a sense of meaning. . . .Empowered
people have a sense of competence. . . . Empowered people have a sense of impact." (Quinn &
Spreitzer, 1997, p. 40). Other manifestations these authors note in an earlier article include,
"actual barriers to change present …and the social support available to the manager from his/her
boss and peers." (Spreitzer & Quinn, 1996, p. 239), these barriers are aspects of culture. Another
example is provided by Gandz (1990), "A set of shared values is needed. . . .beliefs about the
way things should be done, the standards of behavior that are appropriate, the ethics of
organizational actions. . . .Such values compel and propel behavior" (p. 75)—significant cultural
artifacts which will lead to empowerment.
Ford and Fottler (1995) provide a model of how empowered an individual is on two scales,
job content and job context. The aspects of job context are manifestations of culture; they
indicate, "Job context is much broader. It is the reason the organization needs that job done and
includes both how it fits into the overall organizational mission, goals, and objectives and the
organizational setting within which that job is done. Organizational structure, rewards systems,
mission, goals, objectives and so forth make up the rich tapestry of job context." (p. 22-23).
Organizational structure and reward systems are often put into place with the unknowing and
unquestioned basic assumptions which are part of the culture of the organization. Shein's
position supports this view thusly, "If culture has developed in this sense, it will affect most of
the aspects of an organization—its strategy, its structure, its processes, its reward and control
systems, and its daily routines." (Schein, 1985, p. 244)
An organization seeking to implement empowerment is likely to examine its structure and
reward systems, however if the culture is not also examined by the change agents, replacement
structures and systems are likely to reflect the old assumptions. One such assumption is whether
individuals or groups (teams) should be rewarded for their efforts. Many organizations in the
United States hold that country's value of individualism. If, on the one hand, teams are being
promoted as a tool of empowerment, and on the other hand, individuals are being rewarded for
the work of the team, then employees will unconsciously (or consciously) pick-up on the cultural
norm and will be reluctant to dedicate themselves to the teaming concept where their work may
not be recognized and rewarded. In other words, empowered organizations put their money
where their mouth is.
Mallak and Kurstedt (1996), perhaps more articulately, express this sentiment when they
write, "Managers who understand how empowerment integrates with organizational culture are
motivated to lead employees…and help them internalize the values and traditions [of
empowerment]. These managers help create a work environment where employees take action
for intrinsic reasons more so than for extrinsic reasons." (p. 8). Mallak and Kurstedt provide a
four stage model for cultural integration, because they understand how important the
organization's culture is to the successful implementation of empowerment.
Shipper and Manz (1992), in their description of W. L. Gore and Associates, demonstrate
how committed to empowerment that company is by describing the cultural manifestations.
Some examples include: there are no position titles, all employees are called Associates; every
associate has one or more sponsors who provide training, act as coach or mentor, and advocate
with the compensation committee for the employee's pay increases; all associates are encouraged
to apply their creativity, even to the extent of finding their own job within the organization after
being hired. While these tactics far surpass what another organization interested in empowering
its employees is likely to do, they do reflect what has been successful for Gore. The cultural
values which brought about this unique organizational culture are the result of the personal
values of Gore's founder. Schein notes, "Founders usually have a major impact on how the
group defines and solves its external adaptation and internal integration problems." (Schein,
1985, p. 210), these are essential components of the development of culture.
Other authors provide less articulate, though no less powerful, demonstrations of the
importance of organizational culture to employee empowerment. Witness: Blanchard and
Bowles (1998), "It's the understanding, not the work. It's how the work helps others, not units
dealt with." (p. 170); Block (1987), "Creating a vision of greatness [is] the first step toward
empowerment" (p. 99); Ginnodo (1997) "Empowerment serves a purpose. It's not a feel-good
program. It's about accomplishing business objectives. It's a means to an end, not an end in
itself. Empowerment helps employees help the organization and themselves…." (p.12).
By now, it should be clear that the organization's culture is important to employee
empowerment. If an organization's culture does not already support empowerment it must be
changed, However, as Schein points out, "we may be suggesting something very drastic when
we say, 'Let's change the culture'" (Schein, 1985, p. 5). And you may be asking yourself, "How
would we go about changing the culture, should we decide we need to do so?". A very good
question indeed. Fortunately, Schein provides some insight into this. He notes, "Leaders create
culture, but cultures, in turn, create their next generation of leaders." (Schein, 1985, p. 313). If
the leader is acting in a growing organization, he or she needs, "both vision and the ability to
articulate it and enforce it." (Schein, 1985, p. 317). If, however, the organizational culture is
mature, "If it is to change its culture, it must be led by someone who can, in effect, break the
tyranny of the old culture." (Schein, 1985, p. 321). This is accomplished through replacement of
assumptions. "If an assumption is to be given up, it must be replaced or redefined in another
form, and it is the burden of leadership to make that happen." (Schein, 1985, p. 324) Schein
makes a distinction between leaders and managers. I make that distinction as well in the section
on the manager's role below. Schein also provides a useful table of organizational, "Growth
Stages, Functions of Culture, and Mechanisms of Change" (Schein, 1985, p. 271-272).
Management Role
In an empowered organization the managers and supervisors take on a different role than they
usually would in most organizations. The literature is unanimous on this point. It may be
obvious that one aspect of this role change is the sharing of power and authority. Yet, many
managers and supervisors already do this, either actively or passively, through delegation or
abdication, neither of which is empowering people.
Empowerment implies a great deal more. There is an active role for managers and
supervisors rather than the passive one of abdication. There are stages an employee must go
through before he or she should have authority delegated to him or her. There should also be a
recognition that while the employee may be ready to have one aspect of the job delegated to her
or him, she or he may not be ready for delegation in other functional aspects of the job
(Blanchard, Zigarmi & Zigarmi,1985). Managers and supervisors must reframe their perception
of their roles because, "The primary task of supervision is to help people." (Block, 1987, p. 63).
Block (1987) also tells us, "As managers we become more powerful as we nurture the power of
those below us." (p. 64).
So what are these new, active roles for managers? First we must understand that, "Managers
and supervisors need to be empowered, too" (Ginnodo, 1997, p. 12). One use of manager's new
found empowerment should be to allow them to remove barriers to employee empowerment.
Conger and Kanungo (1988) describe this as, "providing autonomy from bureaucratic constraint"
(p.478). Harari (1997) asks us to, "imagine that your job is to create an environment where your
people take on the responsibility to work productively in self-managed, self-starting teams that
identify and solve complex problems on their own." Ginnodo (1997) tells us this, "involves
articulating a vision, values, strategies and goals; aligning policies, practices and business plans;
improving processes; organizing, communicating and 'walking the talk' of total quality. . . .and
removing barriers that prevent outstanding performance"[italics are mine] (p. 8). Gandz (1990)
indicates, "Managers need to be willing and capable of changing their roles from supervisors and
work directors to visionaries and coaches." (p. 77)
This new role of coach is also nearly universal in the literature. Coaching is defined as,
"teaching and practice focused on taking action, with celebration when things go well and
supportive redirection when things go wrong, while all the time creating excitement and
challenge for those being coached" ( Blanchard & Bowles, 1998, p.159). Ward (1996) indicates
of coaching, "The objective is to keep giving employees responsibilities which move them along
the capability continuum, eventually reaching 'fully capable of the task'. Naturally, the manager
must be careful to keep adjusting his or her leadership style as the employee becomes more
capable." (p. 22) "Managers also have to learn how to nurture and reward good ideas." (Caudron,
1995, p. 30)
Conger and Kanungo (1988) discuss the importance of the employee's sense of their own
abilities as a factor in their empowerment. These coaching, or, "empowerment strategies…[are]
aimed not only at removing some of the external conditions responsible for powerlessness, but
also (and more important) at providing subordinates with self-efficacy information" (p. 478).
Among the coaching strategies noted are, "(a) expressing confidence in subordinates
accompanied by high performance expectations, (b) fostering opportunities for subordinates to
participate in decision making, (c) providing autonomy from bureaucratic constraint, and (d)
setting inspirational and/or meaningful goals."(p. 478). Thomas and Velthouse (1990) indicate
events such as, "inputs from supervisors, staff peers, and subordinates, for example, performance
evaluations, charismatic appeals, training sessions, mentoring advice, and general discussions of
ongoing projects…provides data on which to base task assessments." (p. 671). Task assessments
are those perceptions by the employee of his or her ability to perform, or interest in, the task.
That is, management can change the environment to make completion of the tasks rewarding
intrinsically (for example, through praise and recognition or increased opportunities), or
management can work as a mentor to help the employee perceive his or her contribution as
valuable.
