What Is Empowerment

Empowerment

Preamble At the June 23, 2005 meeting of the Charles Sturt University Professors’ Forum, the issue of empowerment was raised for discussion. The discussion was a response to concerns expressed at the previous meeting when some professors wondered whether the culture of the University was experienced as empowering and enabling for staff, or, to an unacceptable extent, disempowering and disabling. One participant summarised the views expressed thus: Individuals both felt personally and reported the views of others that aspects of the procedures, systems and culture within CSU left individuals feeling personally disempowered. This was resulting in some degree of discomfort, a perceived lack of lack of trust of the employee on the part of the employer, dissatisfaction, and in at least some cases, loss of good people to other employment. It was felt that with due thought and consideration, some aspects of this situation could be improved and that this would lead to improved morale, better productivity and staff retention. The paper that follows is a revised version of the one that informed the discussion at the Professors’ Forum. Some professors thought the paper might fruitfully be shared with others in the University to:  raise awareness about personal empowerment in organisations,  stimulate discussion around systems and practices within CSU, and  encourage the development of systems that support individuals to take an active and responsible role within their work environment. Since the discussion of the paper at the Forum, our CSU colleague Rob Macklin has brought to our attention findings of his research into free speech at work (Macklin 2004) that raise a further question about ‘empowerment cultures’. His research suggests that, in some cases, people in ‘empowerment cultures’ feel they have a right and capacity to speak up about how to improve organisational functioning, but little capacity to raise grievances and more controversial issues. In other words, they are free to speak so long as they are ‘constructive’ and ‘reasonable’. To voice oppositional views is regarded as going against the strong transformational change culture. While this may be so in some organisations, it might prove anathema to a university. It is part of the role of universities to raise awkward questions. So, perhaps in this context, people should be empowered not only to come up with constructive approaches but also, with good reasons, to express dissent and raise serious critical questions, and to have these views heard in a sincere way. This work recognises the pluralist nature of organisations and the importance, therefore, of mechanisms for the expression of dissent.

Denise Jarratt, Patrick Ball and Stephen Kemmis on behalf of the Professors’ Forum July 7, 2005

1 Empowerment

Denise Jarratt, Patrick Ball and Stephen Kemmis

Over the centuries, ideas of hierarchy, power, and bureaucracy have come to define every aspect of our working lives. It is only with the relatively recent movement toward democratization of the workplace, more commonly referred to as employee empowerment, that we have at last been freed from many of the strictures of organized power relationships. Principles of empowerment allow employees to realize their true potential, and to form extraorganizational communities dedicated to solving particular problems (Ashjanasy 2002 :739).

Empowerment is at the centre of Moss Kanter’s (1977) Structural Theory of Power in Organisations. She identifies that structures important to the growth of empowerment are access to information, being provided with the appropriate resources and support to perform required tasks at a high level of achievement, and having access to programs that will enable individuals to develop and enhance their work experience. Empowerment exists in the form of control (by the employee), competencies and goal seeking behaviour (Ozaralli 2003), and can emerge in the form of self managed teams or communities of practice which are assigned the responsibility to manage their assigned tasks. In this context, empowerment requires that effective decision-making authority is assigned to individuals and teams responsible designing and producing work (Ford and Fottler 1995). Such an approach is grounded in trust, commitment and cooperation within and across self organised units. Organisations are recognising the potential of empowerment to build job satisfaction, commitment and performance. They also realise that for employee responsibility (resulting from granting discretion and autonomy – discretionary empowerment) to facilitate active involvement in the realisation of a collective vision, the process of empowerment must be accompanied by an agreed value system and a set of principles to guide decision-making.

Employees can be empowered psychologically through supporting mechanisms such as those that build competencies, motivation, and knowledge sharing, placing employees in control of their work-place destiny (Sprietzer 1996). Thus, psychological empowerment relates to internal beliefs of being in control of ones future, of being able to make choices about how, when and where skills are advanced, and that once advanced, employees are confident that they will be offered opportunities to apply new knowledge. Psychological empowerment has been described as a vehicle for instilling motivated behaviour throughout organisations (Conger and Kanungo 1988), and enhances self worth through identifying and changing the conditions that foster powerlessness. Psychological empowerment emerges where there is clarity in roles and responsibility, a high level of understanding of the purpose and value of work undertaken by an employee in the whole organisational context, competence building, and authority to select and retain work behaviours (Thomas and Velthouse 1990). Discretionary empowerment on the other hand provides employees with the decision-making power to make change their environment or with access to powerful others with decision-making authority (primary versus secondary control). Primary discretionary empowerment appears closely aligned with the notion of structural empowerment, although may be a broader concept in that there is an indication that authority is extended beyond current role boundaries. Structural empowerment involves the transfer of power from those who hold power and decision-making authority to those down the hierarchy, i.e. delegation of authority (Ozaralli 2003). Thus, empowerment occurs when authority is given to an employee to undertake assigned roles.

Autocratic organisations create feelings of powerlessness, underutilisation of employee potential, passiveness and poor performance. Empowerment emerges when the conditions creating powerlessness are removed, and action is motivated though envisioning and commitment, rather than punishment and controls (Thomas and Velthouse 1990).

Where there is commitment to make change, employee empowerment becomes a function of transformational leadership. Under such a leadership perspective there is a sense of mission, pride, faith, respect, excitement and commitment. Transformational leaders will exist at all levels of the organisation, coaching staff, providing formative learning, and delegating responsibility through assigning projects that contain appropriate learning experiences. They will encourage innovative approaches to work and a critical reasoning approach to decision- making. “Transformational leaders create a dynamic organizational vision that often necessitates a metamorphosis in cultural values to reflect greater innovation. We can also propose that transformational behaviors on the part of leaders promote empowering cultural norms” (Ozaralli 2003: 336).

