Empowerment: Theoretical Background and Application

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract

In transitioning from traditional hierarchical management structure to a
more open, democratic and participative approach, a key issue many
organizations face is empowering their employees. Empowerment is defined
for purposes of this paper as the ability of employees to " . . . use more
judgment and discretion in their work and to participate more fully in
decisions affecting their working lives." (Potterfield, 1999, p. 2). This
paper includes an analysis of the theoretical background of empowerment and
why it is important to the teams-building process, a brief discussion of
empowerment procedures (including a guideline for devising an Empowerment
Measure), and a discussion of possible problems that would arise in the
process. Finally, there will be a critique of some of the empowerment
theories.

Empowerment: Theoretical Background And Application

The face of the contemporary workplace is drastically changing. More and
more companies are realizing the value of more "flat", democratic
organizational structure over the traditional autocratic, hierarchical
management styles. Teams-based or participative organizations are now
becoming the norm, instead of many layers of middle management making all
the decisions effecting their subordinate workers. As companies grapple
with these changes, a crucial step is employee empowerment. Specifically,
how capable are the workers within this new teams-based organization of
functioning without the supervision of middle management? How reliable and
dependable can their decisions be as they take a more active role in the
development of the organization? The notion of empowerment seeks to answer
these questions. According to Potterfield (1999), and for purposes of this
paper, empowerment will be best defined as a way of bestowing upon
employees "the power to use more judgment and discretion in their work and
to participate more fully in decisions affecting their working lives." (p.
2). If organizations are to have the full participation and input of its
workers, then it is in its best interest to see to it that they are
operating at their fullest capacities and with complete confidence in their
abilities to make and implement these decisions. This paper will deal with
both how to empower employees in a transition to a participative or
teams-based organization, and pitfalls and critiques of this process.
First, however, a broader theoretical/historical background in empowerment
within a participative organization is necessary.

It is no small coincidence that the notion of empowerment in the workplace
took root in the 1960’s, a turbulent time in America’s history
(Potterfield, 1999; pp. 38-39). At every turn, it seemed that the overall
zeitgeist of that era was to question the structures of traditional power
and elicit a change for the betterment of humankind. There was most notably
of course both the Civil Rights movement and the youth counterculture
centered around anti-war sentiments, but this mindset even made inroads to
academic and philosophical thinkers of the time. The field of psychology
itself underwent far-reaching change as Abraham Maslow, Rollo May, Kurt
Goldstein, Anthony Sutich, and other notable professionals in the field
spearheaded the Humanistic movement in reaction to what they felt was a
monopoly formed by behaviorism (Wertz, 1994, pp. 14-15). It is Maslow, the
central figure in the formation of Humanistic Psychology, who also proved
highly influential in the changes and re-evaluations that
Industrial/Organizational psychology underwent at the time, as well.

The impact Maslow made upon both these fields resides in his theories of
self-actualization. Maslow’s objection to both the dominant behaviorism of
the time and Freudian psychoanalysis before it was that both were only
studies of the sick, the neurotics. He proposed a new sort of psychology
focusing on healthy functioning, on what it meant to be a healthy person,
to be relatively free of the sort of crippling neuroses that the other two
disciplines focused on. More importantly, he wanted to start with a new set
of assumptions, that human beings strive towards health and happiness,
towards functioning at the fullest level of their capacities, what he
called Self-Actualization. Neuroses, he argued, were the product of failing
to reach this goal, caused either by individual or social limitations.
Unhealthy societies breed unhealthy people, and any psychologies that start
by assuming human beings were by nature, neurotic, were doing their
clientele a grave disservice through a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Maslow’s principles of self-actualization not only had impact in the field
of psychology but perhaps just as importantly, in the workplace, as well.
In his attempts to find a "laboratory" of sorts where he could bring about
healthy functioning on a social level, Maslow turned to workplace settings,
spending the summer of 1962 at a manufacturing plant in California. His
book based on the notes and journals of that time were published originally
under the title Eupsychian Management; "Eupsychia" being his term, derived
from "utopia", for that culture comprised entirely of fully-functioning,
self-actualized persons. Maslow observed interactions at the plant, and
then began theorizing on what would make them more efficient and healthier.
Although it went out of print and faded into obscurity at the time, massive
interest in the contemporary business field brought about its republishing
in 1998 under the new title Maslow on Management. This interest is no doubt
related to the shifts most companies are making to participative-style
settings, espoused in the work of one of the most formative writers in I/O
psychology, Douglas McGregor.

