Akademi Manajemen

http://www.jstor.org/stable/258093

Penggunaan Anda atas arsip JSTOR menunjukkan penerimaan Anda terhadap Syarat & Ketentuan Penggunaan, tersedia di

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR adalah layanan nirlaba yang membantu para sarjana, peneliti, dan siswa menemukan, menggunakan, dan membangun berbagai konten dalam arsip digital tepercaya.
Kami menggunakan teknologi dan alat informasi untuk meningkatkan produktivitas dan memfasilitasi bentuk beasiswa baru. Untuk informasi lebih lanjut tentang JSTOR,
silakan hubungi support@jstor.org.

Akademi Manajemen bekerja sama dengan JSTOR untuk mendigitalkan, melestarikan, dan memperluas akses ke Ulasan Akademi Manajemen.

http://www.jstor.org

Konten ini diunduh dari 66.77.17.54 pada Senin, 17 Jun 2013

11:20:47
° Academy of Mnnapement Preview, 1988. Vol. 13, No. 3, 471—482.

The Empowerment Process:

Integrating Theory rind Practice
JAY A. CONGER
RABINDRA N. KANUNGO
McGill University
Despife increasmg affenfion on the topic ol empowermenf, our under-
standing of the consfruct and ifs underlY‹ng processes emains limited.
/'his arficJe addresses these sfiorfcoznings bY Providing an sno2yfica/
treatment of the consfrucf and by infegrafing the diverse approaches
fo empowerment found ‹n boffi the managemenf and psychology
2iferafures. In addition, the auffiors identi!Y cerfain anfecedenf condi-
fiows of powerlessness and practices that have been hypothesized to
empower su6ordinafes.

There hos been o growing interest in the con-
cept of empowerment end related monogement
practices omong both monogement researchers
end practitioners (Bennis & Nonus, 1986; Block,
1987; Burke, 1986; House, in press; Konter, 1979;
McClelland, 1975; Neilsen, 1986). This interest is
due to several reasons. First, studies on leader-
ship end monogement skills (Bennis & Nonus,
1985; House, in press; Konter, 1979, 1983;
McClel- land, 1975) suggest thot the practice of
empower- ing subordinates is o principal
component of monogeriol end orgonizotionol
effectiveness. Second, onolysis of power end
control within orgonizotions (Konter, 1979;
Tonnenboum, 1968) reveals thot the totol
productive forms or orgoni- zotionol power end
effectiveness grow with superiors' shoring of
power end control with subordinates. Finally,
experiences in team build- ing within
orgonizotions (Beckhord, 1969; Neil- sen, 1986)
suggest thot empowerment techniques ploy o
crucial role in group development end
mointenonce.
A review of the literature cited obove clearly
attests thot empowerment is on emerging con-
struct used by theorists to explain
orgonizotionol eiiectiveness. The construct olso
hos been widely
used by other sociol scientists who hove deolt
with issues of the powerlessness or minority
groups (e.g. , women, blocks, end the hondi-
copped). Because or the widespread popularity
of empowerment os o construct, we believe it
requires critical exominotion.
Despite the recognized role or empowerment
in monogement theory end practice, our under-
standing of the construct is limited end often
confusing. For example, most monogement the-
orists hove deolt with empowerment os o set of
monogeriol techniques end hove not poid suffi-
cient attention to its noture or the processes un-
derlying the construct. This mny reflect the
prog- motic or practice orientation of theorists,
end the result moy be on inodequote
understanding of the notion of empowerment
end its theoretical rotionole for related
practices. As o construct, empowerment hos not
received the some onolyti- col treatment from
monogement scholars os the construct of power
(or control). In mony coses, scholars hove
assumed thot empowerment is the some os
delegating or shoring power with subor- dinates
end, hence, thot the construct requires no
further conceptual onolysis beyond the power
concept. We believe thot this opprooch hos
seri-

