This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
A review of the literature on employee empowerment
President of Empowerment Systems and is based at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
“Employee empowerment” as a term is frequently used in management circles. In practice, however, it is a daunting effort to find an exact definition of it. There are hundreds of articles on the topic. Some attempt their own definition; others expect that the reader already knows what the concept means. What is employee empowerment? What are its roots? What do the various theoretical voices have to say about the concept? An exploration of these questions is the content of this article. Roots of the concept of employee empowerment The multiple dimensions of employee empowerment make it a difficult concept to define. Additionally, writers on the concept use different words to describe similar approaches. Sullivan (1994) indicates that prior to 1990 empowerment could only be accessed through articles that discussed topics such as participative management, total quality control, individual development, quality circles, and strategic planning. Since 1990 the number of articles with “employee empowerment” as the key descriptor has exploded. This is partly because the term can be used to describe both the individual aspect of the concept as well as the organizational one. A complicating factor in defining employee empowerment is that by its very nature, in order for empowerment to be successful, each organization must create and define it for itself. Empowerment must address the needs and culture of each unique entity. Without this self-reference, employee empowerment invariably fails because the commitment, or the sense of ownership of the concept, is not created. Various researchers have looked at the dimensions of empowerment through different lenses. Control of one’s own work, autonomy on the job, variations of teamwork, and pay systems that link pay with performance are all called empowerment. As this variety is examined, it becomes clear that some of them focus on an individual’s ability and desire to be empowered. Menon (1995) terms this the “empowered state”. Alternatively, some of the items addressed, for instance: teams, job enrichment, pay for performance, employee stock ownership, are clearly not merely from the individual perspective. They are techniques that management uses to create an environment that allows for, and even facilitates, employees opting for an empowered state. Individuals must choose to take self-power or not. Leaders create an environment where individuals are able to make that choice.
Empowerment in Organizations, Vol. 5 No. 4, 1997, pp. 202-212. © MCB University Press, 0968-4891
1989. Managers act like coaches and help employees solve problems. 1977. 1969. Mausner et al. She sees a continuum of power from powerlessness to empowered. 1959) and discussion of employee participation (Lawler. 1997). Sullivan (1994) and Sullivan and Howell (1996) also focus on the role of the manager in empowering employees. Hackman and Oldham. Herzberg.. Another dimension has its beginnings in the analysis of internal organization power and control (Kanter. 1959. have increased responsibility. The idea of job enrichment (Herzberg.The beginnings of the concept of employee empowerment can be found in several places. Having developed an understanding of the roots of employee empowerment. This perspective suggests that an empowered organization is one where managers supervise more people than in a traditional hierarchy and delegate more decisions to their subordinates (Malone. Superiors empowering subordinates by delegating responsibilities to them leads to subordinates who are more satisfied with their leaders and consider them to be fair and in turn to perform up to the superior’s expectations (Keller and Dansereau. 1979. 1979. Tannenbaum. 1987. he concludes. The approach to leadership that empowers subordinates as a primary component of managerial and organizational effectiveness is also called employee empowerment (Bennis. Neilsen. The literature on job autonomy. The words “subordinate” and “superior” in the language suggests giving additional tasks Literature on employee empowerment 203 . Mausner et al. 1951) combined two aspects of work in a systemic manner.. 1968) work was focused on increasing control and decision-making in one’s work. Continuing in this tradition (Block 1987). 1995) addresses another component of what is today referred to employee empowerment. collaborative work. 1995). 1976. 1980. 1968) which showed that the sharing of power and control increases organizational effectiveness. Kanter. Hackman and Oldham. McClelland. It can be discerned by the language used by the researcher. 1975). Block. Kanter. Employees. Research on alienation (Seeman. Herzberg. the individual empowered state. 1989. In practice. Kanter (1977) defines empowerment as giving power to people who are at a disadvantaged spot in the organization. 1968. (Herzberg. Leader’s role in creating an empowering context The earliest perspective on employee empowerment is derived from the dictionary definition of bestowing power upon others but it changes over time to focus on how the leader alters the context of the workplace to allow employees to take power. 1986). Kanter. 1959. and the multi-dimensional perspective which encompasses most of the four previously stated categories. 1992) are also precursors of the idea of employee empowerment. The literature on employee empowerment can be divided into five groupings: leadership. structural or procedural change. Menon. The socio-technical approach (Lewin. the next challenge is to determine what it is that people mean when they refer to it. the definition of delegation appears to be of critical importance. Others identify the team dimension of empowerment (Beckhard.