McGregor, writing in the early ‘60’s, laid out the traditional "Theory X"
organization as consisting of a rigid hierarchy of managers who needed to
constantly supervise workers to get any kind of satisfactory results from
them. Like the behaviorism Maslow was so opposed to in psychology, McGregor
felt that Theory X organizations were making a dangerous and
counterproductive assumption about their employees as inherently
self-interested and lazy. Again, limiting assumptions within a dominant
theory produced limiting results, this time being resentful, unmotivated
and unfulfilled employees (Potterfied, 1999, pp. 21-22). Truly reflecting
the spirit of the era, he argued that the time had come for a new sort of
organization embracing democratic values where its workers had a more
active, decisive role in its development, what he called "Theory Y" (p.
46). McGregor was openly influenced by Maslow’s theories of
self-actualization (Maslow with Stephens and Heil, 1998, p. 15), and the
two enjoyed a mutual collaboration and support of one another’s work, each
influencing the other throughout their later careers. Key overlaps between
McGregor and Maslow were the notions that human beings strive for healthy
functioning, that they are capable of being autonomous, of making good
decisions, and that they naturally seek out work as a process of continued
growth and learning (p. 15; p. 38).

Empowerment is the implicit assumption underlying both of these theories.
The sort of esteem that most people need in their process of actualization
is, in most senses, synonymous with empowerment. According to Maslow
(1998), people need a sense of self-determination, autonomy, dignity, and
responsibility to continue to function in a healthy, growth-motivated way.
When placed in an environment where any or all of these qualities are
removed from them and they are instead forced to submit to another’s will
and think and act under constant supervision, their sense of esteem and
self-worth is robbed from them. Neurosis is the only result (pp. 55-56).
Clearly, these qualities people desire echo the notion of empowerment.
Hitchcock and Willard (1995) even go so far as to say that to be empowered
is to be self-actualized (p. 44).

It is intrinsic to human functioning, then, for people to be and feel
empowered, and this holds true even in the workplace. Authoritarian,
suspicious supervision can only bring about unhealthy functioning and thus,
unhealthy organizations. Organizations which instead fostered the very best
in humans, which assumed that they were naturally motivated towards work
and doing a good job, now would have access to the full potentiality of
their employees. This is what McGregor aimed at in advancing his "Theory Y"
organization, and is echoed in what Maslow, in his journals, would call
"Enlightened Management".

Thus is the basis for the changes that the field of I/O Psychology
underwent in the 1960’s. Both Maslow and McGregor did not see their
theories immediately catch on in the business field, however (Potterfield,
1999, p. 45). It was not until the recessions of the ‘70’s and early ‘90’s,
combined with increased competition from particularly the Japanese, that
teams-based or participative approaches began to take a strong foothold in
Corporate America. In an effort to keep costs low, organizations have
undergone considerable downsizing and then found that by adopting a
teams-based approach, they can function more efficiently with much fewer
staff (p. 31; pp. 34-35). Beyond that, there is the advent of more
sophisticated technologies, allowing for a more flexible role in the
workplace, rather than the "specialized labor" credo of industrialism
(McLagan and Nel, 1995; p. 16). The lure of empowerment was that it spoke
to higher needs beyond just those provided by material rewards; it engaged
people on a deeper level and spoke to their actualization needs (McCoy,
1997; pp. 199-201). With an empowered workforce functioning in a
teams-based environment, organizations have found their workers to be more
engaged and fully committed to the success of the company. These measures
have met with great financial gain, as shown in several studies. Patricia
McLagan and Christo Nel, in their book The Age of Participation: New
Governance for the Workplace and the World (1995), cite several such
studies. One, conducted by Mark Huselid (pp. 33-34), found that
participative work practices were significantly linked to decreased
turnover, increased productivity, and improved performance. Likewise, he
found a substantial impact on financial benefits, increasing the company’s
market value from $35,000 to $50,000 per employee. David Lewin found
similar results in a Columbia University study (pp. 31-32), finding better
financial performance associated with companies that share profits and
gains with employees, that have an open information sharing system, and
broad programs of employee involvement. Dennis Kavertz (pp. 30-31) found
that high-performing companies more readily use participative management,
highly decentralized, emphasizes people and creativity, and utilizes the
best, most recent technology and resources available.