471
ous flows, os we will discuss in our article. In stood end cotolopued. Our objective is to
addition, the contexts most oppropriote for em- address these shortcomings by providing on
powerment end the octuol monogement prac- onolyticol treatment of the empowerment
tices thot foster empowerment ore poorly under- construct. We hetve mode on attempt to
Konten ini diunduh dari 66.77.17.54 pada Senin, 17 Jun 2013 11:20:47
Semua penggunaan tergantung pada Syarat dan Ketentuan JSTOR
integrate the diverse opprooches to
empowerment found in both the monogement
end psychology literatures. In doing so, this
article provides o framework for studying
empowerment end demonstrates its relevance to
monogement theory end practice.
The Constructs of
Power and Empowerment
In order to critically onolyze the notion of
em- powerment in monogement practice, the
root constructs of power end control from
which the empowerment construct is derived
must be con- sidered. Essentially, control end
power ore used in the literature in two different
woys end, con- sequently, empowerment con be
viewed in two different woys.
Empowerment as a fteJotionoJ Construct. In
the monogement end sociol influence literature,
power is primarily o relotionol concept used to
describe the perceived power or control thot on
individual octor or orgonizotionol subunit hos
over others (Bochoroch & Lowler, 1980; Crozier,
1964; Doh1, 1957; Hinings, Hickson, Pennings, &
Schneck, 1974; Kotter, 1979; Persons & Smelser,
1966; Pfeffer, 1981). Toking its emphasis from so-
ciol exchange theory (Blou, 1964; Emerson, 1962;
Homons, 1974; Thibout & Kelley, 1959), this
litera- ture interprets power os o function of the
depen- dence end/or interdependence of octors.
Power crises when on individual's or o subunit's
perfor- mance outcomes ore contingent not simply
on their own behavior but on what others do
end/or in how others respond (Thibout & Kelley,
1959). The relative power of one octor over
another is o product of the net dependence of the
one on the other (Pfeffer, 1981). Therefore, if
Actor A depends more on Actor B then B depends
on A, then B hos power over A.
472 such dependence (Hills & Mahoney, 1978; Kotter,
Pfeffer, 1981; Plott & Levine, 1978; Soloncik 8t
Pfeffer, 1974; Selznick, 1949).
If we consider empowerment in terms of this
relotionol dynamic, it becomes the process by
which o lender or monoger shores his or her
power with subordincites. Power, in this context,
Konten ini diunduh dari 66.77.17.54 pada Senin, 17 Jun 2013 11:20:47
Semua penggunaan tergantung pada Syarat dan Ketentuan JSTOR
At the orgonizotionol level, the principal
sources of on octor’s power over on orgonizotion
hove been orgued to be the octor's ability to
provide some performance or resource thot is
valued by the orgonizotion or the octor's sibility
to cope with important orgonizotionol contingen-
cies or problems (Pfeffer, 1982). For example,
Cro- zier (1964) demonstrated thot mointenonce
work- ers in o French Rectory hod control over o
critical orgonizotionol contingency—the
breakdown of machinery—which wcs their source
of power. Soloncik end Pfeffer (1974) found thot
in universi- ties the degree of department power
wcs related to the number of contracts end
gronts obtained.
At the interpersonal level, the principal
sources of octor power over others ore
orgued to be
(o) the office or structural position of the octor,
(b) the personal chorocteristics of the octor (e.g. ,
referent power, French & Roven, 1959), (c) the
expeftise or the octor, end (d) the opportunity for
the octor to occess specialized knowledge/infor-
mation (Bochoroch & Lowler, 1980). Depending
on what resources octors control, their boses of
power hove been identified os legol (control of
office), coercive (control of punishment), remu-
nerotive (control of moteriol rewards), norma-
tive (control of symbolic rewards), end know-
ledge/expertise (control of information) (Boch-
oroch & Lowler, 1980; Etzioni, 1961; French &
Roven, 1969).
Implied in these theories ore the assumptions
thot orgonizotionol octors who hove power ore
more likely to achieve their desired outcomes
end octors who lock power ore more likely to
hove their desired outcomes thwarted or redi-
rected by those with power. This orientation hos
led theorists to locus on the source or boses of
octor power and on the conditions thot promote
1977, 1979; Lodohl & Gordon, 1972; Pleffer,
1981; Soloncik & Pfeffer, 1974, 1977). This focus
olso hos led to the development of strategies end
tac- tics of resource ollocotion for increasing the
power of less powerful parties end reducing the
power of more powerful ones (Bucher, 1970;
Kotter, 1977, 1979; Mowdoy, 1978; Pettigrew,
1972;
is interpreted os the possession of formol
author- ity or control over orgonizotionol
resources. The emphasis is primarily on the
notion of shoring authority. Burke’s (1986)
position is representative: “To empower,
implies the granting of power— delegation of
authority” (p. 51). The Merriom Webster’s
Dictionary similarly describes the verb to
empower os “to authorize or delegate or give lepol
power to someone.” In the monogement literature,
this ideo of delegation end the decen- trolizohon
of decision-molung power is central to the
empowerment notion (Burke, 1986; House, in
press; Konter, 1983). As o result, we find thot
most of the monogement literature on empower-
ment deols with porticipotive monogement tech-
niques such os monogement by objectives,
quality circles, end gool setting by subordinates
cis the meons of shoring power or delegating
authority.
This monner of treating the notion of empower-
ment from o monogement practice perspective
is so common thot often employee porticipotion
is simply equated with empowerment (Likert,
1961, 1967; McGregor, 1960). However, because
this line of reasoning does not odequotely address
the noture of empowerment os experienced by
subordinates, it roises important questions. For
example, does the shoring of authority end re-
sources with subordinates outomoticolly em-
power them? Through what psychological me-
chanisms do porticipotive end resource-shoring
techniques foster on empowering experience
among subordinates? Are porticipotion end the
shoring of orpnnizotioriol resources the only
techniques for empowerment? Are the effects of
on empowering experience the some os the
effects of delegation, porticipotion, end resource
shoring?
Empowerment os o MotivotionoJ Construct. In
the psychology literature, power end control ore
473 gation (of authority end resource shoring), ena-
notes resources end os increasing their sense of
self-worth. However, Burke (1986) recognized the
distinctiveness of the two meanings, but like most
monogement researchers preferred to use em-
powerment in the sense of delegation rother than
in the sense of enabling.
We propose thot empowerment be viewed os
o motivotionol construct—meaning to enoble
rother then simply to delegate. In McClelland’s
Konten ini diunduh dari 66.77.17.54 pada Senin, 17 Jun 2013 11:20:47
Semua penggunaan tergantung pada Syarat dan Ketentuan JSTOR
used os motivotionol end/or expectancy beliel-
stotes thot ore internal to individuals. For in-
stance, individuals ore assumed to hove o need
for power (McClelland, 1976) where power con-
notes on internal urge to influence end control
other people. A related but more inclusive dis-
position to control end cope with life events olso
hos been proposed by several psychologists who
hove deolt with the issues of primary/secondary
control (Rothboum, Weisz, & Snyder, 1982),
internet/external locus of control (Rotter, 1966),
end learned helplessness (Abrcimson, Gorber,
& Seligmon, 1980). Individuals' power needs ore
met when they perceive thot they hove power or
when they believe they con odequotely cope
with events, situations, end/or the people they
confront. On the other hond, individuals’ power
needs ore frustrated when they feel powerless
or when they believe thot they ore unoble to cope
with the physical end sociol demands of
environment.
Power in this motivotionol sense refers to on
intrinsic need for self-determination (Deci, 1976)
or o belief in personal self-efficacy (Bonduro,
1986). Under this conceptuolizotion, power has
its bese within on octor’s motivotionol
disposition. Any monogeriol strotepy or technique
thot strengthens this self-determination need or
self- efficacy belief of employees will moke them
feel more powerful. Conversely, ony strotepy thot
weakens the self-determination need or self-
efficacy belief of employees will increase their
feelings of powerlessness.
In foct, the Oxford English dictionary defines
the verb empower os “to enoble.” In contrast
to the earlier definition of empowerment os dele-
bling implies motivating through enhancing per-
sonal efficacy. In the monogement literature on
power end empowerment, often both meanings
ore fused together, end their relationships to eoch
other ore not cleor. For instance, Whetten end
Cameron (1984) alluded to power os both gain-
ing control over limited resources end as o sign
of personcrl eflicctcy. Likewise, Neilsen (1986) con-
sidered empowerment both os giving subordi-
( earch, empowerment olso is viewed os on
1 enabling, rother than o delegating, process.
9 Enabling implies creating conditions for height-
7 ening motivation for tosk accomplishment
5 through the development of o strong sense of
) personal efficacy. We orgue thot delegating or
r resource shoring is only one set of conditions thot
e moy (but not necessarily) enoble or empower
s subordi- nates. The process of delegation is too
constrictive in scope to occommodote the complex
noture of empowerment. Thus, there ore various
other conditions of empowering besides
delegation or porticipotion. Therefore,
empowerment is de- fined here os o process o/
enhancing feelings of self-efficacy crmonq
orqonizotional members through the ident‹ficotion
o/ conditions tint foster powerlessness end
through their removed by both
/ormoJ orqonizotionol practices and in/ormoJ
techrnques of providing e/ficocy information.
Zhe Empowerment Process
The need to empower subordinates becomes
critical when subordinates feel powerless. Thus
it is important to identify conditions within
orgo- nizotions thot foster o sense of
powerlessness among subordinates. Once these
conditions ore identified, empowerment
strategies end tactics con then be used to
remove them. However, re- moving external
conditions is not olwoys poss- ible, and it moy
not be sufficient for subordi- nates to become
empowered unless the strate- gies end tactics
directly provide personal elm- cocy information
to them. Bonduro (1986) sug- gested several
sources from which individuals directly receive
information obout their personal eihcocy, end
these sources should be used in developing
empowerment strategies. Conceived this woy,
the process of empowerment con be
474
Konten ini diunduh dari 66.77.17.54 pada Senin, 17 Jun 2013 11:20:47
Semua penggunaan tergantung pada Syarat dan Ketentuan JSTOR
viewed in five stages thot include the psycholopi-
col stote of empowering experience, its anteced-
ent conditions, ctnd its behoviorol consequences.
The five stoges ore shown in Figure 1.
The first stoge is the diagnosis of conditions
within the orgonizotion thot ore responsible for
feelings of powerlessness among subordinates.
This lends to the use of empowerment strategies
by monogers in Stoge 2. The employment of
these strategies is aimed not only ct removing
some of the external conditions responsible for
powerlessness, but olso (end more important) at
providing subordinates with self-efficacy infor-
mation in Stoge 3. As o result of receiving such
information, subordinates feel empowered in
Stoge 4, end the behoviorol effects of empower-
ment ore noticed in Stoge 5.
The Empowering Experience
To conceptualize empowerment in motiva-
tional terms, we prefer to use Bonduro's self-
efficacy notion (1986). Tronsloted in terms of
Bonduro's model, empowerment refers to o pro-
cess whereby on individual’s belief in his or her
sell-efficacy is enhanced. To empower meons
either to stren hen this belief or to weoken one’s
belief in personal powerlessness. Personal effi-
cacy is sometimes postulated to stem from inter-
nal need-stotes such os the intrinsic need for self-
determination (Deci, 1976), the competence mo-
tive (White, 1959), the need for power (McClel-
land, 1976), end the need for self-octuolizotion
(Moslow, 1964). However, we prefer not to odopt
the content or need theory opprooch to explain
the phenomenon of empowerment. We ossume
thot everyone hos or internal need for self-
determination end o need to control end cope
with environmental demands. Differences in the
strength of this need omong individuals con be
explained by onolyzing the underlying motivo-
tionol process. We therefore follow the process
theory opprooch to empowerment os o motivo-
tionol phenomena by relating it to expectancy
(Lowler, 1973) end self-efficocytheories
(Bonduro, 1977, 1986).
According to expectancy theory, on indi-
vidual's motivation to increase his or her effort in
 STAGE1 STAGE2