Simply providing opportunities for employees to take power is not enough. and the impact and meaningfulness of the task. and role conflict in the work environment lead to decreased perceptions of control and lower empowerment. and identification and clarification of common goals (Vogt and Murrell 1990). responding to external circumstances and developing a strategy for continually scanning the environment. Building on their work and that of Conger and Kanungo (1988) who set out initial constructs of empowerment from the employee’s perspective. providing clear top-management support. Another definition of employee empowerment from this perspective is “a cognitive state [of] perceived control. coaching.4 204 to employees. and programmatic issues as well as individual and managerial responsibilities. poor communications. Providing for the development of self-worth by negotiating for latitude in decision making and changing aspects of the employee’s job leads to increased levels of perceived self-control and hence empowerment (Vogt and Murrell 1990. Murrell (Vogt and Murrell. the use of job-enrichment. 1995. non-contingent/arbitrary reward systems. there is no empowerment. They conceive empowerment as occurring as “cognitive variables” change.EIO 5. • Greater job autonomy and meaningfulness of the job lead to greater perceived control and greater empowerment. Thomas and Velthouse (1985) believe that empowerment relates to the very basis of human existence. the individual’s interpretive styles. developing and increasing power by working with others. the tasks. Interventions provided by leaders to achieve empowerment deal with systemic. and of having the ability to influence one’s own behavior. and mentoring. Menon 1995). perceived competence and goal internalization” (Menon. structural. redesigning work to reflect collaborative norms. Some who operate from the individual perspective equate empowerment with a process. p. For them empowerment refers to “the process of gaining influence over events and outcomes of importance to an individual or group” (Foster-Fishman and Keys. The individual perspective of the empowered state If power is not taken by those it is bestowed upon. The survey found that: • Perceived uncertainty of the job. 1990) defines empowerment as an act of building. the use of team and temporary group models of organization. which he calls “self empowerment”. role models. formalization. Examples include creating a shared vision. Keller and Dansereau 1995. 30). peer alliances. the development of reward systems that build “win-win” rather than “win-lose” attitudes. . role ambiguity. This is not perceived as empowering by employees (Menon 1995). centralization. 1995). Menon (1995) surveyed 311 employees of a corporation to determine the effects of empowerment on them. which he terms “interactive empowerment”. creative use of sponsorships. Employees must also chose to be engaged in those options. The key cognitive variables are the environment. the behavior of the leader.