This method of organizational structure, whether called "self-directed work
teams", "self-management", or "participative management", is now spreading
rapidly. It is estimated in some circles that half of all workers in
America will be operating in a teamwork capacity by the beginning of the
next century (Hitchcock and Willard, 1995; p. vii).

Empowerment is a major issue accompanying this transition. Workers must be
able to feel confident in their decision-making abilities, must feel
supported by the company environment, and, most of all, must be able to
make good, effective decisions in a teams-based organization. Empowerment
is a process, and a necessary one in organizations where workers are used
to doing their jobs essentially on autopilot as their supervisors make all
decisions for them. The next issue is how to help employees feel empowered.

A good starting-point in the empowerment process in an organization is to
see how empowered its employees feel (Robinson, 1997, p. 3). An Empowerment
Measure, a current state assessment of the organization along several
dimensions, should be devised and conducted. While there cannot be a
catchall, generic Empowerment Measure procedure, it should cover the
general areas listed below (these guidelines are based on Hitchcock and
Willard (1995), pp. 7-8; Robinson (1997), pp. 5-7; and Potterfield (1999),
Chapter 2: "Theories and Practices of Empowerment", pp. 49-59.).



Empowerment Measure Guidelines

Organizational Structure
Basically, a diagram of the organizational power structure, but also, a
sort of cast of characters in the process. Identify all components of the
organization. Included should be departments, job descriptions, and other
key players, such as unions, employee action committees, the role of
customers and suppliers, etc. Traditional ("Theory X") organizations would
be hierarchical in arrangement, each individual manager responsible for a
layer below them, on down to the worker. A key issue in regards to
empowerment is how deep the hierarchy goes, i.e., how many layers of
management it has. The more levels to the hierarchy, the less power and
autonomy is relegated to workers. It also may be a good indicator of how
autocratic the organization’s culture may be (see #5 below). Exceptionally
deep structures will require significant empowerment implementation
procedures and organizational restructuring if the transition to a teams
environment is to be successful.

Management Style
Once the structure of the organization has been determined, there must now
be a sort of assessment of how employees are managed. This is different
from the personality assessments later in the process in that it is simply
an assessment of each layer of the hierarchy to see how much supervision is
given or needed and how broad the span of control is. Fairly broad spans of
control would mean less supervision and thus perhaps workers more used to
functioning relatively independently. More narrow spans mean a higher level
of supervision and less autonomy for the workers. Also, attention should be
paid to what sort of disciplinary practices there are, i.e., how is
tardiness handled, is there a "quota" for production and what happens when
employees do not meet it, evaluation process, etc. If these policies are in
place to regulate and control, then empowerment will be low. If instead
they are aimed more to guide the employees and develop and nurture them,
then there is a high likelihood of feeling empowered.

Worker Profile
A more close analysis of the workers is also needed. Key issues are their
range of tasks, the educational achievement they have and require, how
diverse they are, how much they interact with other workers in other
departments, and how they interact with their supervisors. Highly diverse
work settings may indicate a need for an informal or flexible workplace,
thus allowing for individual differences to emerge, which in turn enables
workers to feel that they are able to be more fully themselves at their
job. A more uniform workplace, on the other hand, may be stifling to these
same feelings, creating instead conformity and lower personal empowerment.
A large gap in education between management and workers may also be a
hindrance to feelings of personal adequacy and competence among the latter.
Interestingly, this step also illuminates a glaring exception in
associating empowerment with teams-based organizations in regards to
independence. In an organization with highly specialized, individualized
employees, there will be high empowerment, but not necessarily a high
likelihood of success for a teams-based approach.

