Rooting for Empowerment

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

Introduction

The buzzword “empowerment” has become astrategic concern for managers, human resourceprofessionals and consultants alike. Perhapsbecause of this, much of the literature is highlyprescriptive. In their attempts to “empower”workers, therefore, managers have been encour-aged to view empowerment in rather simplisticterms, and as a relatively unproblematic solu-tion to a range of strategic management andlabor management problems. Further to this,there is also the implication that the process of empowerment will lead to clear and desirablegains for both managers and workers.It seems then that the definition of empower-ment which underscores empowering initiativesis accepted as being both self-evident and heldin common by all groups in industry. Thisarticle will argue that this notion of empower-ment is framed too narrowly.The article will argue that authors tend to shyaway from defining empowerment in any mean-ingful, or contextual, way. It will argue that,when analyzed within the context of work, thedefinition of empowerment and the descriptionsof states of empowerment offered seem strange-ly passive. Undue stress seems to be placed onthe managerial role of “empowerer” at theexpense of those who are to be empowered.Thus, a passive definition of empowerment isdeveloped and passive roles are ascribed tothose supposedly empowered. This raises keyquestions over the status and aims of empower-ing initiatives which this article will attempt toaddress.To this end the article is structured as fol-lows: first, the business aims of empowermentand the forces promoting interest in empower-ment will be analyzed; second, empowerment asdefined in the literature on managerial empow-erment will be analyzed in comparison with thevariety of ways in which the term may be inter-preted. Here attention will be drawn to active,or perhaps more properly “activist”, modelsof empowerment; third, based on this analysisa case will be made for activist models asrepresenting a fruitful approach by which to

25

Rooting forempowerment?

David Collins

The authorDavid Collins

is Lecturer in Human Resource Management,the University of Sunderland, UK.

Abstract

Quality, flexibility, and commitment are the buzzwords ofmanagement strategy and reflect many of the goals currentlysought in business. In order to contribute to these businessgoals, human resource professionals have had to rethink thecontributions they make. This has led to the creation of yetmore buzzwords – including the buzzword “empowerment”.Argues that interest in empowerment is not matched by awider reflection on the factors which have promoted andfacilitated these goals, nor is it matched by any wider reflec-tion on the nature of organizations. Argues that theseoversights have led to an implicit and passive definition ofempowerment being used. To redress this balance, analyzesthe forces which have promoted innovation in management,and have made empowerment “thinkable”. Makes a case forviewing empowerment as an ideological construct, and fromhere offers an alternative, activist model of empowerment.

Empowerment in OrganizationsVolume 3 · Number 2 · 1995 · pp. 25–33 © MCBUniversity Press · ISSN 0968-4891

The author is grateful to Keith Horton of NapierBusiness School, Edinburgh, Scotland, for his helpand constructive comments on an earlier draft of thisarticle.

re-examine, and rethink, the dynamics of empowerment.

The push for empowerment

Empowerment stands at the front of a long lineof managerial initiatives developed to addressboth the contemporary and the perennial prob-lems which beset organizations. In order tounderstand the growing interest in empower-ment we have to be aware of the nature of theseproblems and how they impact on organiza-tions.In previous periods management initiativesand innovations focussed on approaches tomanagement such as Taylorism and its associat-ed practices of scientific management. Follow-ing scientific management, or sometimes intandem with it, managers and workers haveendured further developments such as thehuman relations movement, socio-technicalsystems approaches and so on. Throughout the1960s and 1970s further refinements to man-agement thought and practice took place asBritain, for example, struggled to cope withunofficial strikes and a range of macroeconomicproblems[1,2]. This led managers to concen-trate on a range of labor management problemsand in the late 1960s, for example, managerssought formalization in, and control over, labormanagement issues. Later, innovations such asworker participation schemes, the developmentof autonomous work groups and a range of other techniques, designed to allow for thecollaborative redesign of work, came to the fore.As we entered the 1980s, managers wereforced to confront a new range of businessproblems and opportunities in a changed politi-cal environment. Considered together, thesefactors called previous innovations into ques-tion. In response managers became moreassertive. McIlroy[3] notes that in some organi-zations this reassertion took on a rather violent,perhaps even a vengeful tone. He quotes IanMcGregor, the chairman of the National CoalBoard in Britain, who was noted as saying:

People are now discovering the price of insubordi-nation and insurrection. And boy are we going tomake it stick[3, p. 190].