1995. 116). Spreitzer (1996) found that employees who are empowered have low ambiguity about their role in organizations. Some liken empowerment to other specific programs such as employee stock ownership programs (ESOPs) as well (Tseo and Ramos. 1993. They lose sight of the fact that teamwork and cooperation depend on each element in the system working in concert with every other element.” (Landes. the higher the job satisfaction. 1993) determined that employee empowerment has three critical elements: (1) clarity and consistency of the organization’s over-all production and development goals. 1994. Literature on employee empowerment 205 • In a similar study surveying 393 middle managers of Fortune 500 corporations. and increasing power through cooperating. et al. . Westphal. 21). The greater the empowerment. 1995). developing. recognizing. the greater the job involvement. p. The leaders in empowered organizations have a wide span of control which leads to more autonomy for the employee. was not significantly related to a perception of being empowered. p. The team concept of empowerment probably developed out of the quality circle efforts of the 1970s and 1980s (Sims. It is often specifically equated to total quality management (TQM) (Gilbert. Collaborative work as empowerment “Employees often think of empowerment in terms of self-empowerment. Edwards Deming and his work on quality. Empowerment from this perspective is “an act of building. the lower the job stress. Spreitzer found that access to resources. Some suggest this approach emanates from the work of G. Empowered employees feel that their organization provides them sociopolitical support. the higher the internal work motivation. the more involvement beyond the defined job of the individual. that they have greater access to information and resources than in traditional organizations. 1997). and the greater the organizational commitment.• Consulting. (Ward. and mentoring behaviors of the immediate supervisor lead to greater perceived control and greater empowerment and can even moderate the effect of poor contextual factors of empowerment. and working together” (Rothstein. In other words empowerment means managing organizations by collaboration where workers have a voice (Gorden. while good to have. Structural or procedural change as empowerment This group of writers see the need for changing the processes of work within an organization as critical to achieving employee empowerment. sharing. Gulati. inspiring. 1995). In his study of 75 employees at a power plant. and an alignment of all systems and management and employee levels toward those goals. 1986). and that their work climate is participatory.
and the goals of the organization’s employees (p. 1994) researching conditions that facilitate or impede employee empowerment. Vogt and Murrell (1990) identify six dimensions to empowerment: educating. Malone posits that as these costs have continued to fall and independent agents can be connected through relatively inexpensive communications channels. they take initiative. employees are able to fully participate as partners. leading. 4). resources. and a stress-minimized working environment. They include activities such as multi-skilling. human resource systems such as learning and development. management goals. a structure that emphasizes flexibility and autonomy. and one that incorporates all of the above. A study (Martin. cross training. and have the authority to make strategic decisions (Garfield. For empowerment to be effective it must be multi-dimensional.4 (2) ongoing evaluation and development of the professional needs of the employees with preparation for a greater sense of process ownership and accountability. Management’s job from this perspective is to create a culture of participation by providing a compelling mission. From a corporate perspective it was important that there be a non-regimented task design and job-specific training. peer 206 . Macy. as well as ongoing involvement programs and support for the integration of employees’ work and family lives. providing. Managers must provide positive feedback. When the costs of communicating across a distance were high or virtually unavailable decentralized decisionmaking was critical to getting anything done. However as communication costs fell it was easier to bring remote information together and centralized decision makers were able to gain a broader perspective and therefore make better decisions. decision making should once again be decentralized allowing for more resolutions to be made at a local level. and Farais (1995) identify the major components of high performing organizations to be very similar to those found in the literature on empowering organizations. job enrichment/enlargement. In an empowered organization. 1993). and horizontal design. suggested that personal empowerment demanded self confidence and a strong work ethic. Multi-dimensional perspectives on empowerment Much of the most current writing on employee empowerment suggests that one-dimensional approaches are not enough. structuring. mentoring/supporting. supportive policies. TQM and ESOPs are viewed as ways to achieve these objectives. rewards for participation and a lack of punishment for risk taking. (3) assurance of congruence between corporate goals. Thompson. Empowerment in their perspective may be initiated by oneself or by others. self-directed work teams. information.EIO 5. Malone (1997) suggests that technological improvements in communications are the key to employee empowerment. work on teams as well as individually.