Mallak and Kurstedt (1996) echo this mentoring approach for employees, "and help them
internalize the values and traditions [of the organization]. These managers help create a work
environment where employees take action for intrinsic reasons more so than for extrinsic
reasons." (p. 10). Another aspect of mentoring is role modeling. Block (1987) indicates, "One
way we nurture those below us is by becoming a role model for how we want them to function."
(p. 64). Other authors use a sports analogy to get this same point across. "By setting the key
goals and values, you define the playing field and the rules of the game. You decide who plays
what position. Then you have to get off the field and let the players move the ball." ( Blanchard
& Bowles, 1998, p.79)
If a manager does not perceive her or his role is to help those she or he supervises to grow, then
any empowerment implementation effort will not be successful. A change in role perception is
called for in this instance when implementing employee empowerment. The supervisor must see
potential in the employee and work to bring that potential out. The process is best described as
mentoring or coaching and it entails:
determining the skill level of the employee
sharing information about the goal to be achieved and why it is important to the organization
as a whole
providing for employee training as needed
depending upon the employee's skill level, providing appropriate supervisory support
a directing style for those tasks for which the employee has a low skill level
coaching for those tasks with which the employee has some skills but is lacking experience
or motivation
a supporting style for those tasks where the employee knows what to do but is still lacking
confidence in their abilities
a delegating style for those tasks where the employee is motivated and fully capable.
(Blanchard, Zigarmi & Zigarmi,1985)
ensuring that the employee is consistently growing in skill by providing new responsibilities
for which a higher level of supervision is needed
mentoring the employee such that they absorb both the organizational culture and the value
of empowerment
removing barriers to empowerment present in the organizational structure
ensuring that appropriate resources are available for the employee, or ensuring that the
employee has the appropriate skills to obtain needed resources
providing support for the continued empowerment of the employee
and sharing information about the employee's and the organization's effectiveness.
Information Sharing
Developing Competency
Importance of Resources
Sufficient Support
The organization which chooses to implement empowerment must ensure that sufficient
support is available to keep it going. Blanchard and Bowles (1998) remind us, "You can't be in
control unless the rest of the organization supports you and doesn't rip you, or your work, apart."
(p. 172). Zimmerman (1990) notes that, "It [empowerment] is not an absolute threshold that
once reached can be labeled as empowered. Empowerment embodies an interaction between
individuals and environment that is culturally and contextually defined. . . . sense of community
plays an important role in the development of personal control and participation." (p. 170-1). In
other words, the environment must be a supportive one.
Support can take the form of workplace social supports. Spreitzer and Quinn (1996) note,
"managers who made transformational organizational change had significantly higher social
support scores" (p. 249). In other words, the more support the managers had the more effectively
empowered they were. "Empowerment techniques and strategies that provide emotional support
for subordinates and that create a supportive and trusting group atmosphere can be more
effective in strengthening self-efficacy beliefs." (Conger & Kanungo, 1988, p. 479) Also,
"inputs from supervisors, staff peers, and subordinates…mentoring advice, and general
discussions of ongoing projects. . . .provides data on which to base task assessments." (Thomas
& Velthouse, 1990, p. 671). The task assessments, as noted above, are the employee's perception
of his or her abilities and motivation and are the basis for intrinsic motivation. So we can
conclude that with a good support system in place the likelihood of employees developing
intrinsic motivation and a sense of self-efficacy is increased, thereby increasing empowerment.
Support can also take the form of, "recognizing and rewarding improvement efforts and
success" (Ginnodo, 1997, p. 8). "Reward and recognition systems…build pride and self-esteem."
(Byham, 1997, p27) Blanchard and Bowles (1998) note, "Congratulations are affirmations that
who people are and what they do matter, and that they are making a valuable contribution toward
achieving the shared mission." (p. 174) Spontaneous, Individual, Specific, and Unique" (p. 175)
congratulations are most effective. These authors also tell us, "You can't overdo TRUE
congratulations: Timely, Responsive, Unconditional, [and] Enthusiastic." (p. 174). Ginnodo
also indicates, "Celebration and recognition for forward motion and accomplishment are
needed." (p. 13).
Quinn and Spreitzer (1997) raise other aspects support by noting, "The fourth lever [of
effecting empowering changes] is support and a sense of security" (p. 46). Shipper and Manz
(1992) discuss the powerful and general support which is provided to associates at W. L. Gore,
every associate has one or more sponsors who provide training, act as coach or mentor, and
advocate with the compensation committee for the employee's pay increases. . . .The sponsor
tracks the new associate's progress, providing help and encouragement. . . .A sponsor is a friend
and an Associate. All the aspects of the friendship are also present. (p. 51).
Gandz (1990) indicates, "Managers need faith in employees. . . .Risks can be minimized through
training and shared vision, values and benefits, but the empowered organization requires
confident managers who have faith in employees. . . .The overall culture of the organization must
support risk taking." (p. 76-7).
Theoretical Foundations
One author in the field of social psychology writes, "psychological empowerment refers to the
individual level of analysis, but does not ignore ecological and cultural influences.
Psychological empowerment is a contextually oriented conception of empowerment that
embraces the notion of person-environment fit. It includes, but is not limited to, collective
action, skill development, and cultural awareness…" (Zimmerman, 1990, p. 173-4). This
perception of empowerment raises the questions, so as to bring about a more empowered
workplace, How does one:
In a later article, Spreitzer (1996) indicates, "perceptions of both empowerment and social
structural characteristics were the primary focus in this study." (p. 486). She goes on to note,
this work contributes to the literature by articulating the importance of perceptions in the
interpretation of the work environment as either empowering or disempowering to individuals. . .
.by providing one of the first empirical examinations of the relationship between social structure
and empowerment. . . .This study supports the proposition that high-involvement social
structures (specifically , low role ambiguity, wide supervisory spans of control, sociopolitical
support, access to information, and a participative climate) create opportunities for
empowerment in the workplace. In spite of these contributions, the study has a number of
limitations and raises questions for future research on the nature of the relationship between
social structure and empowerment. (p. 500).
Additional questions raised by this research are, How does one
Unfortunately, one study which sought to answer some of these questions had an excellent
study design, but the null hypothesis was not rejected. The study design used a study group who
were being empowered and a control group who were not. "Both groups had responded to a
previous, extensive survey of management practices, which served as a baseline measure."
However, apparently due to an organizational downsizing effort in the middle of the study,
"Results provided minimal support for the positive influence of empowerment. The null
hypothesis that empowered workers would have no difference in how they viewed their situation
than non-empowered workers was not rejected." (Thorlakson & Murray, 1996, p. )
Some definitions are needed to help understand Thomas and Velthouse's (1990) perspective
on empowerment. These include, "intrinsic task motivation involves positively valued
experiences that individuals derive directly from a task. . . .Task assessments are presumed to be
the proximal cause of intrinsic task motivation and satisfaction. . . .task refers to a set of
activities directed toward a purpose." (p. 668) So, when a person does a set of activities (read
work) he or she assesses the task at hand and decides if it is motivating and satisfactory. Over
the course of time the individual generalizes these individual task assessments into an overall
perspective of this type of work. If the intrinsic task motivation is present and is supported by
management, that person becomes empowered.
Thomas and Velthouse (1990) report,
Thus far, two studies have provided support for the parts of the model that involve interpretive
styles and task assessments. . . .A more extensive test of the model…involved a questionnaire
survey of 164 managers in three organizations, using multiple-item measures of the task
assessments and interpretive styles. Factor analysis of the task assessment items demonstrated
four separate factors, corresponding to the task assessments [impact, competence,
meaningfulness, and choice] in the present model. The authors identify, "Two general
intervention strategies…: changing the environmental events on which the individual bases his or
her task assessments and changing the individual's style of interpreting those events." (p. 667)
Additional questions raised by this study include, How does one:
• change environmental events on which the individual bases perception of her or his
impact, competence, meaningfulness of the task, and choice about the task?
• change the individual's style of interpreting the environmental events on which the task
assessments regarding impact, competence, meaningfulness, and choice are based?
