Sarah M. Denio Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute April 7, 2000
It has been said (Guvenc, 1991) that “the best managed companies have one thing in common: a conscious effort to empower their employees,” (p. 13). While this factor may be only one of the many characteristics shared by successful organizations, it is an important one—one which research suggests may be essential for attaining success.
Empowerment begins from a philosophical commitment to expand the power of individual employees (Harvey & Drolet, 1994). Unfortunately, in too many organizations, this is also where it ends, as managers in some organizations are unaware of how to or may be fearful of trusting their employees. As stated by Townsend and Gebhardt (1997), “without trust, there can be no self-confidence, nor confidence in the abilities in others…empowerment comes out of confidence in the abilities of others’” (p. 9). As it is in most relationships, trust is the key element in organizational relationships, an essential criteria for empowerment success.
The term empowerment was first popularized in 1986 when Peter Block authored The Empowered Manager. Over the next couple of years, it was considered a hot topic—what we would call a “buzz word” today—and courses teaching its principles were a extremely prevalent. Soon thereafter, by 1989, the term had become a cliché. As a result, organizations may have lost their focus on the true importance and utility of empowerment. “This track record obscures the fact that empowerment was, and is a valid concept, one that went awry largely because Block never offered an unadorned, solid definition that people could apply under a variety of circumstances,” (Townsend & Gebhardt, p. 9). Block’s failure to provide a hard and fast definition for the concept upon introduction has left many managers speculating, and defining for themselves what it may mean for their organizations.
Empowerment may be defined simply as the “attempt to make more use of mental resources [of employees],” or, more expressively, as describing the “values, hopes, and initiatives associated with distributing authority and showing power throughout an organization” (Kinlaw, 1995). It may be thought of as “nothing more than the granting of authority equal to responsibility, and nothing less,” or abridged to simply “the E-word” (Townsend & Gebhardt, p. 9). For some it may refer to “the art of increasing the competence and capability of others by endowing them with a sense of self-worth and potency” (Harvey & Drolet, 127), while still others have defined empowerment as having responsibility equal to authority. A final definition, which views empowerment as “the process as a result of which individual employees have the autonomy, motivation, and skills necessary to perform their jobs in a way which provides them with a sense of ownership and fulfillment while achieving shared organizational goals,” (Lowe, p. 22) appears to incorporate many of the other characterizations of empowerment into a comprehensive depiction of what the word is often thought to signify.
Factors such as the wave of downsizing and restructuring that have been taking place in organizations may contribute to the current interest in empowerment. Such changes force managers to do more with less and make it impossible for them to exercise direct control over the performance of people (Kinlaw, 1995). As of late, “empowerment has become the term-of-choice to identify any group which currently suffers a lack of power to influence the course of events to its own advantage or to move some group or organization toward some new level of power,” (Kinlaw, p. 1). Whatever the reasons may be, empowerment has certainly experienced a jolt in popularity over the past several years.
Empowerment is a technique which is being utilized to improve the way organizations use people’s mental resources. Over the past twenty years, hundreds of companies have demonstrated that worker involvement and participation are effective means of promoting a more successful workforce and organization (Lawler, 1986, as cited in Kinlaw, 1995). Still, implementation of empowerment strategies into an organization depends on managers’ knowledge of its roots in McGregor’s Theory Y. This precedence requires understanding and acceptance of the conception that employees tend to like work, and that they are motivated, not stifled, by autonomy. Everyone in an organization must have a clear understanding of what they are trying to achieve through empowerment. An understanding of, and devout commitment to, what they must do to achieve their purpose is also necessary upon commencement. According to Kinlaw (1995), among others, implementation of an empowerment initiative may be based on the following several assumptions:
1. Individuals and teams are already empowered to a certain degree [prior to initiation of an empowerment program] or else no work would ever be accomplished;
2. Empowerment is one initiative that can help companies maintain and improve their capacity to compete and survive, yet there are still times when traditional management behaviors will be required;
3. Empowerment means more than giving people permission to do their jobs—it means leading them to discover and create new competences;
4. Empowerment may be reactively undertaken as a response to some initiating change like downsizing or restructuring, or proactively, in order to make better use of the competence of people; and
5. Empowerment may be achieved through formal and informal processes, both of which may interact with and sustain each other.