free flow of information about company goals and directions. Carlos & Randolf (1996) define empowerment as having the freedom to act but also the responsibility for results. then that person models his/her behavior after that of the leader. employee control of needed resources. and replacing hierarchies with selfmanaged teams. employees who understand business and industry as well as finance and economics. Mallak and Kurstedt (1996) write of empowerment as having expanded upon the concept of participative management. just-intime inventory and delivery. For them it consists of the establishment of a system of corporate values. McLagan and Nel (1997) also provide a multi-dimensional perspective on employee empowerment. they identify the use of technology as a key component of high performance. a flowing structure as opposed to a hierarchy with boxes. controls based on checks and balances and feedback on performance. managers who are more like coaches and who empower gradually. In addition to the empowering aspects. provision for performance measurement. Blanchard. next he/she begins to develop an understanding of empowerment themselves and act accordingly. who possess critical thinking skills. Literature on employee empowerment 207 . continual positive feedback and reinforcement on performance. and formalized supplier/vendor partnerships. They believe that empowerment should be integrated into an organization’s culture in a progressive manner. facilitating leadership. training and continual development of work. and a pay system that rewards everyone when the organization performs well. and leadership skills by all employees. each person becoming a manager of his/her own job. is to understand that this is a gradual process and to assist individuals as they move through the four developmental phases. Using the employee empowerment process at Colgate-Palmolive as a model. relationships of partnering for performance. and who are competent in their jobs. who are flexible in their learning and decision making. That is. and total quality management that involves line employees such as statistical process control techniques. They believe this freedom can be achieved by leadership sharing information with everyone. open and honest communication.review. management. creating autonomy through delineating boundaries. Their model of empowerment includes four concepts: (1) intrinsically motivated behavior leading to (2) internal justification for actions taken whereby (3) management releases some of its authority and responsibility to other levels in the organization that deal directly with the product or (4) service integrating coworkers for problem solving. and innovative compensation plans. Caudron (1995) suggests that key components include: self-directed work teams. initially one follows another’s lead. Management’s role in empowerment then. and finally the individual becomes a leader and model for others.
Critiques of employee empowerment The literature critiquing the concept of employee empowerment appears in varying stages of sophistication. It should be undertaken only when it fits an internal or external need and when the people and the systems are willing to make changes. The next section will examine these concerns. Management must be willing to allow for increased staff control of the work. The article concluded with five experts critiquing the case. Too much was expected too fast without ensuring that everyone in the company knew what empowerment was about. In a case study entitled “The empowerment effort that came undone” Rothstein (1995) describes a situation where the president of a company empowered a team to deal with declining sales. The company president did not support the team. They suggest that employee empowerment is not for every organization. I found many that had several thousand employees and who appear to be doing well in the marketplace. Boeing. Building on a similar theme. This willingness can be determined by looking at the issues of control and power. 208 . Polaroid. in my review of companies that considered themselves empowered. to allow them to have greater access to resources. they concluded that empowerment “appears to be an attractive and sometimes successful approach. Avis. The employees did not have the authority to make anything happen.EIO 5. They include Herman Mueller. Koch and Godden (1997) proclaim that employee empowerment is unworkable. He did not facilitate a conversation to assist the team and the critical managers in resolving their differences. and risk-taking currently exemplified in the organization. is retiring. Citing the fact that Ben of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream. It is perceived by some to be a new form of manipulation of employees by management. trust and inclusion. boundaries were not clearly delineated.4 Not everyone agrees that employee empowerment is an appropriate approach to managing an organization. The effort fell apart when upon presenting their recommendations to the company’s management team. Their commentary suggested that the effort failed not because empowerment was unworkable but because management did not implement well. the solutions were criticized as being unworkable. employee empowerment efforts are doomed to failure. Citing the absence of literature describing empowerment in any large corporation. It is their contention that empowerment is incompatible with strong leadership and is an inefficient way to control an organization. There must be an environment of trust and inclusion as well as a tolerance of risk-taking. a company touted for its empowering practices. Foster-Fishman (1995) found that unless the culture of an organization is appropriate. and United Airlines. 12). Despite their argument. Visa. Southwest Airlines. but one for medium-sized ambitions” (p. and to have more discretionary choice in the way they do their work.