Informal Power
Hand-in-hand with examining organizational structure (formal power) and
level of supervision is also the somewhat more tricky task of analyzing
informal power within the organization. Informal power is how much
influence individuals or entities outside the recognized structure have
over the workers. This could be anything from a budding Unionization
movement, to a "clique" of workers, to the veteran of the department whom
everyone goes to for advice. It is also indicated, to some extent, by the
level of supervision the workers have from management. Workers under a
fairly "broad" span of control from their manager have a greater degree of
autonomy, it has been noted, and thus already have a form of "informal
empowerment". Also, it is more likely in this situation that there will be
more sources of informal power within those broad units. It is important to
recognize these sources of informal power in order not to clash with them
in the empowerment process but instead to acknowledge and include them to
some extent. A good way to discover these informal power sources are to
observe the day-to-day functioning of the workers, noting who they interact
with and what the nature of the interaction is. Included could also be the
study of the workers on breaks, lunches, and after work to see how they
organize socially. If there are cliques within work groups, or unofficial
"leaders" within departments, they, too, might be an issue to individual
empowerment. Empowerment means all persons involved feel competent and
secure in the face of little or no direct supervision, rather than a select
few.

Organizational Culture
Many of the preceding steps have provided good indicators of what the
culture of the organization is; that is, what the "personality" of the
organization is or perceives itself to be. Issues such as the formal and
informal power structures and level of supervision of workers all serve to
point towards how open or flexible the organization is. Other factors to
include in assessing the culture are a detailed look at its history
(including unionization or other workers’ rights movements within the
company), its mission statement, and what it provides to the public and how
it does so. Additionally included should be how financially stable the
company currently is, and how financially stable the employees perceive it
to be. Employees who feel they are in a stable work environment will feel
more secure and empowered. Advancement opportunities and rewards/incentive
programs should also be described, as they feed into how committed and
employee feels to making positive contributions and whether or not they are
recognized for their efforts. Morale, too, provides a good measure of the
culture of the organization. Essentially, the issue in this step is to see
what assumptions underlie the organization’s day-to-day functioning, which
in turn will point to how open this organization will be towards a more
empowered workforce, and how capable it will be of maintaining it.

Flow of Information
How is communication handled? Does it merely go up and down through the
ranks, or can it go across to other departments? Are new ideas freely
encouraged or is there a strict procedure to be followed without exception?
Are employees kept informed of the organization’s development, good and
bad, or are they given orders at the last minute? Organizations with a
restrictive, secretive environment where information is tightly controlled
will have less informed less empowered employees. Organizations with a more
open environment, where ideas are encouraged from all levels will have a
freer flow of information, better-informed employees, and thus higher
empowerment.

Employee Assessment
This can either be a formal or informal process of essentially gauging the
personalities of those people involved, and how they interact with each
other. How flexible are the executives? What attitude do the managers have
for workers, beyond just their level of supervision? How do employees feel
they are being treated, how much do they trust the motives of their
supervisors? How do they feel about their work, how connected are they to
it; do they do it because they want to or are they following orders? How do
they feel about success or failure; do they attribute it to their own
actions (internal locus of control) or to other people or situations
(external locus of control)? How do any of these people feel about more
active involvement in the decision making process at the worker’s level?
This can take the form of asking these questions directly or through a more
formal process such as by administering any of the organizational
"personality" tests available. This process may provide some of the most
direct evidence for the presence or lack of empowerment among employees.