Spreitzer and Quinn (1996) provide follow-up to their initial studies conducted at Ford. Their
research efforts were targeted at what could be learned from those middle managers who
attended Leadership Education and Development (LEAD) programs and who then were
encouraged to effect change on behalf of the organization. The authors report,
only those with positive affect, self-esteem, and social support embraced the charge to make
transformational change. Those with negative affect, poor self-esteem, and little social support,
responded with management style changes that had little affect on the organization. The findings
suggest that individual mind-set was a key moderator in determining who embraced change and
who resisted it. (p. 250)
these results show, when stimulated to make change, middle managers with negative affect tend
to be unsuccessful in their efforts. Second, developing transformational middle managers may
require much more than most senior executives want to consider expending. . . .real change
requires real investment. The LEAD program represents creative design, long-term
commitment, and heavy expenditure. But the long term pay-offs can be high. . . .Third, the
findings also suggest that an important resource in many organizations may be unintentionally
wasted or consciously destroyed. . . . In this study, it was found that the plateaued managers were
most likely to take the greatest risks on behalf of the company. (p. 252)
this article…has several limitations. First, the study is primarily exploratory in nature. . .
.Second, the generalizability of the findings is limited. . . .Third. . . .causality cannot be
ascertained. (p. 252-253)
It seems that the questions raised by this article have already been raised by the articles above.
In some cases, the authors of the studies provide suggested answers to these "How does one"
questions, in others the questions are left for the reader. My hope is that with the information I
have provided above, and the information I will provide below, I will answer all of these
questions.
Implementation Timeframe
It should be clear at this point that implementing an empowerment program is quite and
extensive affair. I would be remiss if I did not support the contention that it may take several
years before the organization will see the benefits of empowerment. Several authors echo this
sentiment: Caudron (1995), "empowerment doesn't provide immediate gratification. . . . the
length of the learning curve is the greatest challenge to most empowerment programs" (p. 28);
Gandz (1990), "keep at it!. . . .It will not be done through a 90 day program with empowerment
t-shirts and coffee mugs. It is critical to signal that this will be a new way of running the
organization that might take several years to develop." (p. 78); Ginnodo (1997), "Empowerment
is hard work and takes time." (p. 13); Quinn and Spreitzer (1997),"empowerment is anything but
simple and quick--it demands a willingness to embrace uncertainty, trust people, and exercise
faith." (p. 43); and Thorlakson and Murray (1996), "recognize that empowerment is not an
overnight process but rather a 'way of life,' which can take time to implement. Finally, view
empowerment not as a fad but as an opportunity and a challenge to help unleash an
organization's full potential." (p. 79). 'Nuff said!
Situational Implementation
The literature is ripe with ways to assess an organization either for how ready it may be for an
empowerment effort, or how empowered it currently is. Conger and Kanungo (1988) indicate,
"The first stage is the diagnosis of conditions within the organization that are responsible for
feelings of powerlessness among subordinates." (p. 474). They provide a table of, "Context
Factors Leading to Potential Lowering of Self-Efficacy Belief" (p. 477) which can be used to
create an instrument to ensure these factors are eliminated or minimized.
Caudron (1995) provides an, "HR Checklist: do you have an empowered environment?" (p.
33) based upon the Colgate-Palmolive model which may be useful as a measuring device for
workplace empowerment efforts. Byham (1997) provides 14 "characteristics of an empowered
organization" and indicates "These factors are basically goals to be achieved." (p. 25). Ginnodo
(1997) also provides a list of dos and don'ts from which a survey could easily be developed.
Ettorre (1997) provides a seven question survey, "How empowered are your managers?" (p. 3).
Randolph (1995) provides an exhibit of, "The Empowerment Plan" (p. 29) which could be
adapted into a survey to determine if these factors are currently present within the organization.
Ford and Fottler (1995) provide an implied survey with their "Employee Empowerment Grid" (p.
24). An assessment of where the employee's decision making authority lands on the job content
and job context helps to identify how empowered that employee is.
Quinn and Spreitzer (1997) provide "Seven questions every leader should consider" on, "The
road to empowerment" (p. 37); they are:
1. What do we mean when we say we want to empower people?
2. What are the characteristics of an empowered person?
3. Do we really need empowered people?
4. Do we really want empowered people?
5. How do people develop a sense of empowerment?
6. What organizational characteristics facilitate employee empowerment?
7. What can leaders do to facilitate employee empowerment? (p. 45)
The authors indicate that the questions above raise "Some Hard Questions" and "Some Harder
Questions" (p. 44), which provide more of an assessment set for the organization.
Bowen and Lawler (1992) provide a table reproduced below to assist with determination of
the best strategy given the contingencies of the organizational environment.
Production
Contingency Empowerment
Line Approach
Basic Differentiation,
Low cost,
business 1 2 3 4 5 customer
high volume
strategy personalized
Transaction,
Tie to Relationship,
short time 1 2 3 4 5
customer long time period
period
Routine, Nonroutine,
Technology 1 2 3 4 5
simple complex
Business Predictable, 1 2 3 4 5 Unpredictable,
environment few surprises many suprises
Theory X
Theory Y
managers,
managers,
employees
employees with
with low
high growth
Types of growth
1 2 3 4 5 needs, high
people needs, low
social needs and
social needs,
strong
and weak
interpersonal
interpersonal
skills
skills
(Bowen & Lawler, 1992, p. 37)
Clearly, within each contingency, the higher number circled, the more likely that employee
empowerment will be effective in the organization conducting the survey.
Bowen and Lawler (1995) also provide measures of how effective empowerment efforts have
been. The authors include: asking employees if they feel more empowered, "survey customers
to determine if they view employees as empowered,. . . . track changes in the percentage of
employees who are 'covered' by empowering management practices,. . . . monitor changes in
organizational structure. . . . decreasing management levels and increasing span of control are
important indexes of empowerment success." (p. 77).
Thorlakson and Murray (1996) provide a table with the results of their survey where
responses have been categorized. The actual survey can be obtained from one of the authors.
Spreitzer and Quinn (1996) also provide a table with categorized responses from which a useful
assessment instrument could be developed. Spreitzer (1996) provides a table with the actual
questions used in her survey. Spreitzer (1995) provides an appendix with the "Text of Items
Measuring Empowerment" (p. 1464).
Apprentice level
Rather than as a lowly, know-nothing, the apprentice is viewed as an unskilled worker with
potential. He or she may be assigned tasks which are seemingly menial yet are essential to the
effective working of the shop. The apprentice is expected to be aware of how the organization
works and to ask questions at appropriate times. Also he or she is expected to be eager to learn
new skills and to practice these skills under the guidance of journeymen and masters.
Journeyperson level
Master level
Masters provide the overall direction and vision for the organization. They decide which jobs
to do and how they can be done. Masters understand their responsibility to supervise the
continued development of journeypersons so as to teach and develop the next generation of
leaders. As part of sharing their vision, masters provide information about the overall
organization to both journeypersons and apprentices. As befitting their advanced knowledge,
masters advance the trade through innovation and complete the work for which only they are
trained.
This model is deceptively simple. Anyone can quickly grasp the three levels (Freedman,
1998) and place workers they know into one of the three categories. However, it is important to
realize that the model calls for a recognition that an individual could be at any one of the three
levels for different aspects of their job (Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Zigarmi, 1985; Blanchard, Carlos
& Randolph, 1996; Ward, 1996). I have provided an example of how this may be the case in a
retail department store in Appendix A.
One must also realize that the model calls for individuals with greater skills to accept
responsibility for training those who are less skilled (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Conger &
Kanungo, 1988; Zimmerman, 1990; Blanchard & Bowles, 1998; Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Zigarmi,
1985). This form of mentoring also provides the necessary social support for empowerment to
occur (Ginnodo, 1997; Byham, 1997; Quinn and Spreitzer, 1997; Shipper and Manz, 1992;
Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Zimmerman, 1990; Blanchard &
Bowles, 1998).
An additional consideration is the importance of passing along the culture (Schein, 1985;
Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997; Mallak & Kurstedt, 1996; Shipper & Manz, 1992; Blanchard &
Bowles, 1998; Block, 1987). As noted above, the apprentice develops a sense of the values of
the craft as he or she watches the care the master puts into his or her work. A recognition of the
importance of every task is developed while sweeping the floor—for without a swept floor the
shop becomes potentially dangerous and may drive away paying customers. Both the master and
the journeyperson share this perspective with the apprentice as the floor is swept.
It is this type of information sharing which will allow the apprentice to grow and develop
(Bowen & Lawler, 1995; Mallak & Kurstedt, 1996; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997). As she or he
develops, information beyond the simplistic, "we must sweep so no one gets hurt and customers
don't think we do sloppy work" is shared. The journeyperson must learn how to set prices for the
finished work; the master shares information about how to estimate the time it will take to
complete a given project and what the overhead costs during that time period will be.
