MANAGEMENT TRAINING (3) / EMPOWERMENT (AMERICAN APPROACH) - Corporate Training

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER

Empowerment is based on a set of assumptions that are in contrast to those normally made by managers. Empowerment means providing freedom for people to do successfully what they want to do, rather than getting them to do what you want them to do. Managers who empower people remove controls, constraints, and boundaries for them instead of motivating, directing, or stimulating their behavior. Rather than being a “push” strategy, in which managers induce employees to respond in desirable ways through incentives and influence techniques, empowerment is a “pull” strategy. It focuses on ways that managers can design a work situation so that it energizes and provides intrinsic encouragement to employees. In the context of such a strategy, workers accomplish tasks because they are intrinsically attracted by them, not because of an extrinsic reward system or influence technique. Empowering others, however, can lead to dilemmas. On the one hand, evidence shows that empowered employees are more productive, more satisfied, and more innovative, and that they create higher-quality products and services than unempowered employees. Organizations are more effective when an empowered workforce exists. On the other hand, empowerment means giving up control and letting others make decisions, set goals, accomplish results, and receive rewards. It means that other people probably will get credit for success. Managers with high needs for power and control face a challenge when they are expected to sacrifice their needs for someone else’s gain. They may ask themselves: “Why should others get the goodies when I am in charge? Why should I allow others to exercise power, and even facilitate their acquiring more power, when I naturally want to receive rewards and recognition myself?” The answer is that although empowering others is neither easy nor natural (we aren’t born knowing how to do it), it need not require a great amount of self-sacrifice. You don’t need to sacrifice desired rewards, recognition, or effectiveness in order to be a skillful empowering manager. On the contrary, through real empowerment, managers actually multiply their own effectiveness. They and their organizations become more effective than they could have been otherwise. Nevertheless, for most managers, empowerment is a skill that must be developed and practiced, because despite the high visibility of the concept of empowerment in popular literature, its actual practice is all too rare in modern management. Evidence for this assertion comes from a national survey by the Louis Harris organization, reported in Business Week for January 18, 1993. According to this survey, feelings of powerlessness and alienation among workers rose sharply through the 1990s and, according to more recent Harris polls, have not reversed themselves in the twenty-first century.

THE MEANING OF EMPOWERMENT

HISTORICAL ROOTS

The word empowerment came into vogue in the 1980s and 1990s but has since taken on the image of a faddish and even outdated concept (Abrahamson, 1996; Block, 1987). In our own consulting and executive education teaching, many managers will respond when introducing the concept of empowerment, “We already tried that.” Or “That’s a 1990s term, isn’t it?”

Empowerment has roots in the disciplines of psychology, sociology, and theology dating back for centuries. In the field of psychology, Adler (1927) developed the concept of mastery motivation, emphasizing the striving that people have for competence in dealing with their world. Similar concepts introduced several decades ago include effectance motivation, an intrinsic motivation to make things happen (White, 1959); psychological reactance, which refers to seeking freedom from constraints (Brehm, 1966); competence motivation, a striving to encounter and master challenges (Harter, 1978); and personal causation, a drive to experience free agency (DeCharms, 1979). In each of these studies, the root concepts are similar to the notion of empowerment discussed in this chapter; that is, the inclination of people to experience self-control, self-importance, and self-liberation.

In sociology, notions of empowerment have been fundamental to most rights movements (e.g., Civil Rights, Women’s Rights, Gay Rights) (see Bookman & Morgan, 1988; Solomon, 1976), in which people campaign for freedom and control of their own circumstances. Moreover, much of the writing attacking societal problems through social change has centered fundamentally on the empowerment of groups of people (Alinsky, 1971; Marx, 1844). That is, people seek social change in order to increase their access to an empowered condition.

In theology, issues of free will versus determinism, self-will versus submissiveness, predestination versus faith and works, and humanism versus positivism have been hotly debated for centuries. At their root, they are all variations on a theme of empowerment versus helplessness. The more recent literature on “liberation theology” (Friere & Faundez, 1989) emphasizes the empowerment of individuals to take charge of their own destinies, rather than relying solely and completely on the dictates of an all-controlling, supernatural force. This does not mean that people who believe in a Supreme Being cannot feel empowered; rather, empowered people couple a sense of self-mastery and self-determination with their faith in God.