“rather than a gift bestowed. The critiques of employee empowerment emanate from what appears to be half-hearted attempts by employers that allow for a very limited degree of decision making and control by employees.Babson (1995a) identifies an underlying concern Babson identifies is that if employee empowerment is successful. In order for employee empowerment to be real. Most were in professional or trade journals. 1988. 1985). but only to a point. informed decisions. It states: “Working men and women. we oppose efforts by companies to use democratic sounding programs as a smokescreen designed to undermine collective bargaining and workers’ rights. workers get control over doing things like stopping the production line over quality issues and cross-training. Parker and Slaughter (1995) equate employee empowerment to a management-by-stress approach that pushes people and systems to the breaking point by increasingly forcing workers to do more with less. unions become virtually superfluous as their role of mediating between employees and management is no longer needed.. However.are often in the best position to participate in making intelligent. Babson views this as incomplete as there is no authority or capacity to mobilize resources to get anything done. taxing people’s minds as well as their hands while providing them with no real control of the work. p. Responsibilities that were transferred to employees were things like the ability to hand out paychecks on payday. 5). Thomas and Velthouse.” (1995b. It is interesting that the companies that both Adler and Babson examined were Japanese owned corporations operating in the United States. Conclusion: constructs of employee empowerment The practice of employee empowerment appears to be ahead of the scholarly research on the topic. in some instances employee empowerment is nothing more than a new form of exploitation. at the same time. with a few appearing in popular business magazines.. In one company he examined. 2). interest in Literature on employee empowerment 209 . Babson (1995c) found a similar occurrence at a car factory. Added to this opposition is the concern about plant closings that come at the same time as announcements of participative/empowering programs. They were more symbolic than substantive. 1995. He sums up his anxieties about employee empowerment by citing the preamble to the constitution of the United Automobile Workers. This may indicate that the Japanese form of empowerment is different than that found in American counterparts. Spreitzer. only four were in scholarly. Keller and Dansereau. In his view. Of the over 200 articles on employee empowerment I located in a literature search. 1996. power devolves to those who have the capacity to take hold of it” (p. yet the work that they do is standardized and controlled by the management of the plant. These employers seem to define empowerment as having production employees taking on responsibility previously performed by the supervisor or by a skilled tradesperson. refereed journals (Conger and Kanungo. Adler (1995) sees empowerment as working.
job enrichment through multi-skilling and cross training. Employee empowerment will not happen naturally in organizations. and health care (Stensrud and Stensrud 1982). there will be mistakes as both employees and management internalize what it means to be empowered. how individuals react. it seems that employee empowerment is multi-dimensional. Note 1. community development (Solomon 1976). and allowance of risk taking. has controls based on checks and balances. Also it appears as though employee empowerment is on the rise in organizations. Changing leadership alone will not engender an empowered organization nor will individuals learning about empowerment and taking responsibility for what they can in their given environment. Teams and collaborative working arrangements.EIO 5. Initially. Contingent reward system with such components as employee stock option programs. Structure that is decentralized. and is flexible allowing for development over time. union drives (Hoffman 1978). it looks as though it is an evolutionary process that cannot be achieved in the short term. . how peers interact. The one-dimensional approach is that managers delegate power to subordinates. Examples include the civil rights movement and black voter registration drives in the south (Solomon 1976). only when a multidimensional approach is taken will the organization become empowering. Finally. No single set of contingencies can describe it. Other perspectives on empowerment outside the employee/ employer relationship that will not be a part of this study come from throughout the field of sociology. According to the literature. As well. Personal responsibility for performance exemplified in job autonomy. and how work related processes are structured. control over decisions directly relating to one’s work. • • • • In summary. and continually scanning the environment and adapting to it. access to information to measure one’s own performance and make good decisions. writers on empowerment view it from several perspectives. The multi-dimensional constructs that appear repeatedly in the literature are: • Leadership focused on the development of the individuals throughout the organization. Research suggests that employee empowerment is multi-dimensional. creating a vision and developing common goals.4 210 researching the concept appears to be growing in strength as at least ten dissertations have been written on the topic in the past two years. It involves how leaders lead. citizenship (Berger and Neuhaus 1977). pay for performance. Too many disempowering structures have been built into them over the years. Both the leadership component and the individual component will have an impact but they will not be as as successful as they could be. and win-win strategies.