Perhaps this information sharing will be in the form of a story (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990;
Morgan & Dennehy, 1997; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997) about a time when the master estimated
incorrectly and had to live frugally for the next month as a result. The master may also share the
perspective that it may be better to overestimate a project's costs, then one can inform the
customer of the reduced cost of the project and delight him or her. This is an example of sharing
the vision the master has for his or her organization (Blanchard & Bowles, 1998; Quinn &
Spreitzer, 1997; Block, 1987). In this instance the vision is one of superior customer service
(Gandz, 1990).
The master also must help the journeyperson understand that doing this may result in the
customer going elsewhere to obtain what is needed. This sense of balancing the opportunity
costs is an important concept, and lacking it, one which might force the journeyperson to fail in
his or her own shop. The master could just as easily have shared a vision of being the low cost
leader. In this instance, the apprentice would be told to not waste time sweeping the floor and
that it was more important to be constantly working on projects; the journeyperson would be told
that we can make up in volume what we may loose in margin. One can see how this
apprenticeship model can be adapted to the different types or organizational strategies which
exist.
Perhaps the easiest aspect to understand from the apprenticeship model is that of developing
employee competency (Blanchard, Carlos & Randolph, 1996; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997;
Ginnodo, 1997; Byham, 1997; Blanchard & Bowles, 1998). It is clear that as one's skills
develop one moves through the levels from apprentice to journeyperson to master. The
importance of understanding that competency is more than just technical skills cannot be
overemphasized (Bowen & Lawler, 1995; Caudron, 1995; Mohrman, 1997). Perhaps the
apprentice develops sufficient skills to become a journeyperson, but does not develop a sense of
the importance of keeping a clean floor—the results could be disastrous if the newly minted
journeyperson slips and injures him or herself and cannot work. Or perhaps the new master, who
did not learn how to mentor an apprentice and winds up out of business for lack of labor (or as an
alternative for those with a sense of the macabre, is paid a visit by "representatives" of the other
masters who make sure he or she "understands" the importance of keeping the price level high—
perhaps by having extra medical bills imposed). While the possibilities of suffering injury or
financial loss are used as extreme examples here, one can appreciate the complexities which
must be understood in any organizational environment. Developing competency is developing
this appreciation as well as developing skills.
Assessment Questions
4. In the course of a week, how may times does a low-level, front-line employee need to seek
approval for an action she or he believes is the correct one?
YES NO
10. When was the last time a project or work effort was delayed due to lack of resources?
11. If your supervisor was away and a customer or another department asked you to complete a
project for which you knew there was capacity to complete, would you be able to agree to
complete the project and access the needed resources?
12. If the above request slightly exceeded the known capacity to complete, what would be your
supervisor's boss's response if you decided to accept the project anyway?
14. What would you do if another member of your department disagreed with you about the
decision to accept the project?
Training Responses
1A. YES: Good for you! Your organization is making progress toward empowerment. Keep
doing what you have been doing.
1B. NO: Discussions about what empowerment is and how it will impact the organization need
to begin. Without at least some shared understanding of the concept of empowerment there will
be confusion in the organizational ranks and your empowerment effort will be sidetracked if not
derailed.
1C. DON'T KNOW: Go and find out. If consensus can be reached see 1A, if not see 1B. But
first, read the thesis so at least you'll have some understanding of the concept.
next question
2A. NONE: Great! Keep up the effort to eliminate perquisites which are not available to
everyone.
2B. FEW: Work to eliminate them or make them available for everyone. Discuss with those
who benefit from the perquisites how they felt when they were in a position where they were
unavailable. Ask them if they think those who do not receive these added benefits feel the same
way they did. Encourage honest reflection.
2C. MANY: Work to eliminate them or make them available for everyone. If a culture of
empowerment is to be achieved then those who receive perquisites must demonstrate their belief
in it by equalizing the organizational environment.
2D. DON'T KNOW: Try to find out and then address as noted above. Hint: if no one will
discuss perquisites with you then there are probably many of them.
3A. MANY: Congratulations! The value of mentors is manifold. Be sure that you are acting as
a mentor to others as well.
3B. FEW: Work to increase the number of people you can look to for advice, training, and
cultural clues; also be sure to be offering mentoring to others with less experience than you.
3C. NONE: The empowerment effort in your organization is probably off-track or non-
existent . As a first step, find yourself a mentor who can show you the ropes and enhance your
skills. Continue to find people who can provide mentoring advice, and offer mentoring advice to
those with less experience.
4A. NONE: Good. The organization has probably established clear boundaries for decision-
making for these employees. This is also an indication that trust has been placed in their ability
to make good decisions, generally this type of trust comes from effective competency
development, clear vision, and good information about the impact of decisions on the bottom
line. It also indicates that appropriate resources have been made available to these individuals.
4B. FEW: Work to increase these individuals' skills and understanding of their impact on the
work of the organization. Establish clear boundaries for their decisions and share the
organization's vision with them. Ensure that the resources they need are at their disposal.
4C. MANY: Does your organization consider itself an empowering one? If so, then this is an
important place to begin demonstrating commitment thereto. These front-line workers interact
with your customers so empowering them will enhance your customer service. Implement
whatever changes are needed in higher levels of your organization, then follow the suggestions
in 4B.
5A. YES: Your organization is probably sharing information about the bottom line and how
that individual impacts it. This is very empowering.
5B. NO: Work to increase information sharing. Empowered individuals understand how their
work impacts the bottom line. If employees don't know what that bottom line is then they cannot
possibly know their impact upon it. Of course, employees will need to be trained to understand
whatever information is shared with them, so developing this competency is an important step as
well.
5C. DON'T KNOW: This is probably an indication that they don't. Refer to the suggestions in
5B.
6A. EASILY ANSWERED: Very good. Sharing a vision is an important aspect of empowering
employees—it allows people to think about how their work fits into the larger picture and
provides opportunity for them to apply their creativity to help achieve that vision.
6B. DON'T KNOW: Work to develop a vision for the organization, or at least for your unit.
Help employees to see where the organization hopes to go so they can help to get it there.
7A. SEVERAL: Great! This is an indication that you have been developed to this point. Be
sure that you are training journeypersons and apprentices in what you know. Also, keep
challenging yourself to achieve master level in other aspects of your job or in tasks beyond your
current responsibilities.
7B. FEW: Continue to work to achieve this level. See suggestions in 7A as well.
7C. NONE, BECAUSE I AM NEW: Continue to work to achieve this level. See suggestions in
7A.
7D. NONE, NO EFFORT MADE: Work to enhance your skills. Seek out mentors and people
with additional skills and information who can help you to grow professionally. Even if your job
responsibilities seem menial, you have an impact on the organization's bottom line so enhancing
your skills will be of benefit to the organization.
8A. YES: Good. Continue to develop the skills of others as you continue to develop your own.
8B. NO: If your organization is an empowering one, you must ask yourself "Why not?". If you
consider yourself too busy, reconsider. Think of your responsibilities for the future needs of the
organization—will you ever be less busy if you don't train others to do what you do? If you don't
think you have sufficient stills to teach anyone anything, think again. Perhaps you are the most
inexperienced person in your department, but are there people in other areas with whom you
could share what little experience you do have. Do you have talents which are not apparent in
the organizational setting? If so, share those with your colleagues so that the balance is
maintained.
9A. SEVERAL: Very good. This demonstrates a recognition of the importance of developing
competency. Even if you are a master at all aspects of your current job, you are seeking
opportunities to learn aspects of other jobs. Even if you are the CEO you recognize that you
don't know everything. Allowing an employee at a lower level to provide the CEO with training
is tremendously empowering to them.
9B. FEW: Unless you are relatively new to your position, this is still good. See ideas in 9A.
9C. NONE: Probably not an empowering organization. Work to develop the apprenticeship
model within your organization. Seek out opportunities to develop your competency to the point
of mastery. Or, if you have achieved mastery in your area of specialty, seek out opportunities to
grow in other areas.
10A. LONG TIME AGO: Good. Empowering organizations provide the resources needed for
employees to get the job done, or the employees have developed the competency to obtain
needed resources themselves.
10B. RECENTLY: Unless this was an unusual circumstance, work to develop systems or
competencies which make the needed resources available to empowered employees.
10C. ALL THE TIME: Probably not an empowered organization. Work to make needed
resources available to employees. Develop employee competency such that they can obtain
resources they need. Work to develop trust in employees such that higher-ups will have
confidence that resources will not be squandered.
11A. YES: This is a clear indication that you are empowered. Continue doing whatever
brought you to this point and work to enhance other's ability to reach it.