Konte To provide
n ini The use of self-efficacy Results in
diund
uh
Conditions lending monogeriol information to empowering Lending to
dari to o psycholocticol stote strategies & subordinates experience of behoviorol
66.77 of powerlessness techniques using four sources subordinate effects
.17.5
4
pada
Senin Prdcipoive Ennctive Strengthening of effort Initiotion/
, 17 monogement
Jun oltoinment —performance persistence
2013 expectctncy or of behavior
11:20 Goal setting Vicarious behein to accomplish
:47
Semua
Orgonizotionol experience personolelhcocy tosk objectives
Feedback system
penggunaan
tergantung pada doctors
Syarat dan
Ketentuan
Verbal
JSTOR Modeling persuasion
Supervision
Contingent/ Emotional
Rewnrd system
competence-bosed orousol
reward
Noture of job
ond
Job enrichment

Remove
conditions
listed under
Stage I

rifuze J. Five stoges in the process o1 empowerment.

o given tosk will depend on two types of expecta-
tions: (o) thot their effort will result in o desired
level o1 performance end (b) thot their perfor-
mance will produce desired outcomes. Bonduro
(1986) referred to the former os the self-eiticocy
expectation end the letter os the outcome expec-
tation. When individuals ore empowered, their
personal efficacy expectations ore strengthened.
However, their outcome e.xpectotions ore not nec-
essarily effected. They develop o sense of per-
sonal mastery or o “con do” attitude regardless
of hopes for fovoroble performance outcomes.
Empowering meons enabling, end it implies rais-
ing subordinates’ convictions in their own effec-
tiveness (successfully executing desired be-
hcrvior) rother then raising subordinates’ hopes
for lovorcible performance outcomes. Even un-
der conditions of failure to goin desired outcomes,
individuals moy feel empowered i1 their efficacy
belief is reinforced by their lender’s recognition
of their performance (i.e. , ”We moy hove lost to
competition, but I’m proud of your performance.
We will do better next time.”).
Behavioral Ellects
Empowerment os on enabling process effects
both initiation end persistence of subordinates’
tosk behavior. As Bonduro (1977) pointed out:
The strength of peoples’ conviction in their own
effectiveness is likely to effect whether they
would even try to cope with given situations. ..
They get involved in activities end behave as-
suredly when they judge themselves capable of
handling situations thot would otherwise be
intimidating. ... Efficacy expectations deter-
mine how much effort people will expend and
how long they will persist in the face of obstacles
end aversive experiences. (pp. 193—194)
The behoviorol outcomes ore of special signifi-
cance to orgnnizotionol lenders. Empowerment
processes may ollow lenders to lessen the emo-
tional impoct of demoralizing orgonizotionol
changes or to mobilize orgonizotionol members
in the Once of difficult competitive challenges.
These processes moy enoble 1eetders to set
higher performance gools, end they moy help
employ- ees to occept these gools.
Empowerment proc-
tices olso moy be useful in motivating subordi-
nates to persist despite difficult orgonizotionol/
environmental obstacles.
Cozztext Factors Leodiztg to Powerlesszzess
Moncigement theorists hove orgued thot spe-
cific contextual doctors contribute to the lowering
of self-efficacy or personal power omong orgoni-
zettionol members (Block, 1987; Conger, 1986;
Konter, 1979, 1983). Block (1987) described how
bureoucrotic contexts end outhoritorion monoge-
ment styles encouraged powerlessness by foster-
ing dependency, the deniol or sell-expression,
negative forms of monipulotion, end less mean-
ingful orgonizotionol gools. According to Con-
ger (1986), conditions thot lowered sell-efficacy
were found during mojor reorgonizotions, in
stort-up ventures, end in firms thot had outhori-
torion monogers end demanding orgonizotionol
gools. Konter (1977, 1983) orgued thot orgonizo-
tionol communication systems, network forming
orrongements, occess to resources, end job de-
sign could contribute to employee powerlessness.
She noted primarily thot
people held occountoble for the results produced
by others, whose formol role gives them the right
to commend but who lack informal political
influence, occess to resources, outside stotus,
sponsorship, or mobility prospects, ore rendered
powerless in the organizations. ... They lack
control over their own fate end ore dependent
on others above them. (p. 186)
Examples of first-line supervisors, certain stoff
positions, women, end minorities were cited.
In Toble 1, we identify the principal contextual
doctors thot contribute to the lowering of self-
efticocy beliefs in orgonizotionol members. These
ore organized into four categories: (o) orgonizo-
tionol, (b) supervisory style, (c) reword systems,
end (d) job design.
In terms of orgonizotionol rectors, we
hypothe- size thot orgonizotions thot
experience mojor changes or transitions hove
on increased likeli- hood of their employees
experiencing powerless- ness. These tronsrtions
moy be spurred on by finonciol emergencies,
loss of key personnel, lo- bor problems,
significant technological changes,

