Empowerment supports organisational objectives at the expense of the individual worker Essay

Introduction Companies today are designed in someway, at some level, to develop individuals either for their own sake, the company’s sake or hopefully for both. The team has become a sophisticated structure. I t is ‘finely engineered, maintained to a high standard, and when running smoothly it is highly productive’ (Cole, G, A, 1997: 63). It provides an environment in which energy can be maximised towards corporate needs, which also allows the individual to satisfy his or her own needs within work, rather than only outside of it. So often seemingly dull unimaginative and uncreative employees surprise their companies when they reveal the depth of their energy outside work. However it is the ‘corporate attitudes’ (Legge, K, 1995: 104) that stifled them, and when released companies recognise they have a pool talent, a wealth of resources, at their fingertips. In the ‘1980s and 1990s rationalisation and downsizing’ (Legge, K, 1995: 53) were very much the order of the day therefore empowerment became a business necessity. Empowerment has been in the ‘forefront of quality improvement efforts’ (Cole, G, A, 1997: 23). Several businesses worldwide have been and still are currently closely watching quality the ability to produce superior and distinguished goods and services to meet customer needs. The commitment to quality today is very present in ‘service industries, non-profit organizations, government agencies, and educational institutions’ (Mabey at el, 1998: 48). Total Quality, also known as Total Quality Management (TQM), is seen differently by different people. Organizations are reportedly introducing ‘soft and hard’ (Cole, G, A, 1997: 67) employee relations policies associated with the shift to human resource management (HRM). Softer aspects of HRM, based on the encouragement of employee commitment in support of management aims, have received particular attention given their proposed linkage with ‘improved organizational performance’ (Cole, G, A, 1997: 67). This has, in turn, led many organizations to adopt schemes designed to encourage employee involvement. The concept of empowerment has been identified as a ‘recent and advanced manifestation of employee involvement’ (Cole, G, A, 1997: 68). Empowerment has been defined in different ways. Some have claimed it is ‘a fundamentally different way of working together’ (Spencer & Pruss, 1992: 271) and ‘quite different from the traditional notion of control’ (Cole, G, A, 1997: 94). Cole (1997) is able to define the concept of empowerment as an application to ‘none managerial roles’ such as team members. However, he argues there are several possible meanings. These can range from having ‘increased authority’ (Cole, G, A, 1997: 53) and therefore their ability exercise a wider range of choices at work and to be given a more varied and interesting job in the form of job enrichment. At best empowerment increases individuals discretion over how they do their work. It may also provide additional opportunities for group problem solving on operational issues. Empowerment is seen as ways of giving people more opportunity or ‘power’ (Mabey et al, 1998: 38) to exercise control over, and have responsibility for, their work. It is intended to encourage individuals to use their abilities by enabling them to take decisions. According to Potterfield (1999), empowerment will be best defined as a way of bestowing upon employees ‘the power to use more judgment and discretion in their work and to participate more fully in decisions affecting their working lives’ (Legge, K, 1995:84). Others are more sceptical. Armstrong (1996) points out that ‘Empowerment, for example, may mean little more than giving employees the opportunity to make suggestions for change’ (Armstrong, 1996: 76). In practice, empowerment is intended to release active employee engagement only so long as it falls within the parameters for which it was selected as a strategy. In most organisations it is ‘management which defines and adjudicates and ultimately exercises control’ (Armstrong, 1996: 78). The concept of empowerment ‘is based on the belief that to be successful, organisations must harness the creativity and brain power of all the employees not just a few managers’ (Graham & Bennett, 1995: 3). The idea that everybody in the business has something to contribute represents a radical shift in thinking away from the old idea that managers managed and the workforce simply followed orders. The fact that empowerment does represent a radical shift in thinking explains why, in many organisations, the initiative has failed. Empowered organizations are composed of