1. Introduction The need to change the way organizations and their employees conduct business is…

1. Introduction

The need to change the way
organizations and their employees conduct business is becoming more apparent as
the economy moves into the new millennium. Escalating development of the global
market, rapid changes in technology, a shifting work force and customer
demographics, and an increased emphasis on quality and flexibility of products
and services all point to the need for change. Recent forces in the business community,
such as globalization, skill staff shortages, and the need for innovation and
productivity, have added momentum to the search for ways to survive(.docx#_ENREF_14″ title=”Rayburn, 1999 #13″>Rayburn
and Rayburn 1999).

Early in the twentieth century, with
the extension of scientific management techniques and the assembly line as
dominant models of administration and production, industrial managers attempted
to assert greater control over the work process. Their initiatives provoked
protest from workers who resisted managerial encroachment on their traditional
practices of setting the pace of work and regulating productivity. More
recently, operating under the rubric of employee involvement, workers and
managers have developed new participatory schemes aimed at boosting productivity,
improving competitiveness, and decentralizing decision making authority. While
the goals and expectations surrounding worker participation and workplace
democracy have changed, these concepts have continued to generate interest
among both historians and contemporary observers seeking alternatives to a
centralized, bureaucratic style of management(.docx#_ENREF_14″ title=”Rayburn, 1999 #13″>Rayburn
and Rayburn 1999).

Today, a traditional bureaucratic
management style is no longer effective. Sweeping changes are needed throughout
most organizations to better meet competition. Empowerment of workers is one of
the management approaches used today by companies in response to the need for
change(.docx#_ENREF_14″ title=”Rayburn, 1999 #13″>Rayburn
and Rayburn 1999).
This concept began in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s with experiments using
Quality Circles, Quality of Work life, and Total Quality Management programs
(.docx#_ENREF_7″ title=”Juravich, 1996 #6″>Juravich
1996).

2. Literature Review

What is Empowerment?

Empowerment has been described as a means to enable
employees to make decisions(.docx#_ENREF_4″ title=”Bowen, 1992 #9″>Bowen and Lawler 1992) and as a personal phenomenon
where individuals take responsibility for their own actions(.docx#_ENREF_12″ title=”Pastor, 1996 #11″>Pastor 1996). While(.docx#_ENREF_6″ title=”Ettorre, 1997 #8″>Ettorre 1997) defines empowerment as
employees having autonomous decision making capabilities and acting as partners
in the business, all with an eye on the bottom line. Empowerment is not just
delegating decision making authority; it is also setting goals and allowing
employees to participate(.docx#_ENREF_15″ title=”Riggs, 1995 #7″>Riggs 1995).

According to(.docx#_ENREF_10″ title=”Luthans, 2005 #12″>Luthans 2005), empowerment may be defined
as “recognizing and releasing into the organization the power that people
have in their wealth of useful knowledge and internal motivation,”. He
also stated; “Empowerment is the authority to make decisions within one’s
area of responsibility without first having to get approval from someone else”.

Empowerment can be defined in either a relational or a
motivational sense. In the relational sense, empowerment is “the granting
of power, the delegation of authority”. Defined motivationally, any
practice that enhances a belief in self-efficacy increases a sense of power. An
effective way to bring about an increase in self-efficacy is through active
attainment, the authentic mastery of the tasks related to a job(.docx#_ENREF_5″ title=”Burpitt, 1997 #17″>Burpitt 1997).

Whatever the definition of empowerment used, the end
goal is to develop the performance and potential of the individual as well as
that of the organization(.docx#_ENREF_9″ title=”Long, 1996 #10″>Long 1996).

Importance
of Empowerment

The reason why more and more companies are empowering
employees, is the need for quick decisions by those people who are most knowledgeable
about the issues-often those at lower organizational level. These prompt
decision will allow the organizations to implement the changes quickly and will
enable them competing successfully in a dynamic global economy(.docx#_ENREF_16″ title=”Robbins, 2007 #16″>Robbins and Coulter 2007).

Generally, the increases in autonomy from empowering
workers results in increased motivation, job satisfaction, and enhanced job
performance. Not only do employees have power to make decisions, they also have
useful knowledge and internal motivation to make certain efforts to achieve the
company goals(.docx#_ENREF_14″ title=”Rayburn, 1999 #13″>Rayburn and Rayburn 1999).

Empowered employees have autonomous decision-making
capabilities and act as partners in ensuring the firm earns profits. Employee
empowerment can radically change operations and boost corporate performance and
profits. New products, creative ways, and innovation often result because
employees are stimulated to play an active role in the organization(.docx#_ENREF_14″ title=”Rayburn, 1999 #13″>Rayburn and Rayburn 1999).

Empowering workers increases bottom-up decision making,
reduces checks and controls, and transforms managers into mentors. Implementing
teams to improve the quality of work life as well as customer satisfaction is
often the motivating factors for moving to an empowered work team type of
organization. Moreover, empowerment, allied with self-discipline, eliminates
many of the financial and time costs inherent in the separation of decision
making and execution and maximizes the potential contribution from all workers(.docx#_ENREF_17″ title=”Robbins, 2005 #3″>Robbins and DeCenzo 2005).

Negative Aspects of Empowerment

(.docx#_ENREF_8″ title=”Koch, 1997 #25″>Koch and Godden 1997) argue that empowerment is a
good idea but unworkable for large corporations. They believe empowerment is an
inefficient way to run a large corporation; instead, the optimal way for large
companies to survive is to have strong leadership and a singular direction.
They argue that large corporations benefit from market power and economies of
scale. Instead, many researchers argue that empowerment should only be tried in
small companies where the risks of failure are less. According to(.docx#_ENREF_3″ title=”Argyris, 2001 #26″>Argyris 2001), it is unrealistic to think
that management would allow thousands of employees to have decision making
authority without some limits.

(.docx#_ENREF_11″ title=”McClenahen, 1995 #27″>McClenahen 1995) also agrees that empowerment
should not be used in large decentralized companies where performance pressure
is substantial and people work at a distance from senior management.
Particularly at risk are large, decentralized businesses. To focus on the
bottom-line, employees need the information concerning all aspects of the
organization–the same information senior management routinely receives. With
this in mind, one may wonder if management has a clear idea of what real
empowerment is. They have given the employees the ability to solve problems and
make decisions but routinely leave out the most important part of the equation,
that of allowing employees to take actions based on decisions. Therefore,
management must learn how to empower and how to make true empowerment a part of
their skill and thinking.

3. Conclusions

Today, more than 70 percent of organizations have
adopted some kind of empowerment initiative for at least part of their
workforce (Lawler, Mohrman & Benson, 2001). To be successful in today’s global business environment, companies need the knowledge,
ideas, energy, and creativity of every employee, from front line workers to the
top level managers in the executive suite. The best organizations accomplish
this by empowering their employees to take initiative without prodding, to
serve the collective interests of the company without being micro- managed, and
to act like owners of the business (O’Toole & Lawler, 2006).