Finally, a basic interview process could be conducted in a broad
cross-section of the organization to get a grasp on how empowered persons
feel within their job. A single question can be asked, along the lines of
what that employee does when they are confronted by a new or novel problem
at work, and then basing the extended interview on that response. Many of
the areas above would then be covered in this process. Does that employee
go to anyone for assistance? Are they required to seek help? Do they go to
a coworker in an informal way, just to get reassurances, or do they go to a
trusted veteran in the department? Do they go to the supervisor because
they are required to, or out of respect? Or, do they avoid going to their
managers altogether, even when they are required by their rules to do so?
Key themes in these interviews can then be looked for which will give a
good indication of empowerment by showing areas of formal and informal
power, how much employees are supervised, whether or not they trust or are
allowed to trust their own judgment, etc.

Again, this measure is not and cannot be a fixed, specific procedure, but
instead should be viewed as a loose guideline for gauging the current
environment of the organization to see how receptive it is towards a more
democratic design, and what factors will be effecting this change. Sections
can be omitted or streamlined, based on the organization itself. Applying a
measure that covers both the general areas and the cross- sectional
interview question listed above should give a fairly good picture of how
empowered employees are in their jobs.

For example, using this process at one company reveals a complex,
hierarchical organization composed of deep layers of management, each with
a tight span of control. Managers are not isolated from their employees but
sit directly within eyesight of them to enforce productivity standards.
Workers do not require a High School diploma and many do not have one,
while managers usually require at least a college degree if not more, thus
allowing for very little room for advancement for workers. A unionization
movement was implemented within the past ten years but was quashed by
management through somewhat questionable means. Executives are far removed
from production, and have no direct communication with workers but instead
do so through either the many deep layers of management or through memos or
recorded announcements.

Short of a financial crisis, this organization presents a fairly bleak
opportunity for any sort of empowerment procedures, much less a teams-based
approach. Compare this to another hypothetical organization, which recently
underwent a severe financial upheaval resulting in downsizing of middle
management. The organization is currently much "flatter" with not so many
hierarchical levels, and managers that do remain have a broad span of
control, meaning they do not have or want close supervision of their
workers. Here, the situation is ripe for a more teams-based approach and
thus higher empowerment opportunities for workers. Neither of these two
examples is necessarily a list of the absolute qualities an organization
must have in order to require empowerment, but are two hypothetical
extremes at either end of the Theory X/Theory Y scale.

Once an assessment of empowerment in the organization has been made, the
process of empowerment can begin. The ultimate goal of empowerment is to
create a workbase of employees who are informed and engaged in the
organization’s functioning, and feel enabled to contribute through their
actions (McCoy, 1997, pp. 192-195). It is, as has already been said, a
crucial quality in any teams-based organization. Thus, the process of
empowerment closely follows the process of transitioning to teams (based on
comparisons between the teams-building process in Hitchcock and Willard
(1995) and the empowerment procedures in Robinson (1997).

First, there must be a "champion", a (usually) high-ranking person who is
utterly convinced of the benefits of re-engineering the workplace to be
more participative/empowered. Next, there must be support from the
executives beyond just those theoretical values mentioned above; they must
also see within this process a true gain to the company and not merely be
following a trend. An assessment such as the Empowerment Measure must be
taken of the organization to see how compatible it would be to the process.
After the assessment is taken, a design committee comprised of various
people throughout various levels of the organization is formed to begin
re-envisioning and re-engineering the organization. A new goal is created
for the organization to work towards, with the shared contribution of all
levels and members. Roles are redefined and boundaries are set. At every
level, there is an open sharing of ideas and a free flow of communication,
the key in creating a more participative or empowered organizations. With
better access to information, employees will be much better informed, which
in turn allows them to feel more engaged in the functioning of the
organization; two of the goals in empowering employees. By being better
informed, the employees are more totally able to see that the organization
is truly undergoing a change in its very structure, which also allows them
to feel further committed to the process in transforming their work
environment for the better. Both empowering employees and transforming the
organization to a teams-based environment is a long, arduous process in
that involves active learning from mistakes, and cannot be expected to
happen overnight or even over the course of a few months.