empowered persons, although it is not necessarily true that a group of empowered persons automatically creates an empowered organization. Organizations that are ‘truly empowered have moved out of the old paradigm of competition and beliefs in limitation and scarcity’ (Sparrow & Marchington, 1998: 291). The face of the contemporary workplace is drastically changing. More and more companies are realising the value of more ‘flat democratic organisational structure’ (Mabey et al, 1998: 23) over the traditional autocratic, hierarchical management styles. In contrast to empowered workplaces, disempowered workforce suffers from poor self-esteem, lack of a personal vision and a feeling of hopelessness. These ‘attitudes and beliefs form inner barriers that block growth and proactive development’ (Legge, K, 1995: 63) and manifest in the worker in the form of reluctance to accept responsibility, hesitance to communicate openly, lack of commitment and ownership and, ultimately, in below average performance. Such employees ‘become passive passengers who are more focused on having their personal needs met than on contributing fully’ (Sparrow & Marchington, 1998: 82) so that the company can grow. Because they feel afraid, uncertain and insecure, they will unconsciously sabotage new interventions and approaches. An example of this is the resistance management often experience when implementing a ‘quality management system’ (Sparrow & Marchington, 1998: 82). In this way employees become a stumbling block to progress instead of much-valued assets. In companies where managers make a concerted effort to delegate and share power and control, the ‘results are not always impressive’ (Graham & Bennett, 1995: 93). The reason for this is either a lack of understanding of the nature of empowerment, or a greater focus on applying a set of managerial techniques than on creating conditions that are essential for empowerment to thrive. Where empowerment does not work it is because ‘people do not think it through’ (Mabey & Salaman, 1997: 83). To avoid such failures it is important to gain commitment for the senior management team, and then to cascade this down to other levels of management. The hardest group to convince about empowerment are ‘middle managers’ (Spencer & Pruss, 1992: 92), because it is their jobs that are most likely to be affected. It is because these managers often have the most to lost that they may have a tendency to undermine or delay implementation of a new policy. The implementation of empowerment in organisations instead of the traditional hierarchies means a ‘flatter organisational structure’ (Cole, G, A, 1997: 57), which can give rise to considerable resentment and individual resistance. There are, naturally, many problems that can arise in the empowerment process. Many workers may ‘resist these new responsibilities’ (Mabey et al, 1998: 23); they in fact like having their decisions made for them and will resent the extra burdens (and work). There still may be those workers who resent the implications of greater self-direction, possibly even arising from an obvious fear. There is an interesting theory underlying this reaction. Maslow has called this the Jonah Complex, ‘the fear of one’s own greatness’ (Maslow, 1971: 34). While Maslow discussed this term in a more mystical, spiritual context, it is associated as a sort of classic block to self-actualisation. Since empowerment speaks to the same sort of needs as self-actualisation, it could be drawn that there is the possibility of a collective sort of Jonah Complex at the heart of many conflicts in organizational transitions. Employees may also be ‘cynical and suspicious of this approach’ (Gennard & Judge, 1997: 235, Hitchcock and Willard, 1995:27) as another way to get more work out of them for less money. However allowing employees to take an active part in the change process from the very beginning, and showing them that their organization is truly changing will remove some of their wariness. There is also the danger of the ’employees feeling too empowered’ (Legge, K, 1995: 57); in feeling so independent of other facets of the organization that there might also be troubles in transitioning to teams. Empowerment supports organisational objectives at the expense of the individual worker to ‘speed up the decision making processes and reducing operational costs’ (Sparrow & Marchington, 1998: 293) by removing unnecessary layers of management such as staff functions, quality control and checking operations. In retrospect empowerment is usually advocated to ‘release the creative and innovative capacities of employees’ (Armstrong, M, 1996:386), to provide greater job satisfaction, motivation and commitment