285-88.E. 127-46. Basic Books. and Godden. Wayne State University Press.).” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 16. pp.) (1995a). IL. and Oldham.” in Babson. MA.” Executive Excellence. Hackman. NY. January. “Lean production and labor: empowerment and exploitation. Men and Women of the Corporation.). S. S. 46 No. W. Interstate. Organization development: strategies and models. Lean work: Empowerment and Exploitation in the Global Auto Industry. pp. 235-46. G. C. (1989). S. “Create an empowering environment. 2836. “Organizations of the future”. 3. “Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory. (1995c). Bennis. F. 300-12. 13 No. Reading. Beckhard. Jossey-Bass. S. 1996. (1977). (Ed. J. I. pp.References Adler. Blanchard.” Training.. Gorden.” Personnel Journal. Detroit. John Wiley & Sons. 3. (1980). W. in Natemeyer. Classics of Organizational Behavior.R. Vol. “Change masters”. R.G. J. “Whose team? Lean production at Mazda. (1995). and Oldham. “One more time: how do you motivate employees?”.B. Babson. S. (1993). “Power failure in management circuits. Classics of Organzation Behavior. New York. “Democratic Taylorism: the toyota production system at NUMMI. Landes.S. .R.P. R. (1969). (1976).G. San Francisco. Addison-Wesley. “Employee empowerment: flaws and practical approaches. 9. NY. Babson.” Across the Board. pp. 74 No. Kanter. K.” The Public Manager. (1968). Conger. San Francisco. “The myth and misdirection of employee empowerment. MI. CA. pp. Reading. Gilbert. 1-37. “Why empowerment is unworkable. 116-17. 45-9. Keller. Garfield. S.). Lean work: Empowerment and exploitation in the global auto industry. Hackman. New York. Babson.R. Vol. 48 No. C. Berrett-Koehler. pp.” Academy of Management Journal Best Papers Proceedings 1995. pp. “Employee empowerment. “The inserted pyramid: how a well meaning attempt to initiate employee empowerment ran afoul of the culture of a public bureaucracy. (Ed. Vol. MI. R. (1995). 471-82. Lean work: Empowerment and exploitation in the global auto industry. (1959). (1995).E. (1995b).” Human Relations. pp.A”. in Babson. Work Redesign.. Addison-Wesley. Literature on employee empowerment 211 . Mausner. 53-62.” Vital Speeches of the Day. 1. MI: Wayne State University Press. et al. P. pp. 57 No. (1979). W. W. Caudron.” Harvard Business Review. B. I. in Natemeyer.. J. Kanter. February 15. pp. Danville. T. Kanter. (Ed. IL. Vol. 2. (1993). (1994). “People should be as important as profits: from enchantment to empowerment. M. The Motivation to Work. J. 250-79. A. and Gilberg. pp. P. R. “The Empowered Manager: Positive Political Skills at Work”. S. & Randolf. 3. F. G. Kanungo (1988). P. 20-22.N. J. and Keys. Wayne State University Press. and Dansereau. 4. Detroit. 65-75. Lean work: Empowerment and Exploitation in the Global Auto Industry.S. pp. (1996).R.A. 22 No. Block. Vol. “Leadership and empowerment: a social exchange perspective. 31 No. (1989). Harvard Business Review Vol.M. J.R. MA. W. 11-12. pp. and Gilberg. 10 No. 3. G. Vol. pp. Carlos. Koch.. CA.” in Babson. 207-19. Vol. L. pp. (1995). pp. “The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice. Wayne State University Press. and R.S. Vol.E.” Academy of Management Review. Herzberg. (Ed. pp. Foster-Fishman. Danville. Empowerment Takes More than a Minute. R.358-70. Detroit.. (1997). U. Interstate. 364-72. (1987). (1995).M. F. Herzberg.