Both of the preceding topics have been done somewhat in a vacuum, a sort of
assumption of both a tabula rasa organization and employees. There are,
naturally, many problems that can arise in the empowerment process. Many
workers may resist these new responsibilities; they in fact like having
their decisions made for them and will resent the extra burdens (and work)
that participative designs would bring (Hitchcock and Willard, 1995, p.
36). One possible way around this theory is to show these employees how
truly empowered they now are by giving them a challenging task to figure
out themselves, which will ultimately prove in their best interest; for
instance, devising a new work schedule (p.36). An open and ongoing process
of communication with employees is needed. If they are shown that indeed
the organization is undergoing radical change, and they will now be truly
responsible with no managers supervising them, many will step up to the
challenge.

There still may be those workers who resent the implications of greater
self-direction, possibly even arising from a palpable fear. There is an
interesting hypothesis underlying this reaction. Maslow has called this the
Jonah Complex, "the fear of one’s own greatness" (Maslow, 1971, p. 34).
While Maslow discussed this term in a more mystical, spiritual context, it
is associated as a sort of classic block to self-actualization. Since
empowerment speaks to the same sort of needs as self-actualization, it
could be drawn that there is the possibility of a collective sort of Jonah
Complex at the heart of many conflicts in organizational transitions. Truly
engaging in the work process--that is, committing all of one’s self and
their energies in a total way--is an unsettling prospect for some people,
especially when before all they had to do was "turn off" and allow others
to decide for them. The Jonah Complex was a relatively new theory to
Maslow, one which he only started looking at more closely shortly before
his death. He did not apply it to his Enlightened Management principles, so
a more thorough sense of the term is never dealt with in his writings on
the workplace, and it is only a hypothetical relationship in this case.
Again, open communication, perhaps coupled even with some psychotherapy
techniques, are the best ways to confront this problem and bring it out in
the open.

Employees may also be cynical and suspicious of this approach as another
way to get more work out of them for less money (Hitchcock and Willard,
1995, p. 27). The word "empowerment" has, it seems, come to be viewed with
derision by many in the workforce as another meaningless trend (Purser and
Cabana, 1998, p. 130; p. 133). Hitchcock and Willard (1995), in fact, even
allow that the term should not be specifically spoken in the beginning
phases of the procedure (p. 8) to avoid such cynicism. This suspicion of
empowerment practices has some measure of truth to it, and will be further
discussed in the conclusion. For now, it is best to say that allowing
employees to take an active part in the change process from the very
beginning, and showing them that their organization is truly changing will
remove some of their wariness.

There is also the danger of the employees feeling too empowered; in feeling
so independent of other facets of the organization that there might also be
troubles in transitioning to teams, as mentioned in #3 of the guidelines of
the Empowerment Measure. In other situations, employees might be too
overzealous in their new sense of empowerment, what Hitchcock and Willard
(1995) call "testing" (p. 42). Both of these problems involve an issue of
boundaries and role definition. In the case of employees who are too
empowered already and thus operate independently of the rest of the
organization, there should be a process of winning them over, just as there
is at the executive level. They should be made to see the benefits to
themselves and the new organization. Their current "empowerment" is more
self-directed, a status rather than a process of actively participation.
The goal in this case is to transition from this kind of expert power to
the type of power where they are more engaged in the organization
(Hitchcock and Willard, 1995, pp. 26-27). In cases where employees are
testing their newfound sense of power, a clear setting of boundaries is
needed and can possibly be avoided by communicating these concerns in the
re-engineering phase (pp. 42-43).