SKILLFUL EMPOWERMENT

SELF-EFFICACY

When people are empowered, they have a sense of self-efficacy, or the feeling that they possess the capability and competence to perform a task successfully. Empowered people not only feel competent, they feel confident that they can perform adequately. They are more self-assured. They feel a sense of personal mastery and believe they can learn and grow to meet new challenges (see Bandura, 1989; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Gecas, 1989; Zimmerman, 1990). Some writers believe that this is the most important element in empowerment because having a sense of self-efficacy determines whether people will try and persist in attempting to accomplish a difficult task. The strength of people’s conviction in their own effectiveness is likely to affect whether they would even try to cope with given situations. . . . They get involved in activities and behave assuredly when they judge themselves capable of handling situations that would otherwise be intimidating. . . . Efficacy expectations determine how much effort people will expend and how long they will persist in the face of obstacles and aversive experiences.

A great deal of additional research has been done on the consequences of self-efficacy and its opposite, powerlessness, in relation to physical and psychological health. For example, self-efficacy has been found to be a significant factor in overcoming phobias and anxieties, alcohol and drug abuse, eating disorders, smoking addiction, depression, as well as increasing tolerance for pain. Recovery from illness and injury, as well as coping with job loss or disruptions, is more effective and more rapid among people who have developed a strong sense of self-efficacy, because they are more physically and psychologically resilient and are better able to change negative behaviors. Bandura (1977) suggested that three conditions are necessary for people to feel a sense of self-efficacy:

(1) a belief that they have the ability to perform a task,

(2) a belief that they are capable of putting forth the necessary effort (3) a belief that no outside obstacles will prevent them from accomplishing the task. In other words, people feel empowered when they develop a sense of self-efficacy by having a basic level of competence and capability, a willingness to put forth effort to accomplish a task, and the absence of overwhelming inhibitors to success.

SELF-DETERMINATION

Empowered people also have a sense of self-determination. Whereas self-efficacy refers to a sense of competence, self-determination refers to feelings of having a choice. “To be self-determining means to experience a sense of choice in initiating and regulating one’s own actions” (Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989, p. 580). People feel self-determined when they can voluntarily and intentionally involve themselves in tasks, rather than being forced or prohibited from involvement. Their actions are a consequence of personal freedom and autonomy. Empowered individuals have alternatives and a sense of freedom; therefore, they develop a sense of responsibility for and ownership of their activities. They see themselves as proactive self-starters. They are able to take initiative on their own accord, make independent decisions, and try out new ideas.Rather than feeling that their actions are predetermined, externally controlled, or inevitable, they experience themselves as the locus of control.

In any task or situation, a sense of self-determination can be engendered and enhanced, so people do not have to have high internal locus of control scores to feel a sense of empowerment. Research shows that a strong sense of self-determination is associated with less alienation in the work environment, more work satisfaction, higher levels of work performance, more entrepreneurial and innovative activity, high levels of job involvement, and less job strain. In medical research, recovery from severe illness has been found to be associated with having the patient “reject the traditional passive role and insist on being an active participant in his own therapy”. People who are helped to feel that they can have personal impact on what happens to them, even with regard to the effects of disease, are more likely to experience positive outcomes than those who lack this feeling. Self-determination is associated most directly with having choices about the methods used to accomplish a task, the amount of effort to be expended, the pace of the work, and the time frame in which it is to be accomplished. Empowered individuals have a feeling of ownership for tasks because they can determine how tasks are accomplished, when they are accomplished, and how quickly they are completed. Having a choice is the critical component of self-determination.

PERSONAL CONSEQUENCE

Empowered people have a sense that when they act, they can produce a result. Think of an assembly line job where a worker screws a nut on a bolt, but if he makes an error, someone down the line will correct it. Such a person will have little sense that he can have any effect on the outcome of the product or that his efforts have an effect on the end product. He will feel little personal control over the outcome. On the other hand, people with a sense of personal consequence believe that expending effort produce a result. Personal consequence is “an individual’s beliefs at a given point in time in his or her ability to effect a change in a desired direction”. It is the conviction that through one’s own actions, a person can influence what happens. A sense of personal consequence, then, refers to a perception of impact.