476 Tobie 1 £f/icocy

Context Belief
f’octors
Lending to Orgonizolionol Factors
Potential Significctnt
Lowering orgonizntion
of Self- ol
Konten ini diunduh dari 66.77.17.54 pada Senin, 17 Jun 2013 11:20:47
Semua penggunaan tergantung pada Syarat dan Ketentuan JSTOR
 changes/transiti o g s
ons Stort-up rind
ventures r tec L
C i hni o
o cal c
t
m sup k
pe o port
tit r Unr
eali o
iv
i stic f
e
pr o goo
es ls m
n e
su Lock of opproprinte
re authority/discretion a
s ( Low toss vctriety n
I Limited porticipntion i
h in programs, n
m
pe i meetings, decisions g
rs thot hove n direct f
g
on impctct on job u
ctl h performance l
bu Lock of
re oppropr g
c
ou iote/nec o
cr o essary o
nt n resource l
ic s Lock s
cli t of /
m r network t
at o - o
e forming s
Poor l opportu k
communications/netw ) nities s
ork-forming systems Negntivism (emphasis on Highly Limited contctct with
Highly centralized fctilures) establis senior mnnogement
orgonizotionol Lock of reoson for hed
resources fictions/consequences work
routines acquisition or
Su Reward Syatezoa High rule structure merger activity,
L
p Noncontingenc o major changes in
e y (orbitrory w orgnnizntionol
rewctrd strategy, rapid
r collocations)
v Low incentive o growth, and/or the
volue of d introduction of
i v
rewctrds significant new
s o
Lock
n products or new
o of monngement terms.
c
compe
r
tence-
e In ony case, these
y m events induce
bosed
e
rewctr n
significant
S ds t nlterotions in
Lock orgonizotionnl
t of
o structures,
y innova
tion- p communication
l p links, power and au-
bctsed
e o
reward thority relations, and
r
s the orgonizntion's
t
A u goals, strategies, end
}obDeMgo
u n tactics. In these
Lock of role clarity i coses, existing
t Lock t
of i
orgnnizotionol
h
trainin e norms end patterns
Konten ini diunduh dari 66.77.17.54 pada Senin, 17 Jun 2013 11:20:47
Semua penggunaan tergantung pada Syarat dan Ketentuan JSTOR
of action ore likely to and rules may no longer other conditions of role clarity end
chonge (Nodler, 1980). be clearly defined. Re- powerlessness moy odequnte training for
As the organize- tion sponsibili t.Yes and be fostered. As employees.
seeks new guidelines power may shdt Greener (1972) Furthermore, as the
for action, its gools dramcitically. pointed out, employ- firm grows,
ees who ore entrepreneurial
Uncertainty may be
accustomed to executives moy be
experienced by o lorge
informal organiza- reluc- tant to
part of the
tional systems end relinquish control to
organizGition. Gertoin
relations may find the subordinates.
functional sirens,
orgoni- zotion and its Bureaucratic
divisions, or acquired orgonizotions are
companies mcty experi- systems becoming chorocterized
ence increasingly by potrinrchnl
disenfrnnchisement formalized end monogement/employ
because they perceive impersonal. As ee contretcts (Block,
their responsibilities as control systems grow 1987) and direct
being diminished or in importance, they member behavior
sub- ordinated to others. may diminish em- through established
Therefore, transitions ployees’ sense of rules end routines.
pro- duce o period of autonomy and These doctors in- hibit
disorientation (Tichy & responsibility. As the self-expression and
Devnnnn, 1986). As o company grows, limit autonomy. As
result, mojor monogers' noted earlier, Block
organizational changes responsibili- ties moy (1987) and Konter
moyseriously challenge increase, requiring (1983) ar- gued thot
employees’ sense of them to nttoin slull bureoucrncy end
con- trol end levels beyond their “segmentolism” cre-
competence as they deol existing ate serious inequities
with the uncer- tainty of competencies. Prob- in the distribution of
chonge and occept new lems may arise with orgoni-
responsibilities, slulls, 477
end guidelines for
zntionol power and The literature on
action end behavior.
lend to o diminished reward systems (e.g. ,
Stort-up ventures can
present similar condi- sense Konter, 1979;
O$ SEC -e iCO OR e ITI] Konungo, 1987;
tions of uncertainty that
lead to lowered feelings
OJeeS. Lowler, 1971, 1977;
Authoritorion Vroom, 1964) and job
of self-efficacy for mnnogement styles
employees. During the
design (e.g. , Hockmon,
can strip control end 1978; Hack- man &
initial start-up phase, discretion from
there moy be
Lawler, 1971;
subordinates, thereby Hockmon, Oldham,
uncertainty sur- heightening the sense
rounding the morket
Jonson, & Purdy, 1976)
of powerlessness for olso describes
potenticil for the em- ployees (Block,
company’s products end
conditions that lower
1987; Conger, 1986). the self-efficacy of
services. This can As Knnter (1979)
translate into lowered
orgonizotionol mem-
suggested, n bers. When
efficacy feelings omong sotisfoctory degree of
orgonizcitionol
orgonizotions do not
discre- tion is provide rewards thot
members regarding their important for fostering
competence in direct-
are valued by
empowerment on the employees and when
ing end managing the job, end this discretion
orgonizotion. With o
rewards are not offered
is something auto- for employee
company’s success end cratic monogers often
occomponying growth,
competence, initia-
remove.
Konten ini diunduh dari 66.77.17.54 pada Senin, 17 Jun 2013 11:20:47
Semua penggunaan tergantung pada Syarat dan Ketentuan JSTOR
tive, and persistence in decentralized or locol devices are more It is orgued that
innovative job behavior, levels, thot structure open likely to be reword systems that
employees’ sense of communications sys- empowering empha- size
powerlessness increases tems, end thot creote (Konter, 1983). innovative/unusual
(Sims, 1977; Szilopyi, extensive network- Leadership performance end high
1980). Furthermore, forming end/or supervision incentive volues
when jobs provide very practices thot ore foster o greater sense
little challenge end identified as of self- efficacy
meaning and when they empowering (Konter, 1979). Jobs