and giving people more responsibility enables employees to gain a great sense of achievement from their work therefore. The reasons for ’empowerment emerging as a concept for our time’ (Armstrong, M, 1996:385) is the need to generate energy release in employees by providing them with visionary leadership and a supporting environment and by treating them as a valuable asset to be invested in rather then as a cost despite the fact that organisatio ns are driven by profit generating, cost reduction and market pressures. Empowerment at workplace level has ‘greater justification for management in HRM terms’ (Beardwell & Holden, 1994:582). Management needs to decide how much power to delegate to employees while controlling their levels of creative energies and at the same time ‘not undermining managerial prerogatives’ (Beardwell & Holden, 1994: 582). TQM (total quality management) ‘suggests a system whereby worker empowerment is restricted very much within the boundaries set by the management’ (Beardwell & Holden, 1994: 582). Training can provide ‘an opportunity to empower and motivate employees’ (Honold, L, 1997). Empowering workers in this small way (i.e., schedule the training sessions) during the actual implementation of the organizational change can provide workers with a small degree of control over what is essentially a change in process over which they have no control. Empowerment can be argued ‘as an objective in its own right as a means of extending worker satisfaction’ (Gennard & Judge, 1997: 211). This can be related to the concept of Quality of Working Life (QWL). It refers primarily to how efficiency of performance depends on job satisfaction, and how to design jobs to increase satisfaction, and therefore performance. The early psychological basis of QWL and of justifications of empowerment relating to increased worker motivation was Herzberg (1968). Herzberg developed a theory called the two-factor theory of motivation. Herzberg argued that ‘job factors could be classified as to whether they contributed primarily to satisfaction or dissatisfaction’ (Spencer & Pruss, 1992 : 64). There are conditions, which result in dissatisfaction amongst employees when they are not present. If these conditions are present, this does not necessarily motivate employees. Second there are conditions, which when present in the job, build a strong level of motivation that can result in good job performance. Management very rarely discusses the practical problems in attempting to apply empowerment through ‘quality management’ (Mabey & Salaman, 1997:34) therefore employee views and feelings are unheard. The argument in supporting quality management requires an increase in ‘workers skills and results in genuine employee empowerment’ (Mabey & Salaman, 1997:34). However, in contrast to the optimistic approach is the argument that empowerment through quality management results in the ‘increasing subordination of employees in return for little or no extra reward’ (Mabey & Salaman, 1997:35). Recently, empowerment has become ‘an important Human Resource Management tool’ (Graham & Bennett, 1995: 93) in many organisations. It has been portrayed as the ultimate tool to access unleashed potential and help leaders get the best from their people. In reality, however, organisations that are trying to empower people may be fighting an uphill battle. Managers who harbour a fear that affirmative action may jeopardise their jobs, may be more worried about keeping their jobs than about empowering others. With the rationalization of layers of management, promotion is becoming less realistic and, therefore, middle managers share with non-managerial employees ‘growing feelings of cynicism as well as a heightened sense of estrangement from the predominant goals and values of their employing organizations’ (Denham, N et al, 1997). According to Maslow (1998), people need a sense of ‘self-determination, autonomy, dignity, and responsibility’ (Legge, K, 1995: 221) to continue to function in a healthy, growth-motivated way. When placed in an environment where any or all of these qualities are removed from them and they are instead ‘forced to submit to another’s will and think and act under constant supervision’ (Legge, K, 1995: 221), their sense of esteem and self-worth is robbed from them. The implementation of empowerment can be used successfully as a HRM tool as it provides a competitive advantage ensuring ‘organisational survival’ (Mabey & Salaman, 1997:25) and at the same time protecting employees jobs. However, employee’s maybe compelled to work harder and more flexibly ‘for their own good’ (Mabey & Salaman, 1997:25) otherwise they might be made redundant for the greater good. The