Empowered individuals do not believe that obstacles in the external environment control their actions; rather, they believe that those obstacles can be controlled. They have a feeling of active control—which allows them to bring their environment into alignment with their wishes—as opposed to passive control—in which their wishes are brought into alignment with environmental demands. Instead of being reactive to what they see around them, people with a sense of personal consequence try to maintain command over what they see. For individuals to feel empowered, they must not only feel that what they do produces an effect, but that they can produce the effect themselves. That is, they must feel that they are in control of producing the consequence in order for that consequence to be associated with a sense of empowerment. Having a sense of personal consequence is related to internal locus of control (…)

Unlike internal locus of control, however, a sense of personal consequence can be developed in association with a particular task. Managers can help other people develop this sense of having control over their work outcomes. Internal locus of control is a more fundamental and difficult-to-change personality attribute. This is, most people have developed an orientation toward internal or external locus of control, which characterizes their general approach to life. In helping people succeed in specific tasks, however, those who successfully empower others help them develop a sense that they can produce a desired result. (…) Research on personal control suggests that people are intrinsically motivated to seek personal control. They fight to maintain a sense of control of themselves and their situations.

Prisoners of war, for example, have been known to do strange things such as refusing to eat certain foods, not walking in a certain place, or developing secret communication codes, in order to maintain a sense of personal control. A certain amount of personal control is necessary for people to maintain psychological and physical wellbeing. When people lose personal control, we usually label them as insane and psychopathic. Even small losses of personal control can be harmful physically and emotionally. For example, loss of control has been found to lead to depression, stress, anxiety, low morale, loss of productivity, burnout, learned helplessness, and even increased death rates. Having a sense of personal control, then, appears necessary for health as well as for empowerment. On the other hand, even the most empowered people are not able to control totally everything that happens to them. No one is in complete control of the outcomes in his or her life. Nevertheless, empowerment helps people increase the number of personal outcomes that they can control. Often, this is as much a matter of identifying areas in which personal consequence is possible as it is of manipulating or changing the external environment to increase control over it.

MEANING

Empowered people have a sense of meaning. They value the purpose or goals of the activity in which they are engaged. Their own ideals and standards are perceived as consistent with what they are doing. The activity “counts” in their own value system. Not only do they feel that they can produce a result, but empowered individuals believe in and care about what they produce. They invest psychic or spiritual energy in the activity, and they feel a sense of personal significance from their involvement. They experience personal connectedness and personal integrity as a result of engaging in the activity.

Meaningfulness, then, refers to a perception of value. Activities infused with meaning create a sense of purpose, passion, or mission for people. They provide a source of energy and enthusiasm, rather than draining energy and enthusiasm from people. Merely getting paid, helping an organization earn money, or just doing a job does not create a sense of meaning for most people. Something more fundamental, more personal, and more value-laden must be linked to the activity. It must be associated with something more human. Almost all people want to feel that they are spending their time on something that will produce lasting benefit, that will make the world a better place, or that is associated with a personal value.

Acquiring personal benefit from an activity does not guarantee meaning. For example, service to others may bring no personal reward, yet it may be far more meaningful than work that produces a hefty paycheck. Involvement in activities without meaning, on the other hand, creates dissonance and annoyance, and produces a sense of disengagement from the work. People become bored or exhausted. Other incentives—such as rules, supervision, or extra pay—are required to get people to invest in the work. Unfortunately, these extra incentives are costly to organizations and represent nonvalue-added expenses that constrain organizational efficiency and effectiveness. It costs companies a lot of money to require work that has little or no meaning to workers. Self-estrangement results from lack of meaning; vigor and stimulation result from meaningful work. Research on meaningfulness in work has found that when individuals engage in work that they feel is meaningful, they are more committed to it and more involved in it. They have a higher concentration of energy and are more persistent in pursuing desired goals than when a sense of meaningfulness is low. People feel more excitement and passion for their work and have a greater sense of personal significance and self-worth because of their association with activities that are meaningful. Individuals empowered with a sense of meaningfulness also have been found to be more innovative, upwardly influential, and personally effective than those with low meaningfulness scores.

TRUST

Finally, empowered people have a sense of trust. They are confident that they will be treated fairly and equitably. They maintain an assurance that even if they are in subordinate positions, the ultimate outcome of their actions will be justice and goodness as opposed to harm or damage. Usually, this means they have confidence that those holding authority or power positions will not harm or injure them, and that they will be treated impartially. However, even in circumstances in which individuals holding power positions do not demonstrate integrity and fairness, empowered people still maintain a sense of assurance.