involve role ambiguity, include (n) ex- thot provide tosk
role conflict, and role pressing confidence variety, personal
overload, employees’ in subordinates relevance,
beliefs in personal occompon- ied by opproprinte auton-
efficacy suffer. We high performance omy and control, low
orgue thot these con- expectations levels of established
textual factors should be (Burke, 1986; rou- tines and rules,
the focol points for diag- Conger, 1986; end high
nosis end the House, 1977, in odvoncement pros-
interventions cnmed at press; Neil- sen, pects ore more likely
rectifying sources of 1986), (b) fostering to empower
powerlessness omong opportunities for subordinates (Block,
employees. subordi- nates to 1987; Konter, 1979;
Empowerment porticipote in Oldhom, 1976;
Monogement Practices decision molung Strauss,
(Block, 1987; 1977).
Orgnnizotionol Burke, 1986; These practices
theorists hove proposed Conger, 1986; con be viewed from
or identified n number of House 1977, in the differ- ent
monogement practices press; Konter, 1979; perspectives of
that heighten o sense of Neilsen, 1986; formol/orgonizotion
self-efficacy. At the or- Strauss, 1977), ol mecha- nisms or
ganizational level, it has (c) providing individual/informal
been suggested thot autonomy from techniques. For
orgnnizotions design bureaucratic con- example, when
selection end training strcnnt (Block, organizations engoge
pro- cedures to ensure 1987; Konter, 1979; in pnrtici- potion
requisite technical, House, in press), programs, they
linguistic, end sociol end (d) setting establish formal
influence skulls (House, inspirotionol end/or systems that
in press; Mc- Clelland, meaningful gools empower
1976) and that company (Bennis & Nonus, organizational
policies and cultures 1986; Block, 1987; members through
emphctsize self- Burke, 1986; the sharing of formal
determination, collctbo- McClelland, 1975; power end
rotion over Tichy & Devonno, authority. But in
conflict/competition, 1986). It also hos order for this shoring
high perfor- mance been suggested by of power to be
stondnrds, House (in press) effective at the
nondiscriminotion, and thot individual level,
meri- tocrocy (House, in leaders/monogers employees must
press). In addition, should be selected perceive it os
orgoni- motions thot on the bosis of their increasing their
provide multiple sources inclination to use sense of self-efficacy
of loosely committed power in o pos- — something o
resources at itive monner. monoger can
Konten ini diunduh dari 66.77.17.54 pada Senin, 17 Jun 2013 11:20:47
Semua penggunaan tergantung pada Syarat dan Ketentuan JSTOR
 accomplish through empowerment prac- enhance perceived
self-efficacy con Words of
more informal tices outhned obove encouragement,
weoken the impoct
practices. must directly provide or direct verbol feedback, end
tutor- mention to experiences of fail- other forms of sociol
Sources o1 Sell- employees about their ure by sustaining
Ellicctcy Information performance in the
persuasion often are
personal effi- used by lenders,
Icice of repented
In order to be 478 failures. (p. 400) monogers, end group
effective, the mem- bers to empower
cocy. Bonduro (1977, om the vicarious subordinates end co-
1986) identified four h experiences o1 observing workers (Conger,
sources of such e sim- ilar others (i.e. , co- 1986). According to
information: enoctive workers) who perform Bondurct (1986),
attainment, vicari- ous f suc- cessfully on the job. ”People who ore
experience, verbol e During job training, persuaded verbally
persuasion, and emo- e model- ing techniques thot they possess the
tional orousol stote. l often ore used to copctbilities to master
Examples of i empower em- ployees. given tasks ore likely
empowerment n Very often, o to mobilize greater
techniques under each g supervisor's exemplary sustained effort than if
efficacy information behaviors empower they harbor self-doubts
cGite- gory are o subordinates to believe end dwell on personal
presented below. f thot they can behave in o deficiencies when
Information in like manner or thot they difficulties orise” (p.
personal efficacy b con ct least achieve some 400). Deal and
through enoc- e improvement in their Kennedy (1982)
tive ottoinment refers to i performance. For described how Mary
on individual’s authen- n example, Bennis and Key Ash, president of
tic mastery experience g Nonus (1986), in their Mary Key Cosmetics,
directly related to the study of leaders, used on- nuol sales
job. When subordinates e described how William meetings os forums for
perform complex tasks m Kieschnick, president of pressing and
or are given more p ARCO, learned to be on encouraging the
responsibility in their o innovative risk toker exceptional
jobs, they hove the w through the model- ing performance of or-
opportunity to test their e of lenders he served gonizntionol members.
efficacy. Initial suc- r under (p. 204). Vicari- However, the effect
cess experiences e ous efficacy information, thot persuasion has on
(through successively d however, is not os effec- strengthening personal
moder- ate increments tive in empowering effi- cacy expectations
in tosk complexity and o subordinates as enoctive is likely to be weoker
responsi- bility along l ottoinment experience. than ef- fects
with training to acquire s But as Bonduro (1986) developed from one’s
new skills) moke one o suggested, modeling own accomplish-
feel more copoble and, effects con hcive ci ments.
therefore, empowered. c signifi- cant impoct on Finally, one’s
For example, monogers o efficacy expectation: personal competence
con struc- ture n People convinced expecta- tions are
orgonizotionol chonge vicariously of their affected by one’s
inefficocy ore 4 emotional
programs in such o woy c orousol
o inclined to behove in 7 stote. Emotional
thot initial objectives ineffectual woys thot, 9 arousal states thot