11B. YES, WITH APPROVAL: This is either an indication that you are new and still
developing competency, or that the organization is not empowered. If you are still developing
ask the approving individual what factors she or he took into consideration when making the
decision. If not an empowered organization, work to develop employees competency such that
they would be able to make the decision for themselves. If the answer is going to be yes, better
that those closest to the customer have all the information needed to give the answer more
quickly.
11C. NO: Either you are still developing competency, or the organization is not empowered.
See suggestions in 11B.
12A. PRAISE: Great! This demonstrates support for risk-taking and is very empowering. It
also provides the opportunity for continued challenge and ever increasing goals to become the
norm.
12B. DON'T KNOW: This may be an indication of lack of support for risk-taking and could be
disempowering. It is also an indication that insufficient communication is occurring about the
organization's vision and between levels of the organization.
12C. ANGER: Very disempowering. Unless there is a clear explanation of why this was a bad
decision and how it negatively impacted the organization, no learning will take place. Keep in
mind the benefits to the customer of allowing employees at the lowest level possible to make
decisions. Also, work to develop an understanding of continued incremental challenges inherent
in the apprenticeship model.
13C. DON'T KNOW: This is an indication of insufficient information sharing and lack of clear
vision. Employees must have access to the information about how their work impacts the
organization as a whole if there is any hope of a successful empowerment implementation.
14B. GO OVER HER/HIS HEAD: This is very disempowering. Work to develop the
competencies needed for employees to be able to discuss differences of opinion and learn from
each other's perspective. Also, work to develop an environment which is supportive of employee
risk-taking.
15A. MANY: Good. This may be an indication of a supportive environment within which
employees can challenge themselves to grow.
15B. FEW: If you are new to the organization, this is probably OK. If tenured, then this is a
sign of a lack of a supportive environment and could be disempowering. Work to develop an
organizational value of friendliness and cooperation.
15C. NONE: May be a bad sign for organizational empowerment. Even if you are a brand new
employee, there should be somebody with whom you are friendly. Work to change the
organizational culture to make friendliness a value.
15D. DON'T KNOW: Look out! If you don't know who your friends are in the organization,
the they all may be enemies. Empowerment depends, in part, upon a supportive environment.
This doesn't sound like one, or it is an indication that this issue has not been evaluated. Work to
ascertain who your friends are in the organization. Be friendly and approachable yourself. Offer
assistance and mentoring advice, if appropriate. Work to change the organizational culture to
make friendliness a value.
Annotated Bibliography
Aeppel, T. (1997, September 8). Missing the boss: Not all workers find idea of empowerment
as neat as it
sounds. The Wall Street Journal, pp. 1, 10.
This article uses the example of the employee empowerment process in the Eaton
Corporation's South Bend, IN forge plant to highlight some of the problems experienced by
newly empowered workers. Interviews with former employees who departed because of the
expectations placed upon them are coupled with information about Eaton's empowerment
procedures and interviews with workers who have stayed. There is a clear slant to the article,
despite the author's efforts to provide a balanced view, that there are some serious problems with
the empowerment movement.
The article fails to delve into root causes of the problems identified and leaves the reader
either convinced that employee empowerment is seriously flawed or wanting a great deal more
information.
Blanchard, K. & Bowles, S. (1998). Gung Ho! Turn on the people in any organization. New
York: William
Morrow.
This book is the sequel to Raving Fans a Revolutionary Approach to Customer Service. The
concept was to write about how to make employees as enthusiastic about their work as the
customers of Raving Fans were about doing business with the company. Written as a first hand
account of one manufacturing plant's efforts to "Gung Ho themselves", the book provides a
seemingly simple process by which managers can bring about the revolution described below.
While the book never uses the term empowerment, it is clear that this is the goal of a Gung Ho
workplace. Presented in the guise of Native American wisdom, the authors summarize the
process at the end of the work, pp. 170-176.
Blanchard, K., Carlos, J.P. & Randolph, A. (1996). Empowerment Takes More Than a Minute.
San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
This short book is written in the style of the other One Minute Manager series of books. A
manager develops an interest in the topic and seeks advice from someone with experience
implementing the process. The concepts are presented over the course of about 100 pages, and
can be summarized in about three pages at the end of the book.
The authors provide three key concepts on the "journey to the land of empowerment". "The
first key is to share information with everyone." "The second key is to create autonomy through
boundaries." This statement sounds counterintuitive, however the authors explain that when
employees understand the boundaries they are then free to take any action within those
boundaries. A shared vision for the organization must be developed, and each employee must
identify their role within that vision. Also, goals are developed by managers and employees
together in the spirit of shared vision and complete information. "The third key is to replace
hierarchy with self-directed teams." A component of this effort is providing training to the
members of the teams, "groups, like individuals, go through predictable stages of development.
They need different kinds of leadership at each stage." This leadership model closely follows
that of situational leadership as discussed in Leadership and the One Minute Manager.
In this book no effort is made to support the contentions beyond that they make sense within
the context of the story. One must read the preface to learn that the authors have seen this
process work effectively in organizations with which they have consulted. The book is written
as a case study of the implementation of empowerment within a fictitious organization, so it does
not even have the benefit of an actual case study. Despite these drawbacks, the book presents
useful information in an entertaining style which reinforces the concepts.
Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, P. & Zigarmi, D. (1985). Leadership and the One Minute Manager:
Increasing
Effectiveness Through Situational Leadership. New York: William Morrow.
Using the style of all the One Minute Manager books, the authors present a story of a manager
seeking advice and education from another manager experienced in situational leadership. In
this way the concepts of situational leadership are presented in an easily understood manner.
Situational leadership calls for a diagnosis of the employee's development level. Employees
with "low competence and high commitment" as is typical of the newly hired are at the first
development level; employees with "some competence and low commitment" as is typical of
employees with incomplete training and for whom the excitement of the newness of the job has
worn off are in the second development level; employees who have "high competence and
variable commitment" typical of mid-management are in the third development level; and
employees with "high competence and high commitment" typical of senior managers and high
performers are at the fourth level.
Once the development level is known the appropriate leadership style can be used with that
employee.
'Directing (Style 1) is for people who lack competence but are enthusiastic and committed (D1).
They need direction and supervision to get them started. Coaching (Style 2) is for people who
have some competence but lack commitment (D2). They need direction and supervision because
they're still relatively inexperienced. They also need support and praise to build their self-
esteem, and involvement in decision-making to restore their commitment. Supporting (Style 3)
is for people who have competence but lack confidence or motivation (D3). They do not need
much direction because of their skills, but support is necessary to bolster their confidence and
motivation. Delegating (Style 4) is for people who have both competence and commitment
(D4). They are able and willing to work on a project by themselves with little supervision or
support.'
This book again uses a pseudo-case study as evidence to support the theory. Logical argument
is also used to support this management scheme. I find the logic compelling and there is strong
alignment between this theory and the apprenticeship model presented in this paper.
Block, P. (1987). The Empowered Manager: Positive Political Skills at Work. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
In this oft cited and influential book written early in the empowerment movement, Block
provides advice for managers seeking to move their organizations from a bureaucratic one
toward an entrepreneurial one. Block notes the bureaucratic cycle and contrasts it with the,
entrepreneurial cycle. Block then goes on to discuss the origins of each cycle and provides
reasoning behind moving toward the entrepreneurial one.
Block notes, "empowerment is a state of mind as well as a result of position, policies, and
practices. As managers we become more powerful as we nurture the power of those below us.
One way we nurture those below us is by becoming a role model for how we want them to
function." (p. 63-4). Block also advises managers to, "Share as much information as
possible. . . .Most supervisors think part of their role is to shield their subordinates from bad
news coming from above. When we shield our people we are acting as their parents and treating
them like children. If we are trying to create the mind-set that everyone is responsible for the
success of this business, then our people need complete information." (p. 90-1). Block identifies,
"Creating a vision of greatness [as] the first step toward empowerment" (p. 99)
Bowen, D.E. & Lawler, E.E. (1992). The empowerment of service workers: What, why, how
and when. Sloan
Management Review, Spring 1992, p. 31.
The authors provide information useful to managers about how to assess the appropriateness,
costs, and benefits of empowerment within their organizations. The authors then analyze
service employee empowerment first by identifying the benefits, which include: "quicker on-line
response to customer needs during service delivery;. . . . quicker on-line responses to dissatisfied
customers during service recovery;. . . . employees feel better about their jobs and themselves;. . .