Trust means, in other words, having a sense of personal security. Trust also implies that individuals place themselves in a position of vulnerability, and have faith that, ultimately, no harm will come to them as a result of that trust. How can a person maintain trust and a sense of security even when caught in a circumstance that seems unfair, inequitable, or even dangerous? In his attempts to gain independence for India, for example, Gandhi determined that he would burn the passes that the British government required be carried by all native Indians but not by British citizens. Gandhi called a meeting and publicly announced his intent to resist this law by burning the passes of each of his Indian supporters. In a now-famous incident, after Gandhi burned several of the passes, the British police intervened by clubbing him with nightsticks. Despite the beating, Gandhi continued to burn passes. Where is the trust or sense of security in this case? How can Gandhi be empowered in the process of being beaten by the police? In what did Gandhi have trust? Was Gandhi empowered or not? Gandhi’s sense of security came not from the British authorities but from his faith in the principles that he espoused. His sense of security was associated with his belief that doing the right thing always leads, ultimately, to the right consequence.

Research on trust has found that trusting individuals are more apt to replace superficiality and facades with directness and intimacy; they are more apt to be open, honest, and congruent rather than deceptive or shallow. They are more search-oriented and selfdetermining, more self-assured and willing to learn. They have a larger capacity for interdependent relationships, and they display a greater degree of cooperation and risk-taking in groups than do those with low trust. Trusting people are more willing to try to get along with others and to be a contributing part of a team. They are also more self-disclosing, more honest in their own communication, and more able to listen carefully to others. They have less resistance to change and are better able to cope with unexpected traumas than are those with low levels of trust. Individuals who trust others are more likely to be trustworthy themselves and to maintain high personal ethical standards. Because “trusting environments allow individuals to unfold and flourish”, empowerment is closely tied to a sense of trust. Having a feeling that the behavior of others is consistent and reliable, that information can be held in confidence, and that promises will be kept all are a part of developing a sense of empowerment in people. Trusting others allows people to act in a confident and straightforward manner, without wasting energy on selfprotection, trying to uncover hidden agendas, or playing politics. In brief, a sense of trust empowers people to feel secure.

SETTING GOALS

People are most in need of empowerment when they are faced with situations they perceive to be threatening, unclear, overly controlled, coercive, or isolating; when they experience inappropriate feelings of dependency or inadequacy; when they feel stifled in their ability to do what they would like to do; when they are uncertain about how to behave; when they feel that some negative consequence is imminent; and when they feel unrewarded and unappreciated. Ironically, most large organizations engender these kinds of feelings in people, because, as Block (1987) noted, bureaucracy encourages dependency and submission. Rules, routines, and traditions define what can be done, stifling and supplanting initiative and discretion. In such circumstances, the formal organization— not the individual—is the recipient of empowerment.

Therefore, in large organizations, empowerment is especially needed. But empowerment is also key in environments outside of vast bureaucracies. For example, studies demonstrate positive effects of empowerment on child development, learning in school, coping with personal stress, and changing personal habits . Despite the applicability of empowerment in many different contexts including school and family life, our discussion considers ways in which managers can empower those with whom they work. We focus on empowerment mainly as a management skill, even though people in other roles, such as parents, teachers, coaches, tutors, and friends, can also benefit by developing the skills of empowerment.

Research by Kanter (1983), Hackman and Oldham (1980), Bandura (1986), Quinn and Spreitzer (1997), Wrzesniewski (2003), and others has produced at least nine specific prescriptions for fostering empowerment; that is, producing a sense of competence, choice, impact, value, and security. These include: (1) articulating a clear vision and goals, (2) fostering personal mastery experiences, (3) modeling, (4) providing support, (5) creating emotional arousal, (6) providing necessary information, (7) providing necessary resources, (8) connecting to outcomes, and (9) creating confidence.

Creating an environment in which individuals can feel empowered requires that they be guided by a clearly articulated vision of where the organization is going and how they can contribute as individuals. We all desire to know the purpose of the activities in which we engage, what the ultimate objective is, and how we fit into that objective. The worst circumstance we can experience is one with a total lack of direction, where people do whatever comes to mind, or where no common objective or goal is evident. This is the classical condition— labeled anomie—that leads to anarchy, chaos, and even death (Durkheim, 1963).