Weidman 2002

When individuals are empowered they assume roles of both a work producer and quality assuror, that is, they take full responsibility for the quality of the work undertaken by themselves as individuals or as members of a team. Empowered employees require a clear shared vision of their organization, and will align their behaviours and practices to that vision. Building a shared understanding of values that underpins that vision provides a mechanism through which employees can assess alternative decision options (Jarratt, Ardagh and McLean 1999). A well- written code of conduct strengthens corporate ethical behaviour by clarifying standards of behaviour when undertaking company activities. These guidelines promote ethical decision-making at all levels of the organisation (Verschoor 1997). Kaptein and Wempe (1998) argue that while it is important to sanction unethical or inappropriate behaviour, not all action should be verified by management. The code should empower employees rather than act as a sanctioning vehicle; it should encourage joint responsibility rather than fear of retribution. The authors argue that successful implementation will be dependent on trust and confidence of management in its employees, anticipating key problem areas, relevance of the code to the specific organisation, and support of top management through development of a moral climate. “The development of morals cannot be the hobby of a few individuals, it must have organization-wide support” (pp. 863).

Empowerment at CSU – some points for discussion  Professor Chamber’s recent, interesting document on a range of workplace reform initiatives provides a locus for discussion of empowerment. The empowerment of employees could be an important component in this workplace reform.  To facilitate active involvement in the realisation of a collective vision, the process of empowerment needs to be accompanied by an agreed value system and a set of principles to guide decision-making. Transformational leadership requires the building of and commitment to a set of ethical values that will socialise and provides standards for those assigned responsibility and discretionary empowerment. Overall, we need to “drive out fear, create trust and create a climate for innovation (Stainer and Stainer 2000:291)  CSU has initiated professional development programs, however there is a view that they are regarded as an end in themselves (e.g. a requirement for promotion) rather than a skill that can be increasingly applied as increasing responsibility is assigned with that skill achievement.  Quality assurance will be enhanced through those undertaking the task also being assigned responsibility for task quality, knowing that project oversight stops with them, and careful mentoring and coaching (to ensure responsibility is only assigned when staff have the skills and capabilities to perform the tasks at the required quality). Tighter controls are argued to reduce, rather than increase, individual responsibility. Such a position does not negate the need for countersigning of work to protect all staff and meet external audit requirements. However, in an empowered environment, the process of countersigning will not always reside within a hierarchy of control.

References

Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002) in a review of Wenger E. C., McDermott R. and Snyder W. C. book ‘Cultivating Communities of Practices: A Guide to Managing Knowledge’ (Harvard Business, Boston 2002), Personnel Psychology 55(3): 739-743 Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988) 'The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice', Academy of Management Review 13(3): 471-482.

Ford, R. C. and Fottler, M. D. (1995) ‘Empowerment: a matter of degree’ Academy of Management Executive 9(3): 21-29. Jarratt, D.G., Ardagh, D. and McLean G. (1999) ‘Corporate Ethics, Workplace Empowerment and Stakeholder Relationship Management” Business & Economics for the 21st Century Vol 111: 212-223

Kanter, R. M., (1977) Men and Women on the Corporation, Basic Books, New York. Kaptein, M. and Wempe, J. (1998) ‘Twelve gordian knots when developing an organizational code of ethics’ Journal of Business Ethics 17(8): 853-869

Macklin, R. (2004) ‘Free speech in the workplace: results of a qualitative study of workplaces in a selection of Australia Firms’, Proceedings of the Third ISBEE World Congress, University of Melbourne, Australia, July 14-17, 2004, www.isbee.org/

Ozaralli, N. (2003) ‘Effect of Transformational Leadership on Empowerment and Team Effectiveness’ Leadership & Organizational Development Journal 24(5/6): 335-344.

Spreitzer, G.M. (1996) 'Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment', Academy of Management Journal 39: 483-504. Stainer A. and Stainer, L. (2000) ‘Empowerment and Strategic Change: an ethical perspective’ Strategic Change 9(5): 287-296. Thomas, K.W. and Velthouse, B.A. (1990) ‘Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: an ’interpretive model’ of intrinsic task motivation’ Academy of Management Review 15: 666-681. Verschoor, C. C (1998) ‘A study of the link between a corporation's financial performance and its commitment of ethics’ Journal of Business Ethics 17(13):1509- 1516

Weidman, D. (2002) ‘Refining Leadership for the 21st Centuary’ The Journal of Business Strategy 23(5):16-19.

Additional Readings Arnold, J.A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J.A. and Drasgow, F. (2000) 'The empowering leadership questionnaire: the construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors', Journal of Organizational Behavior 21(3): 249-269.

Bowen, D.E. (1995) 'Empowering service employees', Sloan Management Review 36: 73-84.

Bowen, D.E. and Lawler, E.E. (1992) 'The empowerment of service workers: what, why, how and when', Sloan Management Review 33: 31-39.

Forrester, R. (2000) ‘Empowerment: rejuvenating a potent idea’ The Academy of Management Executive 14(3): 67-80. Labianca, G., Gray, B. and Brass, D. (2000) A Ggrounded Model of Organizational Schema Change During Empowerment’ Organizational Science 11(2): 237-257.

Spreitzer, G.M. (1995) 'Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation', Academy of Management Journal 38(5): 1442-1465.