. employees will interact with customers with more warmth and enthusiasm. . . . when employees
felt that management was looking after their needs, they took better care of the customer;. . . .
empowered employees can be a great source of service ideas;. . . . great word-of-mouth
advertising and customer retention." Next the costs of empowerment are examined: "a greater
dollar investment in selection and training. . . . higher labor costs. . . . slower or inconsistent
service delivery. . . . violations of 'fair play'. . . . giveaways and bad decisions."
Bowen and Lawler identify three levels of empowerment in organizations. From least
empowering, or "control oriented", to most empowering, or "involvement oriented", they are:
"suggestion involvement. . . .employees are encouraged to contribute ideas through formal
suggestion programs or quality circles, but their day-to-day work activities do not really
change. . . . job involvement. . . . [where] jobs are redesigned so that employees use a variety of
skills. Employees believe their tasks are significant, they have considerable freedom in deciding
how to do the work, they get more feedback, and they handle a whole, identifiable piece of work.
. . . high involvement organizations give their lowest level employees a sense of involvement not
just in how they do their jobs or how effectively their group performs, but in the total
organization's performance."
The authors consider "when to empower" and identify a "contingency approach". They
present a short list of contingencies which are ranked on a scale with production line approach at
one end and empowerment at the other.
This article provides a sophisticated definition of empowerment, and an effort to develop a
costs/benefits analysis for the implementation of empowerment. The authors categorize
empowerment within several levels and try to provide direction for managers seeking to
implement the appropriate level of empowerment given their circumstances.
Bowen, D.E. & Lawler, E.E. (1995). Empowering service employees. Sloan Management
Review, Summer
1995, p.73.
An excellent overview of what empowerment is and how it has been implemented and
successful at a variety of service organizations. Strong research foundation (though many self
references by the authors) is provided to support assertions made by the authors. Previous books
have documented the success of empowerment programs in manufacturing environment. This
article provides a good list of references.
The authors indicate that, "The empowerment equation is: empowerment = power x
information x knowledge x rewards. A multiplication sign, rather than a plus, indicates that if
any of the four elements is zero, nothing happens to redistribute that ingredient, and
empowerment will be zero.". The authors discuss the factors which contribute to an "empowered
state of mind". These include: "Control over what happens on the job. . . . Awareness of the
context. . . . and Accountability for work output." They provide evidence of effectiveness
through anecdotal and case evidence, and also through "Research on individual management
programs, work teams, job enrichment, skill-based pay, and so on. . . " The authors provide
evidence that there is "a positive correlation between employee satisfaction and customer
satisfaction." Measures of how effective empowerment efforts have been are provided.
Other issues the authors address include assessing the "degree of fit" of employees and the
utilization of the empowerment approach; "setting reasonable boundaries for employee heroism",
"training in which employees are familiarized with how their jobs fit into upstream and
downstream activities". The authors suggest that organizations take "a contingency approach to
empowerment". They go on to state, "Evidence indicates that empowerment can have positive
returns for employees, customers, and the bottom line -- when it is right for the situation.
However, empowering service employees also brings new challenges, such as setting boundaries
for service recovery, ensuring organizational learning, and integrating empowerment with other
change initiatives."
The article opens with a case study of Colgate-Palmolive in Central Europe's former
communist countries where employees had never experienced anything like empowerment
previously. The author reports that the results in this case study are "nothing short of amazing."
The author asserts several concepts about how to go about creating an empowering
environment, and supports these assertions with testimony from authors and successful
managers. Several steps toward creating an empowering environment are presented: "first of
these changes is information sharing." Next the author recommends providing training and
resources. Next comes, "helping management learn to empower others. . . . [this is] more about
coaching and creating an environment open to new ways of doing things. . . . Managers also have
to learn how to nurture and reward good ideas." The author indicates, "The best way to empower
team members is gradually and systematically. . . . Responsibilities for self-management and
decision making should be turned over to employees on as as-ready basis." "The next step is to
give employees control of the resources needed to make improvements."
This pattern of creating an empowering environment fits well with Bowen & Lawler's (1995)
framework article. They posit an empowerment equation which requires that power,
information, knowledge, and rewards all be provided for empowerment to be successful. All
these components are part of the recommendations provided for by this author. This author also
presents an "HR Checklist: do you have an empowered environment" which may be useful as a
measuring device for workplace empowerment efforts.
Conger, J.A. & Kanungo, R.N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and
practice. Academy
of Management Review, 13-3, p. 471.
This article seeks to analyze empowerment through diverse theoretical foundations. The
authors cite research from psychology, sociology, leadership and management, and team
building. The authors indicate that most management writing on this topic takes the view of
empowerment as a set of management techniques, "and have not paid sufficient attention to its
nature of the processes underlying the construct."
A review of the management and social influence literature regarding power is provided. The
authors go on to analyze the psychology literature. Two dictionary definitions of empowerment
are compared to contrast the typical management view and the typical psychological view. The
authors, "propose that empowerment be viewed as a motivational construct--meaning to enable
rather than simply to delegate. . . . Enabling implies creating conditions for heightening
motivation for task accomplishment through the development of a strong sense of personal
efficacy."
The authors propose five stages of the empowerment process, "The first stage is the diagnosis
of conditions within the organization that are responsible for feelings of powerlessness among
subordinates. This leads to the use of empowerment strategies by managers in Stage 2. The
employment of these strategies is aimed not only at removing some of the external conditions
responsible for powerlessness, but also (and more important) at providing subordinates with self-
efficacy information in Stage 3. As a result of receiving such information, subordinates feel
empowered in Stage 4, and the behavioral effects of empowerment are noticed in Stage 5."
The authors cite works by A. Bandura who identified sources of personal efficacy.
"Information in personal efficacy through enactive attainment refers to an individual's authentic
mastery experience directly related to the job. When subordinates perform complex tasks or are
given more responsibility in their jobs, they have the opportunity to test their efficacy. Initial
success experiences (through successively moderate increments in task complexity and
responsibility along with training to acquire new skills) make one feel more capable and,
therefore, empowered."
The authors provide little support for their model beyond logical reasoning. When placed in
the context offered by the authors, this model is sensible. It makes sense to evaluate why
employees may feel disempowered; this acknowledgment may lead to managers seeking to
implement empowerment processes. Helping employees to develop self confidence is a logical
next step, and is essential in the author's context. However, self confidence is not equivalent to
empowerment, yet the authors indicate that "as a result of receiving such [self-efficacy]
information [in stage 3], subordinates feel empowered in Stage 4, and the behavioral effects of
empowerment are noticed in Stage 5." There seems to be no recognition that an organizational
culture change must occur, that employees will need training and resources to increase their
sense of self-efficacy, or that continued support is necessary for the successful implementation of
an empowerment program.
No evaluation of the model is provided, nor even suggested. It appears that the authors expect
the reader to be so appreciative of the research they conducted in other fields that no expectation
of proof will be forthcoming. Unfortunately, this may not be the case. Given the date the article
was authored (early in the employee empowerment movement), this article may have provided
the theoretical foundation for others to evaluate the model's applicability. Nonetheless, this
article presents a simplistic understanding of the implementation of employee empowerment.
Ettorre, B. (1997, July). The empowerment gap: Hype vs. reality. HRfocus, p.1.
The author attempts to call attention to a common problem with employee empowerment
implementation efforts. There is a clear slant toward favoring empowerment and the article
seeks to assist the reader to successfully implement it by highlighting how to avoid falling, "into
the empowerment trap", that is, "'Empowerment by default...when management turns its back,
pulls away resources and leaves workers to their own devices.'" The gap noted in the article title
is the one between common empowerment implementation efforts and successful ones; it is a
focus on the bottom line and big picture by every employee which is often lacking and causes the
gap. No effort is made beyond logical argument to provide evidence in support of the author's
views.
Ford, R.C. & Fottler, M.D. (1995). Empowerment: A matter of degree. Academy of
Management Executive,
9-3, p.21.
This article presents a construct for determining extent of empowerment within "two
dimensions: content and context. Job content represents the tasks and procedures necessary for
carrying out a particular job. Job context is much broader. It is the reason the organization
needs that job done and includes both how it fits into the overall organizational mission, goals,
and objectives and the organizational setting within which that job is done."
The authors recommend an incremental implementation of an employee empowerment
program, "this approach would focus first on the job content and, later, the empowered
employees would become involved in making decisions about job context as well."
Management could oversee the progress to assess the readiness of employees as well as their
own comfort level with giving up authority.