In consideration of these assumptions, implementation of empowerment in an organization must be preceded by several conditions. Accomplishment of this goal requires full and demonstrated commitment of managers as well as full involvement of the workforce, the organization’s customers and suppliers, and full and open communication amongst all of these intertwining roles (Kinlaw, 1995). Empowerment is a multi-faceted concept, which may be characterized in various ways. Some of these characterizations include:
1. They are, themselves, means of empowerment as they express, stimulate, and ensure the continuance of empowerment;
2. They are supportive of development at every level of the organization—individual, interpersonal, team, and organizational; and
3. They may be easily developed into continuing subsystems in the general process of empowerment and can become fully integrated into the way the organization does business. Some examples of how this may be done are as follows (Harvey & Drolet, 1994):
1. Give employees important work to do—to increase their skills and boost their confidence;
2. Grant employees discretion in doing their work—so they may perceive ownership of it;
3. Give employees resources to do their work—so they may complete the work as easily as possible;
4. Give employees praise and recognition—so they will feel compelled to achieve again;
5. Make employees feel that their survival is in their own hands—they will work harder to complete tasks and achieve their goals;
6. Enhance and build task skills—so employees will look for innovative ways of achieving the desired outcome, and not feel plagued by the monotony of their work; and
7. Encourage employees to work in teams— in order to foster a sense of belongingness and loyalty to one another and the organization, as well as to communicate new ideas.
As one would expect upon examination of these examples of empowerment, it is crucial to have in mind a logical sequence of steps to follow in implementing empowerment initiatives. Most strategies include six steps which must be managed in the process of extending and strengthening empowerment (Kinlaw, 1995). First, the definition of empowerment as it applies to the organization in which it is being implemented must be established and this definition should be communicated to all organization members. Second, clear goals and strategies must be developed, focusing on the purpose of empowerment for the particular organization. The third step is training employees in the knowledge and skills they require to become empowered. This may include training in business, performance, as well as personal competences. Fourth is the adjustment of the organization’s structure, which includes eliminating every job that does not add value, combining jobs that form a natural unity, and reducing layers of management to a bare minimum. The fifth step requires adjustment of the organizations systems in light of the new empowerment, and includes an examination of every system that relates to the control and management of people within the organization. The sixth and final step is the evaluation and subsequent improvement of the previous five steps. Here, improvements are made based on the success of the empowerment initiative up to that point.
While empowerment may seem like a fairly straightforward and painless path to increased effectiveness in an organization, the story does not always end so sweetly. Unfortunately, many managers meet obstacles along the path of commitment to empowering their employees. These obstacles may arise for several reasons. One barrier which may be easily understood after the previous cursory, yet perplexing, examination of the numerous definitions which have been utilized for empowerment, is the lack of clarity about what empowerment is and how the plan will be operationalized within the organization. A second impediment which may arise is that managers may think of empowerment only as shared control, and therefore become fearful of losing the power they have worked so hard to acquire (a ‘why should I give this power away when I had to earn it?’ type of mentality). Finally, managers may be afraid that their subordinates will make a mistake, or perhaps worse yet, do a better job than they had done previously. Demonstrated here are but a few of the reasons why trust and self-confidence are so crucial.
Auspiciously, not all managers find difficulty in implementing empowerment. Trusting, self-confident managers often derive great satisfaction and pride from empowering their employees. Activities of managers who are successful trainers in empowerment include: coaching, sponsoring subordinate projects, facilitating suggestion programs, mentoring, facilitation of self-directed work teams, facilitation of training events, setting up job rotation, redesigning processes, giving accreditation, facilitating business planning teams, and taking ownership of their staff’s development (Lowe, 1995). These activities are useful for empowering individual employees, and often also contribute to the increased effectiveness of organizations by providing managers with additional ‘free’ time to devote to matters they previously did not have the time for. Now that we have a idea of what empowerment is, the assumptions under which it operates, the laborious steps in the process of implementation, as well as obstacles which may be met in striving to implement it, we are finally at liberty to address why an organization may want to put forth the effort to implement such an initiative.