ore sufficiently ottoin- m in foct, generctte
oble end subordinates e confirmatory result from stress, feor,
ore able to execute behoviorol evi- dence anxiety, depression,
f of inability. and so forth, both on
them successfully Conversely, modeling
(Beer, 1980). r in0u- ences thot and off the job, can
Konten ini diunduh dari 66.77.17.54 pada Senin, 17 Jun 2013 11:20:47
Semua penggunaan tergantung pada Syarat dan Ketentuan JSTOR
lower self-efficacy o computer project. On end vcilidcite the oppropricite
expectations. Individuals f many occasions, proposed antecedent intervention
ore more likely to feel employees’ stress, conditions of strategies. In
competent when they are o anxiety, and tension on powerlessness and the etddition, they
not experiencing strong n the job con be reduced should investigate
aversive orousol. by monogers clecirly cmd test the effect
Empowerment e defining employees’ em- powerment hos
techniques end strategies x roles, reducing
on specific
thot provide emotional t inlormcition overload,
behaviors, such os
support for sub- r end offering them
initiation and
ordinates end thot creote e technical ossistnnce to
persistence.
o supportive and trust- maccomplish job tasks.
Finally, o more
ing group atmosphere e The impcict that
direct link between
(Neilsen, 1986) can be l depression end self-doubt
empower- ment
more effective in y hove on subordinates as
practices end
strengthening self- o result of their failure
leadership should be
efficacy beliefs. An d on the job could be
studied.
example of such i lessened by their
Empowerment moy
behavior is found in f attributing this fciilure to
prove to be o vitol
Kidder’s Soul of o New f externcil and unstable
form of influence for
Machine (1981) in which i factors such cis task
lenders cittempting to
o Date General monoger, c difficulty, incidequnte
induce end mcinoge
Tom West, provided ef- u support systems, cmd so
orgcinizcitionol
fective emotional end l forth, rother then
chonge. Field
group support thot t cittributing it to their
research directed at
ensured the completion efforts
this etim could
or cibilities (Weiner, cal work hers been contribute
1985). These techniques performed. This mciy be significcintly to our
cis- sist in the be- cause of cm understanding of
empowering process by inodequote effective lecidership.
reducing the negative conceptuolizcition of the Although we hove
effects of civersive process. The process we focused on the
emotional orouscil on hcive described moy positive ef- fects of
the development of self- provide o useful empowerment, it is
efficcicy beliefs. framework for conceivable thot such
researchers. Our mcinogement
discussion suggests practices mciy hcive
C some important new negcitive ef- fects.
o direc- tions for research Specificcilly,
n on empowerment. First, empowerment might
c the effectiveness of the lend to
l model should be tested. overconfidence cmd,
Specifically, the concept in turn, misjudgments
u of self-efficcicy should on the pcirt of
s be further subordinates.
i operotionolized end Because of this sense
o tested. Because of folse confidence in
n Bondurci’s (1986) positive outcomes,
s research was conducted organiza- tions might
moinly in therapeutic persist in efforts thcit
Although settings, direct links to ore, in octucility,
empowerment hos orgonizci- tionol tocticcil or strategic
been discussed by contexts should be errors. It is important
several monogement drown. Resecirchers thot future
scholars, little empiri- olso should investigate researchers
Konten ini diunduh dari 66.77.17.54 pada Senin, 17 Jun 2013 11:20:47
Semua penggunaan tergantung pada Syarat dan Ketentuan JSTOR
 investigate the system of checks cmd Hockmon, J. R. 11978) chonqe musters. New
possibilities of such bcilonces could be The design of work in York: Simon &
the 1980's. Schuster.
effects and discern developed. OrqnnizofionnJ
whether or not o Knnungo, R. N. 11987)
Dynamics, 711), 3—17. Rewnrd monogement: A new
Hoclcr on, J. R., & Lowler, look. In
E. E. 11971) Employee
References reactions to job
S. L. Dolnn & R. S.
Schuler (Eds. ),
Abrnmson, L. Y. , Gorber, J., & Seligmon, M. E. P. 11980) chorocteristics. /ournoJ Conodion readings in
Bucher, R. 119701 Socinl process end power in o medical of Applied PsYChology personnel and Lumen
Learned helplessness in humons: An nttributionol onol- Mono- graph, 55, 259— resource mnnnqements
286. App. 261— 275). St.
In J. Gorber & M. E. P. Seligmon lEds.), Lumen Hockmon, J. R. , Oldham, Paul: West.
TN: Vonderbilt University Press. G. R. , Jonson, R. , & Kidder, T. 11981) Soul
beJpJessness: Theory' end opplicotions (pp. 3-84). New York: Purdy, K. 11975) New
strcttegy for job of n new mcrchine.
enrichment. Colifornio Boston: Little, Brown.
Burke, W. 11986) Leadership os empowering others. In S. Monoqement Review,
Aca Kotter, J. P. 11977)
Srivostrn (Ed.i, 17141, 57—71.
dem
Executive power Power, dependence, end
ic Hills, F. S., & Mcthoney,
Pres (pp. 51—77). Son
Francisco: T. A. 119781 University effective mnn-
s. budgets end agement. Horvord Business
Bnchoroch, S. B. , & Lowler, E. J. 11980) Power ctnd poJitics in Preview, 55141, l2$-136.
orgonizotionol decision
orgonizcttions. Son Francisco: Jossey-BoSS moking. Administrative Kotter, J. P. (1979) Power in
Science @uorfer x. 23, mnnoqemenf. New York:
Empowering leadership. Working poper, Bondurn, A. (1977) Sell- 454-465. Amo-
efficacy: Toword o unifying theory of COm.
Hinings, C. R. , Hickson, D. J. ,
McGill University, Montreal.
behoviorCil chonge. PsycboJoqicctJ Review, 84, 191—21 ’ Pennings, J. M. , & Schneck, Lctwler, E. E. , III 11971)
R. E. 11974) Conditions PaY end orpnnizntionnl
of intro-orgnnizntionol effectiveness:
power. Administrative A @lSYChological view.
Bonduro, A. 11986) SociciJ /oundnfions o/ thought end ctcfion:
Science Quarterly', 14, New York: McGrnw-Hill.
378—397.
A society-cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs, N}: Prentice-Hull. Lawler, E. E. , III 11973)
Homons, A. 11974) Motivation in work
Socinl behavior: Its orqnnizotions.
Beckford, R. 11969) Orgoniznfion development: Strategies eJementory /orms. New Monterey, CA:
201-215 York: Harcourt Broce Brooks/Role.
rind modeJs. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Jovonovich. Lowler, E. E. , III 11977)
Kennedy, A. (1982) Corporate cultures. Reading, Beer, M. House, R. J. 11977) A 1976 Rewctrd systems. In J. R.
11980) OrgoniznfionoJ chctnqe cmd development. theory of chorismotic Hockmnn &
MA: Addison-Wesley. leadership. In L. I. Suttle (Eds.),
J. G. Hunt & L. L. improving life cif
Scintn Monicci, CA: Goodyenr. work: Behavioral sci-
Lorson lEds.),
Leadership: The cutting ence oppronches to
Deci, E.L. (1975) Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum. edge (pp. 189—207). orqonizntionnl cñonqe
Bennis, W. , & Nonus, B. 11985) deciders. New York: Hnrper & Cnrbondnle: Southern (pp. 163—226). Scintci
Illinois Univer- sity Monicci, EA:
Press. Goodyecir.
Emerson, R. M. 11962) Power-dependence relations. American
Row. House, R.
SocioJogicni J. (in
Review, 27, pressl 481
Power rind personality in
Blou, P. M. 11964) Exchange cmd power in socioJ life. New
complez orgonizntions.
York: Wiley. In L. L. Cummings & B.
muttons. New York: Fress Press. M. Stow lEds. ),
fiesenrch in
Block, P. 11987) 7’he empowered mcinciger. Son Francisco:
organizational beLovior:
An onnuoJ review of
Jossey-BosS.
crificoJ essor• Ond
In D. Cartwright (Ed. ), Studies in socinJ power (pp. ISO—167).
reviews. Greenwich, CT:
JA1 Press.
480 Konter, R. M. 11979) Power
Ann Arbor: University of end revolution us failure in mnnngement circuits.
Michigan, Institute for orgonizntions grow. Harvard Business Review,
Social Reseorch. Harvard Business 5714), 6$-75.
Feview, 3014), 37—46. Konter, R. M. 11983) The
Greiner, L. 119721 Evolution
Konten ini diunduh dari 66.77.17.54 pada Senin, 17 Jun 2013 11:20:47
Semua penggunaan tergantung pada Syarat dan Ketentuan JSTOR
Likert, R. 11961) New patterns of Humnn Per/ormonce, 15, Tonnenboum, A. S. (19681 achievement mo- tivation
monoqemenf. New York: 66-86. Control in orqcinizotions. end emotion.
McGrow-Hill. New York: McGrnw- Psychological fteview,
Persons, T. , & Smelser, N. J. Hill.
Likert, R. 11967) The Lumen 11956) Economy and 92, 548—573.
orqonizofion. New York: society. New York: Free Thiboult, J. W. , & Kelley, Whetten, D. A. , &
McGrow-Hill. Press. H. H. (1959) The society Cameron, K. S. (1984)
psYChology of groups. Developing mon-
Lodohl, J. , & Gordon, G. 11972) Pettigrew, A. M. I l972J New York: Wiley. cipement skills. Glenview,
The structure of scientific fields 1nformcttion control cts o
Tichy, N. M. , & Devonno, lL: Scott, Foresmon.
end the functioning of power re- source. Sociology,
6, 187-204. M. A. (19861 7’he White, R. W. (1939)
university groduote
trnnsformcitionoJ Jeoder. Motivation
departments. American Plelfer, J. 11981) Power in New York: Wiley. reconsidered: The
lsociological Review, 37, 57- orqoniznfions. Mnrshfield,
72. MA: Pitmon. broom, V. H. 11964) Work concept of
and motivation. New York: competence.
Moslow, A. H. 11954) Pfelfer, J. 11982) Wiley. PsycfioJogicaJ
Motivnfion cind personcility. Orponizotions and Reviews, 66, 297—
New York: Hcirper. orqonizotionoJ theory. Weiner, B. (l985J An
333.
Mnrshfield, MA: Pitmctn. nttributionol theory of
McClelland, D. C. 11975)
Power: The inner experience. Plott, C. R. , & Levine, M. E.
New York: lrvington Press. 11978) A model of ngendo I
influ- ence on committee c
McGregor, D. 11960) The Lumen
decisions. American r
side of enterprise. New York:
Economic Preview, 68, 146- y
McGrow-Hill.
160.
Mowdoy, R. 11978) The
Rothboum, F. M. , Weisz, J. A
exercise of upword influence
R. , & Snyder, S. S. 11982) .
in orgonizotions. Chang- ing the world end
Administrative Science changing sell: A two
OuarterlY. 23, 137— C
process model of
156. o
perceived control. Journal of
n
Nodler, D. 11980) Concepts for PersonnJity and SocinJ PzY - g
the mcinciqement of orqon1zo- choJoQy, 42, 5-87.
e
tional cLonpe. New York: Rotter, J. B. 11966) Generalized r
Orgnnizotionol Research & expectancies for internal ver-
Consulting, Inc. sus external control of (
Neilsen, E. 11986) reinforcement. PsychoJoqicnJ
D
Empowerment strotef;ies: Mono- graphs, 80 11, Whole
.
Boloncing au- thority rind No. 609).
B
responsibility. In S. Srivostrn .
Soloncik, G. R. , & Pfeller, J.
lEd.1, fzecutive power (pp. A
11974) The boses and use of
78-110). Sctn Francisco: .
power in orgctnizcttionctl
Jossey-Boss.
decision moking: The cnse of
Oldhom, G. R. 11976) The n university. Administrative ,
motivotionol strategies used Science @uo rterJY , 19,
453-473.
by supervisors' relationships to H
effectiveness indicators. Snlnncik, G. R. , & Pleffer, J. o
OrqonizotionnJ Behavior end ll977J Who gets power—end r
how they hold on to it: A Strauss, G. (1977) Monogeriol v
strotepic-contingency model practices. In J. R. Hockmon & o
of power. OrponlzotionnJ L. J. Suttle (Eds.), Improving r
DYE ITI C8, 513), 3—21. life ct work: BehovioroJ sci- d
Selznick, P. 119491 TVA crrid ence opproocLes to
the gross roots. Berkeley: orqonizntionnJ cLcinqe (pp. U
Univer- sity of Colifornio 297—863). Sonto Monico, n
Press. CA: Goodyeor. i
v
Sims, H. P. (1977) The lender Szilo9yi, A. D. (1980) Cousol
e
os o monoger of inferences between lender
r
reinforcement contingencies. re- word behavior end
s
In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Lorson subordinate gool ottoinment,
i
(Eds.), decoder- ship: The ab- senteeism, end work
t
cutting edge (pp. 121-137). sotisfoction. /ournol of
y
Corbondnle: South- ern Oceupotioncil Psychology,
)
Illinois University Press. 53, l9b-204.