This article presents another theoretical framework for employee empowerment without any
evaluation thereof. The authors use logical reasoning to support their contention that
empowerment is a construct of content and context. Also, the authors provide no evidence that
an employee's decision-making authority progresses in the order they articulate--from problem
identification, to alternative development, to alternative evaluation, to alternative choice, to
implementation/follow-up. It may be that there are times when employees are thrown into the
deep end of the pool and are expected to make alternative choices without having first grown
through the levels below. This growth is an essential step in the empowerment process, a point
not clearly made by the authors. This article may be an attempt to describe how empowerment is
implemented in real organizations, however that is not how the information is presented. Rather,
the authors seem to indicate that this is the way empowerment should be implemented. If this is
the case, too little evidence is supplied to convince most readers.
No evaluation of the model of the content and context construct is offered, though one is
clearly needed. The authors also do not have the luxury of having written early in the timeline of
employee empowerment, by 1995 the concept was well developed and most academics were
seeking information and instruments to evaluate empowerment efforts, rather than a new model.
The model is not useless, because it does have an internal logic. A visionary manager may be
able to develop the organizational culture and other systems needed to utilize this construct as a
way to implement an empowerment program, however no one will know how effective it could
be due to the lack of an objective and replicable evaluation.
Gandz, J. (1990). The employee empowerment era. Business Quarterly, 55-2, p. 74.
In this article Gandz relies on logical analysis to predict the increasing importance of
employee empowerment. He notes the benefits of empowerment as, "liberating the creative and
innovative energies of employees to compete effectively in a global environment. Within
coherent and articulated visions, employees at all levels will be freed to pursue goals and
objectives." The author provides a number of useful definitions and perspectives: training,
organizational vision and culture, risk-taking, new roles for managers, and the time involved in
the implementation process.
Ginnodo, B. (Ed.) (1997). The Power of Empowerment: What the experts say and 16
actionalble case
studies. Arlington Heights, IL: Pride.
In an excellent literature review on the topic of employee empowerment, Honold tracks the
history of the movement, seeks a clear definition, and reviews the various approaches which
have been used to provide a theoretical framework for employee empowerment. The author
attempts not to draw conclusions, rather she makes observations based upon what she has found
in her research. Clearly, an author must summarize what has been written by others and this
process emphasizes some information and de-emphasizes other points; I believe that Honold has
provided as fair an overview as anyone is capable.
In seeking a definition Honold points out, "to be successful, each organization must create and
define it [empowerment] for itself. Empowerment must address the needs and culture of each
unique entity." The aspects of individual and organizational readiness for empowerment are
reviewed. Honold notes some historical terms for what can now be considered empowerment:
"The socio-technical approach. . . .the idea of job enrichment. . . . job autonomy. . . . employee
participation." Honold indicates, "The literature on employee empowerment can be divided into
five groupings: leadership, the individual empowered state, collaborative work, structural or
procedural change, and the multi-dimensional perspective which encompasses most of the four
previously stated categories." She then goes on to summarize the works she has reviewed and
places them into these categories.
Honold also has a section regarding critiques of employee empowerment. Here she does draw
the conclusion that those who cite the failure of empowerment programs have studied ones
where the implementation effort was incomplete or unsophisticated. Other conclusions she
draws are that, "it appears as though employee empowerment is on the rise in organizations. As
well, it looks as though it is an evolutionary process that cannot be achieved in the short term.
Initially, there will be mistakes as both employees and management internalize what it means to
be empowered."
Kanter, R.M. (1979). Power failure in management circuits. Harvard Business Review, 57-4, p.
65.
This article seeks to identify some of the causes of a feeling of powerlessness among specific
groups within organizations. These groups are first-line supervisors, staff professionals, and
chief executive officers. The author argues that each of these groups suffers from the common
problems of lack of open channels to supplies, support, and information. The author uses a case
study to demonstrate that by sharing what power the individual members of these groups have
they are able to thereby increase their own power, and the effectiveness of the organization.
The shortcomings of this article are its age (for example, the author devotes a section to the
special problems of powerlessness felt by women managers), the fact that a model is provided
which relies primarily upon logical analysis for support, and the fact that a single case study is
cited as evidence. Nevertheless, this article provides support for what many who study
organizations would consider self-evident. That is, that organizations which take better
advantage of their human resources will be more productive and successful. "Access to
resources and information and the ability to act quickly make it possible to accomplish more and
to pass on more resources and information to subordinates."
Mallak, L.A. & Kurstedt, H.A., Jr. (1996). Understanding and using empowerment to change
organizational
culture. Industrial Management, 38-6, p. 8.
Type: Journal article. Medium usefulness.
Audience: Managers, researchers.
This article presents a model of the stages employees go through as they internalize the
organization's culture. The authors posit that the more that the employee has internalized the
culture, the more empowered he or she becomes. Mallak and Kurstedt note that empowered
employees give feedback to others to enhance cultural consistency. The authors adapt other
theorists' models and use logical analysis to support their position. The importance of mentoring
employees through their internalization of the culture is noted.
Within the abstract Menon provides a definition of empowerment, "the empowered state was
defined as a cognitive state of perceived control, perceived competence and goal internalization. .
. .The empirical results supported the view that empowerment is a construct conceptually distinct
from other constructs such as delegation, self-efficacy and intrinsic task motivation." The author
notes, "Empowerment was also found to be significantly related to a number of outcome
variables including job satisfaction, job involvement and organizational commitment." Menon
also cites antecedents of prior research and creates, validates, and applies an instrument to
measure empowerment.
Petzinger, T. (1997, January 3). The front lines: Self-organization will free employees to act
like bosses. Wall
Street Journal, p. B-1.
Petzinger, T. (1997, March 7). The front lines: How Lynn Mercer managers a factory that
manages itself. Wall
Street Journal, p. B-1.
Petzinger, T. (1997, October 17). The front lines: Forget empowerment this job requires
constant brainpower.
Wall Street Journal, P. B-1.
Quinn, R.E. & Spreitzer, G.M. (1997). The road to empowerment: Seven questions every
leader should
consider. Organizational Dynamics, 26-2, p.37.
This article examines factors related to why empowerment efforts in the work place are often
ineffective. In a very good literature review, the authors provide two approaches to defining
empowerment. The authors contrast the "mechanistic approach" with the "organic approach to
empowerment". The authors indicate that to be successful and empowerment program must
include aspects of both the mechanistic and organic approaches.
The authors describe what I would call a mentoring approach to the enhancement of
empowerment in the work place: "In short, these newly empowered participants empowered
their associates through their actions. They shared success stories and helped one another
diagnose situations to develop appropriate coping strategies. In addition, they built networks to
expand their power base in the organization." However the authors were quick to point out that
senior executives must feel empowered before they are likely to support the process of
empowerment, and that many executives are not empowered. They remind the reader,
"empowerment is anything but simple and quick--it demands a willingness to embrace
uncertainty, trust people, and exercise faith."
The researchers indicate, "Based on our research, we suggest four key levers that can assist
this integration [between the mechanistic and organic perspectives of empowerment]. The first
lever is a clear vision and challenge. . . . The second lever is openness and teamwork. . . . The
third lever is discipline and control. . . .The fourth lever is support and a sense of security." The
seven questions mentioned in the article title are: "1. What do we mean when we say we want to
empower people? 2. What are the characteristics of an empowered person? 3. Do we really
need empowered people? 4. Do we really want empowered people? 5. How do people develop
a sense of empowerment? 6. What organizational characteristics facilitate employee
empowerment? 7. What can leaders do to facilitate employee empowerment?" The authors
make it clear that neither the mechanistic nor the organic approach alone is sufficient to ensure
success, rather both together are needed.
This article provides a description of in-place empowerment efforts. The research conducted
was in the form of observation. An analysis of the observed behaviors was then conducted in an
attempt to find and define the process which must take place for employee empowerment
implementation to be effective. While the researchers are careful to tie their model back to their
observations, they rely on the weight of their logical reasoning to stand up to critical scrutiny.
No replicable tests have been conducted on this model, and so it is best used as a tool toward
understanding rather than as an accurate description of employee empowerment and how best to
implement it.
Randolph is one of the authors of Empowerment Takes More Than a Minute. This article
provides a short overview of the concepts presented in that book and provides additional
supporting evidence of the effectiveness of employee empowerment in the form of case studies
from ten companies with which the author has worked; this documentation is far superior to that
which is presented in the book. Compelling logical analysis is also used as support for the
author's thesis.
Shipper, F. & Manz, C.C. (1992). Employee self-management without formally designated
teams: An
alternative road to empowerment. Organizational Dynamics, 21-3, p. 48.