Role identification is also at the heart of one last major problem:
management. If the organization is to change in the best and most complete
way to a participative, teams-based environment with employees actively
involved in the decision-making process, then middle management’s role will
be changing significantly. They are caught in the middle: they are not
executives, and so do not engage in the overarching decisions that involve
the entire development of the company, nor are they workers who contribute
elements of production. They are being asked to give up some, if not all,
of their power. Their role, in many senses, was their power.
Understandably, this produces resistance. Some theorists (notably Purser
and Cabana; see conclusion below) advocate an utter dismantling of the
middle-management structure in order to have complete change. This method,
while effective in dealing with possible resistance from managers, is a bit
harsh and eliminates a valuable resource for energy and ideas. Another
approach would be to keep the managers on, but in a different capacity,
after an active, mutual process of role re-definition. In this case, they
are shown, like executives, the benefits of giving up their power to the
employees and learn the new dynamics of the more democratic empowerment.
They learn not to identify so strongly their personal identity with their
power over others and reshape their roles to be more of a guide than a
supervisor. Hitchcock and Willard (1995) take this route and suggest that
managers are the best resource in coaxing change from the employees and
make good "champions". Unfortunately, they do not answer adequately the
issue of what managers do after the change process is complete, and so the
role of managers in the new company is left up to them.

As can be seen, communication is a key to curbing many of these problems as
or before they arise. Allowing the employees to confront these issues as a
learning process not only brings about a solution solve them, but also
further serves to reinforce their own new-found sense of empowerment.

Finally, though, even with these problems dealt with, there are criticisms
of empowerment theory, specifically with its ideology. While it has been
noted that employees sometimes view the term "empowerment" with cynicism
and distrust, this reputation can be at times well founded. Purser and
Cabana (1998) in particular are wary of empowerment practices, warning
against what they call "pseudo-empowerment" (p. 132). This is a practice of
simply putting a new face on an old scheme; hollow maneuvers designed to
make employees feel more empowered while they are still subordinate to
traditional power structures. In true empowerment, according to Purser and
Cabana, the old authority structure is challenged and even changed,
transferring the power directly to the work teams (p. 132.). They are also
sharply critical about much of the humanistic ideology that underlies these
practices, noting that both McGregor and Maslow still focused on management
and leadership, and not the workers (p. 133). Again, if the old management
hierarchy is not broken down, and complete authority given to the workers,
then terms like "self-actualization", "autonomy", "fulfillment", and
"democracy" are merely empty words, tools of manipulation in the interest
of traditional power (pp. 132-138). Ideology becomes rhetoric; theories
have no roots in application.

But, in conclusion, ideology is the most important part of the empowerment
process. Potterfield (1999) a proponent of empowerment theory, acknowledges
these criticisms that empowerment can be abused as a tool of authority.
However, he maintains the importance of the ideals underlying empowerment
practices, for that is what keeps the movement vital and viable (p. 12; p.
135). Employees must also be a committed agent in the change process rather
than passive recipients of power, for without them actively involving
themselves in the process, they continue to be tools in the very same
system they are supposed to be dismantling (p.135). If employees and
managers and executives truly grasp the real meaning of empowerment and
what it means, then total democracy is the only result. Power cannot be
given or taken; it is a mutual process of understanding that begins with
the person themselves.

References

Hitchcock, Darcy E. and Willard, Marsha L. (1995). Why Teams Can Fail and
What to do About It. Chicago: Irwin Professional Publishing.

Maslow, Abraham. (1971). The Farther Reaches of Human Nature. New York:
Penguin Arkana.

Maslow, Abraham, with Contributions and Commentary by Deborah C. Stephens
and Gary Heil,. (1998). Maslow on Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.

McCoy, Thomas J. (1996). Creating an "Open Book Organization—Where
Employees Think & Act Like Business Partners. New York: AMACOM.

McLagan, Patricia A. and Nel, Christo. (1995). The Age Of Participation:
New Governance for the Workplace and the World. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Potterfield, Thomas A. (1999). The Business of Employee Empowerment.
Westport, CN: Quorum Books.

Purser, Ronald E. and Cabana, Steven. (1998). The Self Managing
Organization. New York: Free Press.

Robinson, Russell D. (1997). The Empowerment Cookbook: Action Plans For
Creating, Sustaining, or Refocusing Empowered Work Teams. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Wertz, Frederick (Ed.). (1994). The Humanistic Movement: Recovering the
Person in Psychology. Lake Worth, FL: Gardner Press, Inc.