aim of empowerment is to ‘enable employees to actually have to deal with problems to implement solutions quickly and without recourse to supervisors’ (Gennard & Judge, 1997: 71) and or higher levels of management. This is increasingly necessary as large and bureaucratic organisations ‘delayer’ (Beardwell & Holden, 1994: 91) management hierarchies in the search for administrative efficiency and lower costs. Employee empowerment is a very important aspect when considering human resource management. The failure of employers to give employees an opportunity to participate in decisions affecting their welfare ‘may encourage union member ship’ (sparrow & Marchington, 1998: 53). It is widely believed that one reason managers begin employee involvement programs and seek to empower their employees is to ‘avoid collective action by employees’ (Cole, G, A, 1997: 83). Employee empowerment offers the employers and the employees the chance to be on the same level, so to speak. Empowerment allows them to help make decisions that affect themselves, as well as, the company. Basically, through empowerment, employers and employees are in a win-win situation. The ’employees feel like they are needed and wanted, while the employers gain satisfaction through their prosperity’ (Mabey & Salaman, 1997: 64). Employee empowerment can be a powerful tool. The now advanced leadership style can ‘increase efficiency and effectiveness’ inside an organization (Graham & Bennett, 1995: 13). It increases productivity and reduces overhead. Overhead expenses are those needed for carrying on a business, i.e. ‘salaries, rent, heat and advertising’ (Mabey & Salaman, 1997: 39). It gives managers the freedom to dedicate their time to more important matters. Managers can highlight the talents and efforts of all employees. The leader and organisation take advantage of the ‘shared knowledge of workers’ (Beardwell & Holden, 1994: 64). Managers at the same time ‘develop their own job qualifications and skills attaining personal advancements’ (Spencer & Pruss, 1992: 38). Empowered employees can make decisions and suggestions that will down the line improve service and support, saving money, time and disputes ‘between companies and their customers’ (Gennard & Judge, 1997: 291). Empowerment of qualified employees will provide exceptional customer service in several competitive markets; therefore it will ‘improve profits through repeated business’ (Beardwell & Holden, 1994: 76). Customers prefer to deal with employees that have the power to manage arrangements and objections by themselves, without having to frequently inquire of their supervisors (Beardwell & Holden, 1994: 76). Empowerment is a strong tool that will increase ‘revenue and improve the bottom line’ (Sparrow & Marchington, 1998: 280). Empowerment is also the best way to ‘promote a good long-lasting employee-customer relationship’ (Sparrow & Marchington, 1998:32). Empowerment also brings benefits to employees. It makes them feel better about their inputs to the company; it promotes a greater productivity, and provides them with a ‘sense of personal and professional balance’ (Cole, G, A, 1997: 91). It exercises employees’ minds to find alternative and better ways to execute their jobs, and it increases their potential for promotions and job satisfaction. It results in ‘personal growth’ (Mabey at al, 1998: 174) since the whole process enlarges their feelings of confidence and control in themselves and their companies. It is a process that makes workers utilize their full potentials. This enables them to stay behind their decisions, assume risks, participate and take actions. It is a ‘win-win situation’ (Wilkinson, A, 1998); customers benefit from sharp employees; organizations benefit from satisfied customers and sharp employees; and employees benefit from improving their confidence and self-esteems. Benefits come with changes in the organization’s culture itself. Benefits require ‘changes in management and employees’ (Mabey at al, 1998: 54). For empowerment to succeed, the ‘management pyramid’ (Mabey et al, 1998: 54) must be inverted. Old-fashioned managers must take a step back and for the first time serve their subordinates and give up control. Old-fashioned employees must also agree to changes. They could see ’empowerment as a threat’ (Spencer & Pruss, 1992: 147), especially if they became use to the convenient old style of management structure where the ‘rules and decisions always came from above’ (Legge, K, 1995: 94). Employee involvement and participation schemes are to ‘enhance job responsibility’ (Legge, K, 1995: 24) by providing individuals with more influence over how they perform their tasks (employee empowerment). Each