The authors provide a broad review of how employee self-management works at W.L. Gore
and Associates. The organizational culture of Gore is discussed in depth. Gore has taken
employee empowerment to an extreme degree. The authors try to organize Gore's philosophy
into themes which can be applied elsewhere, however the article reads like a public relations
piece for the company. The article does provide a perspective of what can go right when
employee empowerment is effectively implemented. It is clear, however, that this system is not
for everyone.
Spreitzer, G.M. & Quinn, R.E. (1996). Empowering middle managers to be transformational
leaders. Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 32- 3, p.237.
Report of a field study conducted with middle managers at Ford who attended a Leadership
Education and Development training session which sought to develop middle managers into
transformational leaders. While the findings are not generalizable due to the homogeneity of the
sample (80% white men, aged 40 to 50, who work for Ford), there were some findings which
were not expected and are of interest.
The most transformational middle managers (as measured by the type of change process they
initiated in a six month interval) were not the ones on the promotion fast track. Rather, they
tended to be the plateaued managers. "The study indicates that both individual characteristics and
the organizational context influence the propensity of middle managers to embrace
transformational change", through empowerment. The individual characteristics cited include
self-esteem and affect about work. Those with highest self-esteem and most positive affect
about work were most likely to feel empowered to effect transformational change.
The article is written such that the research could be replicated, although the likelihood of
achieving the same results is doubtful because of the homogeneity of the sample. This potential
source of error was well reported in the article. The authors do not attempt to apply the
information beyond the organization from which it was gathered, however, as noted above, there
may be some generalizable results from this study.
Thorlakson, A.J.H. & Murray, R.P. (1996). An empirical study of empowerment in the
workplace. Group &
Organization Management, 21-1, p.67.
Thomas and Velthouse provide a great deal of useful information, including a definition of
empowerment. Some definitions which will help to understand the authors' perspective include,
"intrinsic task motivation involves positively valued experiences that individuals derive directly
from a task. . . .Task assessments are presumed to be the proximal cause of intrinsic task
motivation and satisfaction. . . .task refers to a set of activities directed toward a purpose." (p.
668) So, when a person does a set of activities (read work) he or she assesses the task at hand
and decides if it is motivating and satisfactory. Over the course of time the individual
generalizes these individual task assessments into an overall perspective of this type of work. If
the intrinsic task motivation is present and is supported by management, that person becomes
empowered.
This comprehensive theoretical article seeks to provide a description of the cognitive elements
which comprise intrinsic motivation. An excellent literature review on topics ranging from
leadership style to individual choice to globalization of understanding is provided. Not only do
the authors extrapolate from past writings of a number of theorists, but they also provide
empirical support. The authors note the benefits of their new model, and implications for
implementation of employee empowerment are noted. That is, management can change the
environment to make completion of the tasks rewarding intrinsically, or management can work
to help the employee perceive his or her contribution as valuable.
What Thomas and Velthouse have provided is a theoretical framework within which
empowerment and its proximate causes can be understood. They provide too few examples to
make the work accessible to most people. However, they provide theoretical foundations for
some of the reasoning within the apprenticeship model. In the apprenticeship system,
inexperienced workers are expected to make errors—this is viewed as part of the learning
process rather than an indication of future performance. The empowering manager will explain
the value of the error in terms of the learning experience it provided and in terms of the value of
breaking habits and taking risks.
The author uses simplified tenets of situational leadership to describe the stages an employee
must go through while becoming empowered and the appropriate managerial style to address
employee needs at each stage. Ward also uses Stephen Covey's "idea of an 'agreement' between
manager and employee which clarifies the 'terms' under which the employee is empowered. The
author uses logical analysis and the weight of what another author has proposed to support his
thesis. Few writers provide any perspective that empowerment is a process and that workers
should not be given authority before they are ready to properly exercise it. Because Ward does, I
tend to overlook his lack of references beyond Covey and have used some of the information he
has provided.
Ward notes the importance of training and the changes to the manager's role, "The objective is
to keep giving employees responsibilities which move them along the capability continuum,
eventually reaching 'fully capable of the task'. Naturally, the manager must be careful to keep
adjusting his or her leadership style as the employee becomes more capable." The assignment of
responsibilities which move the employee on the continuum is a form of training not usually
thought of as such. Resource availability is also noted as important, "Resources include items
such as funding, access to support staff, or experts who have knowledge on which the employee
can draw." Ward also makes note of an important tenet of situational leadership, "The leadership
style does not have to be the same throughout—it can change on each component of the task."
That is, if the employee is skilled in one aspect of a project that aspect can be delegated to him or
her, however if the employee lacks skill in another component a different, more directive,
leadership style is called for. The author goes on to provide an example of this.
Zimmerman, M.A. (1990). Taking aim on empowerment research: On the distinction between
individual and
psychological conceptions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18-1, p. 169.
While this article is from outside the management field, it does provide some useful
conceptions which help in understanding empowerment. The author argues that the individual
perspective of empowerment is too limited. The article, which introduces a series of articles on
this topic, favors a psychological perspective of empowerment. This perspective includes the
context within which the individual makes decisions and acts out his or her empowerment.
This article is primarily a literature review and seeks to synthesize the articles which follow
into a coherent whole using logical analysis. Because the perspective is outside the field of my
thesis, I have taken only that which seems applicable. Namely, the definition of empowerment
and the perspective that empowerment must pervade the organization's culture in order to be
effective.
Appendix
A. A Retail Example of the Apprenticeship Model
An empowered organization will recognize the contribution of all employees and will work to
develop each to his or her full capability. An empowered organization will recognize that
competency in one area does not indicate competence in another area; the effort of every
employee has an impact on the success of the entire organization and all work is valued. That is,
the effectiveness of the store depends upon properly displayed merchandise, appropriate
acceptance of returned goods, and clean toilets.
However, the customer service desk manager may not know how to properly clean toilets or
how to display merchandise, the janitor may not know how to accept returns or display
merchandise, and the department manager may not know how to accept returns or clean toilets.
It is conceivable that an apprentice in one area of competence will be a journeyperson in another,
and that as a journeyperson he or she will mentor an apprentice in that area. It is conceivable
that a pair of employees will mentor each other across several competencies.
An example will make these concepts clearer. This example is provided not as a case study,
but rather to more clearly articulate the concepts under consideration. Imagine a department
store where employee skill levels are ranked either as apprentice, journeyperson, or master.
Please refer to the chart below for each of five employee's position, and skill level in each of four
competency areas:
COMPETENCY AREAS
employee merchandise merchandis employee
position title registers
name display e codes scheduling
customer service
Smith master journey master journey
desk manager
assistant store
Jones journey master journey master
manager
apprentic
Samson hardware clerk apprentice journey apprentice
e
Kirkwood ladies wear clerk journey journey apprentice apprentice
Bhatia crafts manager master apprentice apprentice journey
In the above example it would be expected that Smith would mentor Jones in the operation of
the registers and in the codes associated with merchandise, Jones would mentor Smith in
merchandise display techniques and employee scheduling. This is clear because each is a master
in some areas and a journeyperson in others. If we carry this concept of more experienced
people providing training and mentoring to less experienced people within a competency area,
we would assume Smith and Kirkwood share responsibility for training Samson and Bhatia on
merchandise display. That Jones and Kirkwood mentor Samson on the registers, and are in turn
mentored by Smith and Bhatia, and so forth.
The apprenticeship system is paralleled in the field of education and in the management
theory of situational leadership. Just as there is a hierarchy in the levels of the trades (apprentice,
journeyperson, master) the field of higher education has its own hierarchy:
Situational Leadership (Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Zigarmi, 1985) seeks to identify the
employee's knowledge, skills, and motivation level for each set of tasks he or she performs on
the job. The manager/leader then provides the correct combination of direction and motivation
to respond to the employee's needs:
• Directing (or telling)--is the leader's response to an employee who has little or no skills or
knowledge of the task and is highly motivated. The employee's motivation will not be
significantly impacted by the lack of input they have because they are still learning the
ropes.
• Coaching (or selling)--is the leader's response to an employee who still lacks skills or
knowledge and yet has lost some motivation. This technique seeks input from the
employee as a motivator, yet still provides the opportunity for the manager/leader to
provide needed direction and to increase the employee's knowledge.
• Supporting--is the appropriate leader response to an employee who has developed
knowledge and skills, yet is still experiencing motivation problems. The manager/leader
seeks opportunities to praise the good work effort of the employee and provide positive
feedback as a motivator.
• Delegating--is the highest step in this hierarchy, the highly skilled employee who
provides their own motivation is appropriately supervised through delegation. It becomes
the employee's responsibility to seek out the manager/leader when problems are
encountered.