As stated previously, implementation of empowerment may be taken on as either a proactive or reactive approach to improving an organization’s functioning. Each individual organization’s situation will be unique. Accordingly, there are several reasons an organization may choose to put forth the effort to empower its employees. As referred to previously, any manager who empowers his or her subordinates will have more time. Likewise, in all reality, by increasing empowerment, an organization increases the probability that the job will be well done because it will be done by someone close to it, who better understands it, and who truly has to live with the results (Townsend & Gebhardt, 1997).
Recently, a survey of empowerment practice conducted by a major consulting group shed a great deal of light on the benefits of having an empowered workforce (Lowe, 1995). The firm asked companies what they saw as the benefits of empowerment. Responses fell into the following three categories: responsiveness to the market, individual development, and organization systems and measures. Regarding responsiveness to the market, companies reported improvements in the following areas of functioning: an improved customer focus, greater flexibility, increased innovation, and better ability to cope with change. Increased motivation, commitment, energy, and enthusiasm, as well as job enrichment, an increased sense of ownership, higher skill levels, and improved individual performance were among the characterizations of individual development mentioned by several of the surveyed organizations. Regarding organization systems and measures, companies ecstatic with the decreases in staff turnover, improved financial contribution, and lower administrative costs they enjoyed due to their empowerment efforts(Lowe, 1995). These examples are but a few of the rewards an organization may reap upon commissioning an empowerment initiative.
In measuring the results of empowerment programs, organizations may investigate customer focused, employee focused, and/or system focused indicators of empowerment (Lowe, 1995). Customer focused indicators of success may include increases in customer satisfaction and retention coupled with decreases in their complaints. Employee satisfaction, exit interviews, demands for training, and the degree to which employees take initiative and feel in control may be considered employee focused indicators. System focused indicators of successful implementation of empowerment programs include decreased training costs, success in TQM projects, and increases in productivity. Overall, the payoffs of empowerment may be seen in virtually every aspect of the organization, including the work environment, customer satisfaction, the output of services and products, the work processes, the input of services and products, and supplier performance.
Last, but not least important, it is imperative that some potential pitfalls to successful empowerment be taken into consideration when an organization decides to undertake an empowerment initiative with its employees. Conditions which have been found to frequently undermine the success of even the most well-meant empowerment initiatives include:
1. Failure to create the conditions for beginning and continuing the process of empowerment in the beginning;
2. Discounting or underestimating the potential of empowerment; 3. Failure to test and learn;
4. Making empowerment a matter of individual taste and initiative; and
5. Failure to equip people with the necessary competences to perform as an empowered organization.
In consideration of the potential pitfalls, the preceding assumptions and characterizations, the steps in the process, and the numerous reasons for implementing an empowerment initiative in an organization, empowerment is a very practical and valuable means for improving organizational effectiveness. The worth of such an initiative is truly immeasurable when the proper actions are taken to ensure success. There is little doubt that empowerment will prove itself to be of the utmost value to organizations and eventually change the way that they view their employees.
References
Godat, L. & Brigham, T. (1999). The effect of a self-management training program on employees of a mid-sized organization. Journal of Organization Behavior Management, 19(1).
Guvenc, A. (1991). Developing managers’ ability to empower employees. The Journal of Management Development, 10(3).
Harvey, R. & Drolet, B. (1994). Building Teams, Building People. Technomic Publishing Co., Inc.: Lancaster. Kinlaw, D. (1995). The Practice of Empowerment. Gower Publishing Limited: Brookfield.
Lowe, P. (1995). Empowering Individuals: The McGraw Hill One-Day Workshop. McGraw-Hill, Inc.: New York.
Tesluk, P. & Mathieu, J. (1999). Overcoming roadblocks to effectiveness: Incorporating management of performance barriers into models of work group effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2).
Townsend, P. & Gebhardt, J. (1997). Five-Star Leadership. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: New York.