Konten ini diunduh dari 66.77.17.54 pada Senin, 17 Jun 2013 11:20:47
Semua penggunaan tergantung pada Syarat dan Ketentuan JSTOR
 i M
s a
r
A i
s a
s s
i :
s :
- y
e
m
t e
a n
n t
t ,

P M
r c
o G
f i
e J
s J
s
o
r U
n
i
o v
f e
r
O s
r i
p t
o y
n .
i
z C
n o
t r
l r
o e
n s
o p
J o
n
B d
e e
h n
a c
v e
i
o r
r e
, -

F g
o a
c r
u d
J i
t n
y g

o t
f h
i
Konten ini diunduh dari 66.77.17.54 pada Senin, 17 Jun 2013 11:20:47
Semua penggunaan tergantung pada Syarat dan Ketentuan JSTOR
 s o
n
a o
r q
t e
i m
c e
l n
e t
,
c
o J
n
O
b O
e J

s S
e L
n e
t r
b
r
t o
o o
£
h e
i
m S
t
c r
t e
: e
t
M
c b
G e
i s
l t
l ,

U M
n o
i n
v t
e r
r e
s o
i J
t ,
y
, O
u
F e
a b
c e
u c
l ,
t
y C
o
o n
f o
d
M o
Konten ini diunduh dari 66.77.17.54 pada Senin, 17 Jun 2013 11:20:47
Semua penggunaan tergantung pada Syarat dan Ketentuan JSTOR
 , r
o
H -
S
E f
e
I s
s
o
U r
S
.
o
B f
n
b
O
i
r
n
q
d
o
r
n
o
i
z
N n
. t
i
K o
o n
n n
u J
n
q B
o e
L
t n
P v
h i
. o
D r
. ,

, F
a
M c
c u
G l
i t
l y
l
o
t f
/
n M
i a
v n
e a
r g
s e
i -
t
y m
J e
n
i t
s ,

P M
Konten ini diunduh dari 66.77.17.54 pada Senin, 17 Jun 2013 11:20:47
Semua penggunaan tergantung pada Syarat dan Ketentuan JSTOR
 c
G
i
l
l

(
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
.

482

Konten ini diunduh dari 66.77.17.54 pada Senin, 17 Jun 2013 11:20:47
Semua penggunaan tergantung pada Syarat dan Ketentuan JSTOR