This is perhaps an extreme example. Gill[4]probably captures the more typically held view.He tells us that profit, efficiency and ideas of competitiveness underpinned changes in tech-nology and formed the momentum of innova-tion in this period as opposed to the Keynesianpolicies previously applied.Thus, whereas in the 1960s and 1970s man-agers were attracted to ideas of participation inorder to humanize the work setting, solicitworker suggestions and so reduce employeeturnover and militancy[5], from the 1980sonwards the aims of managerial innovations inwork organization and in working practices havebeen reinterpreted. They have also been statedwith a greater self-confidence in the rights of management.In comparison with the 1960s and 1970s,when participatory schemes and schemespromoting industrial democracy were sold toemployees and trade unions on the basis thatsuch innovations allowed workers a clearrepresentative voice in the formation of arange of policies within the organization,the 1980s and 1990s signify an altogetherdifferent era.Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, ideas of worker participation have undergone a transfor-mation. The focus of these initiatives has beenredirected, squarely, at the problem of competi-tiveness and this has called for a different formof input from workers[6]. Thus, worker involve-ment has been redirected away from joint regu-lation and policy-making activities and remod-eled so that managers now think of involvementas a means of communicating directly withworkers. Worker proactivity, instead of partic-ipation, has been stressed, and the gains accru-ing to workers and their representatives from anenhanced role in the processes of decision mak-ing have been downplayed, if not whollyremoved from the agenda.Yet describing the changing contours of management thought does not explain

why

suchchanges occur. What follows, therefore, is abrief attempt to account for such changes. Thiswill entail an examination of managementideology.

Ideologies of management

In mainstream discussion ideology is almost adirty word. It is difﬁcult to use the term withoutseeming a little “cranky”. This is unfortunate

26

Rooting for empowerment?

David Collins

Empowerment in OrganizationsVolume 3 · Number 2 · 1995 · 25–33

since the concept is powerful and expresses wellthe conﬂicts and problems attendant onattempts to manage organizations, or to bringabout organizational changes, such as thoseassociated with empowerment.An ideology is different from a theory. Cen-tral to the concept of ideology is the notion of interest. Ideologies serve particular interestgroups. Thus Anthony[7, p. 1], quoting Bendix,notes that ideologies of management are: “thoseideas which are espoused by or for those whoexercise authority in economic enterprises”.Anthony tells us that an ideology of manage-ment is vital. Quoting Terkel[7], he reminds usof the reality of work experiences for the majori-ty of the population.Even those of us who truly enjoy our work would have to acknowledge the stresses andpressures which work requirements place on us,and those around us. As Terkel states, work is“about violence to the spirit as well as to thebody”[7, p. 4].Ideologies of management exist to rationalizeor disguise these costs. Ideologies are the cre-ations of actors and can be expected to changeand adapt to a range of pressures which build upwithin or impact on business concerns. Withreference to the preceding section it seems clearthat throughout the 1980s and 1990s thesemanagement ideologies have undergone somefairly radical changes[8]. These ideologies havebecome more self-conﬁdent and have beenexpressed less in terms of reducing violence tobody and spirit, and more in terms of promotingbusiness success, while accepting certain “reali-ties” and costs.One way to understand this change is basedon an analysis of the various forces, both inter-nal and external to business concerns, whichemerged over this period.

The “need” for change

A variety of external concerns has served tofocus management thinking over the last decadeor so. Over time a consideration of these factorshas led to the consensus that there is a need for achange in management. Most often a case ismade for change based on some notion of theneed to address competitive pressures. Howev-er, this does not explain how new mechanismsand innovations are conceived and emerge toaddress these factors.Thus, while managers and commentatorsspeak of the “need” for change and the “need”for empowerment, we must acknowledge thatneeds, and the innovations which address theseneeds, are not so much discovered as created.We must acknowledge that new ideas in a fieldsuch as management do not appear “from theether”, nor are they simple discoveries as inscientific or archaeological research. Instead the“need” for proactivity and the “need” forempowerment are the active creations of man-agement and a number of business academicswho seek to serve management[9,10]. Theseneeds, therefore, are ideological constructs.A key test for empowerment, therefore, restsnot on the confirmation of changed competitiveconditions – that competition is now moreintense is plain to see. Instead this article willargue that the acid test for empowerment, as anideological construct, must be the extent towhich it can address these new business prob-lems while reconciling the perennial conflictswithin organizations. However, before attentionis turned to this issue, it is necessary to trace thenature of these competitive forces.The factors which have informed manage-ment thinking are outlined below. These factorsrelate to changes in the nature of competitionand the consequent need to secure competitiveadvantage.

IT and changes in competition

A change in the nature of competition is oftenassociated with the growing use of and sophisti-cation of IT systems. For some the growing useof IT is viewed as being at the root of competi-tive discontinuity. For example, attention hasbeen drawn to a range of changes to the process-es of business which IT will bring about.Porter[11] has drawn attention to the increasedmarket permeability which can come about asIT is used to reduce barriers to market entry.Others[12] have drawn attention to the reduc-tions in product development time which IT usefacilitates, while others have drawn attention tothe new business areas which IT use mayspawn[13].In line with these, Kanter[13] has promotedthe idea that competition will force corporationsto increase the pace at which they launch newproducts and product innovations. In this way

27

Rooting for empowerment?

David Collins

Empowerment in OrganizationsVolume 3 · Number 2 · 1995 · 25–33

of 00

Leave a Comment