(1996). K. 25-31. 366-94. (1951). CA.F. G.A. Cognitive Elements of Empowerment. Lean Work: Empowerment and Exploitation in the Global Auto Industry. June.F.. Educational Leadership. 78391. (1995). J.D. Martin. E. San Francisco. and Ramos. Spreitzer. Empowerment in organizations: how to spark exceptional performance. Academy of Managment. Tannenbaum. Vol. Employee Empowerment: Definition. Knoxville.P.A. (1993). (1996). University of Knoxville.. T. Neilsen. JosseyBass. Vol. Rothstein. CA. (1996).H. Thompson.” Sloan Management Review. Los Angeles. Vol.” Personnel. M. “Understanding and using empowerment to change organizational culture. WA. “The Age of Participation: New Governance for the Workplace and the World. Seattle. Macy. J. New York.4 212 Lawler. 2.W. J.C. 24. P. University Associates. McGill University. Vogt.Y. Irvinton Press. (1994).” Harvard Business Review January-February. “Empowerment strategies: balancing authority and responsibility” in Srivastva. TN. H. Wayne State University Press.). 1. “Is empowerment just a fad? Control. 20-31. CA.M. 5. Miami. Harper & Row. Executive Power: How Executives Influence People and Organizations. Educational and Psychological Studies. CA. McClelland. pp. B. British Columbia: National Academy of Management Meetings. Sullivan.D. 8-10 Malone. “Beyond quality circles: self-managing teams. (1997). J. “On the meaning of alienation. G. Thomas. Tseo.J. P.. 2. (1986). Sims. D. San Francisco. New York. 25-7. S. 483-504. pp. A study of organizational variables affecting worker empowerment. K. NY. 38 No. . (1995). WA. Control in Organizations.A.C. 38 No. NY. Field Theory in Social Sciences. (1995). Menon. MI.L. M. (1995). CA. pp. Power: The Inner Experience. (1986). FL. Detroit. McGraw-Hill.T. “Customization or conformity? An institutional and network perspective on the content and consequences of TQM adoption. A..” in Babson. Sullivan. pp. decision making. W. Measurement and Construct Validation. and Farias. E. The Ultimate Advantage: Creating the High Involvement Organization.. and Howell. Integrity Publishing. (1994). and Nel.I. B. (1985). Ward.R.. University of Miami. and IT.. Seattle. “The empowerment effort that came undone.A. Seeman. The Patterns of Empowerment: An Examination of Conditions Affecting Employee-empowerment Efforts. “Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. and Kurstedt. H. K. (1995). Vol. 23-9.” Industrial Management. (1997). pp. Westphal. R. S.” Academy of Management Journal. Vol. Wide Awake in Seattle: Success Stories of Outstanding Leaders who Learned to ShareLeadership. New York. Lewin. 39 No. Mallak. and Murrell. pp. November/December.” Administrative Science Quarterly. et al. Seattle University.A. L. Jr. McLagan. Canada. San Francisco.L. 42. (1992). San Diego. L. K. pp. January. L. pp. (1997). pp. (2nd Ed. “Employee empowerment: solution to a burgeoning crisis?” Challenge.).S. K.” A Paper presented at Vancouver.” American Sociological Review. (1959). E. (1975). “Empowerment and control: a new management paradigm”. (1990). “Unions & management by stress. C. and Velthouse. Parker. JosseyBass.C. (Ed. Organizational Development and Change Division. “Describing and assessing current high performance work practices in innovative organizations: A benchmarking study of 82 North American organizations. NY.K.EIO 5. Vol. 52 No. Berrett-Koehler. S. G. and Slaughter.L. (1968). 41-53. Jr.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.