individual can make a personal decision on how to perform his or her task instead of being instructed on how to do so by management. When employees are involved, they have some influence on how they perform their job. This in turn is likely to ‘increase their contentment with the job’ (Mabey at al, 1998: 134), the probability that they will remain in that job and their willingness to except changes in the task that make up the job. Individual employees are more likely to be ‘effective members of the workforce’ (Sparrow & Marchington, 1998: 76) if management taps into their knowledge of the job by seeking their opinion on how the job should be performed and how it can be organised better. For employees, the greater empowerment and control given to frontline staff and to their teams has meant a great degree of freedom than ever before in controlling their own working lives (Sparrow & Marchington, 1998:166). The power that managers have, the capacity that managers have to influence the behaviour of employees and work responsibilities, must be ‘now shared with employees’ (Gennard & Judge, 1997: 73) through the creation of trust, assurance, motivation, and support for competitive needs. Work-related decisions and full control of the work is being pushed down towards the lowest operating levels (Armstrong, M, 1996: 58). Self-conducted teams have also emerged, which are groups of empowered employees with no or very little supervision. These groups are able to ‘solve work problems, make choices on schedules and operations, learn to do other employees’ jobs, and are also held accountable and responsible for the quality of their outputs’ (Beardwell & Holden, 1994: 12) Guest (1987) argued under ‘high commitment management’ workers would be committed to management’s vision, and that management would favour individual contracts over collective agreements as a mean of furthering worker commitment and dependence, thus making unions redundant. Employees who feel they are in a stable work environment ‘will feel more secure and empowered’ (Cole, G, A, 1997: 94). Advancement opportunities and rewards/incentive programs should also be implemented, as they feed into how committed and employee feels to making positive contributions and whether or not they are recognised for their efforts. Morale, too, provides a good measure of the culture of the organisation. Organisations with a ‘restrictive, secretive environment where information is tightly controlled’ (Beardwell & Holden, 1994: 162) will have less informed less empowered employees. Organisations with a more open environment, where ideas are encouraged from all levels will have a freer flow of information, better-informed employees, and thus higher empowerment. Through the process of employee empowerment, ’employees feel more valued’ (Beardwell & Holden, 1994: 40) because they are able to participate in the planning process and the decision making process. Empowerment gives employees the opportunity to contribute to the company’s overall success (Beardwell & Holden, 1994: 40). This helps an employee feel that he/she is truly valued, rather than that they are just a back to be stepped upon by those trying to reach the top. All in all, if the employee is happy with their job, than a paying customer will see that and want to return. Empowerment allows an employee to find ‘new ways to express their creativity’ (Armstrong, M, 1996: 161). Through creativity, employees are able to make sales or transactions an unforgettable and pleasurable experience for customers, thus ensuring the customers return. Employee empowerment can have a ‘profoundly beneficial impact on the bottom line if used correctly’ (Mabey et al, 1998: 18). Empowerment allocates responsibility to an employee and creates the motivation to surpass customer expectations. In order to keep customers for life, employers must empower their employees to make their own decisions. Empowerment gives ’employees the opportunity to make decisions and suggestions’ (Cole, G, A, 1997: 39) that will down the line improve service and support, saving money, time and disputes between companies and their customers. Empowerment is an aspect, which must be considered in ‘negotiating an effective team contract’ (Spencer & Pruss, 1992: 69) .The team must be empowered to seek and find information across the existing management structures. The communication aspect of empowerment means that the team must be clearly shown where their work adds value to the company, where their effects will show results and where their work fits in with the company’s objectives. ‘Organizations wishing to instil a culture of empowerment must find a way of establishing systems and processes that do not restrict employees. By concentrating on what behaviour is considered optimal for the employees and what they do well, management can adapt, develop and change the organizational structure to produce the sought after behaviour’ (Erstad, M, 1997). Culture changed programmes are ‘commonly promoted’ (Mabey et al, 1998: 132) to increase the power of the worker, through empowerment. However, critics have argued empowerment is a means of increasing work intensity and gaining greater managerial control over labour (Brambell, 1995, Legge, 1989). Conclusion Work place attitudes such as ‘praising teams for success and punishing teams for failure are inherent in our society’ (Mabey et al, 1998: 32) where winning and survival have become synonymous. Businesses are installing empowerment into their organisations to ‘give people more responsibility and asking them to test the corporate boundary limits’ (Graham & Bennett, 1995: 91). A t the same time, organisations are asking staff to be more entrepreneurial, and take more risks. It can be argued employees who empower themselves can be called troublemakers and those who take entrepreneurial risks and fail are referred to as failures. The business ethic which condemns failure as a bad thing is going to ‘restrict its best people’ (Beardwell & Holden, 1994: 12), force them to avoid taking risks that may one day be beneficial and will prevent the team experiencing the excitement of the empowerment which is vital to motivation and team dynamics. The advantages gained through empowerment are numerous. Employee empowerment allows an organization to unleash the vital, untapped forces of employee creativity and motivation to solve business problems (Legge, K, 1995: 50). Empowering employee also allows them to make decisions on the spot. This is very important when you work in an industry where you work directly with a paying customer. When employees are empowered, the employer enables them to offer full service to their clients and protect them from the competition. ‘The rewards of empowerment outweigh the risks of losing the employees themselves’ (Spencer & Pruss, 1992: 203). The retail industry is a perfect example. Managers are ‘learning to give up control’ and employees are learning how to be responsible for the actions and decisions (Cole, G, A, 1997: 34). It is fundamental that management shares information, creates autonomy and feedback, and trains and creates self-directed teams for empowerment to work properly. Managers often prefer not to ‘communicate with employees, and not to share some extremely important information’ (Beardwell & Holden, 1994: 247) with them, but an effective leader must have no hidden agendas. They must treat employees as ‘stakeholders for the road of success’ (Beardwell & Holden, 1994: 247). Employees must have a clear vision of success, because if they are not aware of what success means to the company and where the company is heading, there is no way they can feel empowered to help accomplish this success. ‘Empowerment is not something, which can be passed over from management to employees as a pen is handed from one person to another. It is a complex process, which requires a clear vision, a learning environment both for management and employees, and participation and implementation tools and techniques in order to be successful’ (Erstad, M, 1997). Â   Bibliography Armstrong, M (1996) ‘A Handbook of Personnel Management Practice’, Sixth Edition, Kogan Page Beardwell, I & Holden, L (1994) ‘Human resource Management- A contemporary perspective’, Pitman Cole, G, A (1997) ‘Personnel Management’, Fourth Edition, Letts Denham, N, Ackers, P & Travers, C (1997) ‘Doing yourself out of a job? : How middle managers cope with empowerment’ , Employee Relations; Volume 19 No. 2; Erstad, M (1997) ‘Empowerment and organizational change’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management; Volume 9 No. 7; Gennard, J & Judge, G (1997) ‘Employee relations’, Institute of Personnel & Development Graham, H, T &Bennett, R (1995) ‘Human Resources Management’, Eight Edition, M+E handbooks Honold, L (1997) ‘A review of the literature on employee empowerment’, Empowerment in Organisations; Volume 5 No. 4 Legge, K (1995) ‘Human Resource Management-Rhetoric’s & Realities’, Macmillan Business Mabey, C & Salaman, G (1997) ‘Strategic Human Resource Management’, Blackwell Business Mabey, C, Skinner, D & Clark, T, (1998) ‘Experiencing Human Resource Management’, Sage Sparrow, P & Marchington, M (1998) ‘Human Resource Management-The New Agenda’, Pitman Spencer, J & Pruss, A (1992) ‘Managing your team’, Piatkus Wilkinson, A (1998) ‘Empowerment: theory and practice’, Personnel Review; Volume 27 No. 1