To avoid such chaotic conditions, a clear vision and an established set of goals must be articulated so that behavior remains congruent with organizational purposes. Cameron and Quinn (2006); Martin, Feldman, Hatch, and Sitkin (1983) and others have reported that several studies confirm that the most effective way to articulate a vision in a clear and energizing way is by using word pictures, stories, metaphors, and reallife examples. That is, individuals are more likely to understand a vision if it has both right brain (intuitive, pictorial, story-based) as well as left brain (logical, reasonable, performance-based) elements associated with it. Not only do people understand communication more clearly when it contains stories and examples as well as descriptions, but they develop more of a sense of self-determination (“I can see the alternatives available”), a sense of personal consequence (“I can see how I can influence the outcomes”), and a sense of meaning (“I can see why this is so important”).

Empowerment is also enhanced as specific behavioral goals are identified that help guide individuals’ behavior as they work on their tasks. Goals specify desired outcomes as well as accountability. Locke and Latham (1990) identified the attributes of the most effective goals, and the acronym SMART goals best summarizes these attributes.

❏ Specific goals—those that are identifiable, behavioral, and observable.

❏ Measurable goals—those that have outcome criteria associated with them, that can be assessed objectively, and where the degree of successful accomplishment can be determined. One can evaluate the accomplishment of measurable goals.

❏ Aligned goals—those that are congruent with the overall purposes and vision of the organization. Their accomplishment contributes to the broader good.

❏ Realistic goals—realistic goals, those that are not so far above the capacity of the individual that they become discouraging at best and considered nonsense at worst. Realistic does not mean easily achieved, because research is clear that difficult goals—stretch goals—are better motivators of behavior and predict higher levels of accomplishment than do easy goals (Locke & Latham, 1990).

❏ Time-bound goals—that is, a time for accomplishing the goals is specified. Goals that have no ending point are not effective; a deadline for achievement is clear. The point is: individuals are empowered as they are provided a clear vision of the future and some specific, behavioral goals that help clarify how they can get there.

FOSTERING PERSONAL MASTERY EXPERIENCES

Bandura (1986) found that the single most important thing a manager can do to empower other people is to help them experience personal mastery over some challenge or problem. By successfully accomplishing a task, defeating an opponent, or resolving a problem, people develop a sense of mastery. Personal mastery can be fostered by providing people with the opportunity to accomplish successively more difficult tasks that eventually lead to the accomplishment of desirable goals. The key is to start with easy tasks and then progress by small steps to more difficult tasks until the person experiences a sense of mastery over an entire complex of problems.

Managers can help others feel increasingly empowered by helping them develop an awareness that they can succeed. One way to do this is by breaking apart large tasks and giving workers only one part at a time. The manager watches for small successes achieved by workers and then highlights and celebrates them. Jobs can be expanded incrementally so that tasks become broader and more complex as workers master the basic elements. Other people are given further problem-solving responsibility as they succeed in resolving rudimentary difficulties.

Managers can also provide opportunities for people to direct or lead others in a project, task force, or committee. When managers adopt a small-wins strategy, individuals get opportunities to succeed in small ways, even though an overall challenge may be formidable. Small wins can occur when large problems are divided up into limited units that can be attacked individually. Small wins may seem insignificant by themselves, but they generate a sense of movement, progress, and success. The recognition and celebration of small wins generate momentum that leads people to feel empowered and capable. Lee Iacocca used this strategy to turn around a failing Chrysler Corporation in the early 1980s. An analysis of his speeches to the top management team at Chrysler over a period of five years reveals that even though Chrysler was losing money, costs were too high, and quality was a major problem, Iacocca continued to celebrate small successes. For example, he regularly announced that a certain amount of money was saved, a particular improvement was produced, a certain executive was hired away from the competition, or a compliment was received from a Wall Street analyst, even though the firm was losing a billion dollars a year. A great deal of emphasis was placed on succeeding at small things, all of which were aimed at eventually toppling the much larger challenge of company survival. In this case, continual small wins led to a big achievement.

MODELING

PROVIDING SUPPORT

A fourth technique for helping others experience empowerment is providing them with social and emotional support. If people are to feel empowered, managers should praise them, encourage them, express approval of them, back them, and reassure them. Kanter (1983) and Bandura (1986) each found that a crucial part of empowerment is having responsive and supportive managers. Managers seeking to empower others should find ways to praise others’ performance regularly. They can write letters or notes to workers, to members of their unit, or even to their family indicating that the person’s good work has been noticed. They can provide feedback to people about their abilities and competencies. They can arrange for opportunities for individuals to receive social support from others by becoming part of a team or social unit. They can express confidence in people by monitoring them less closely or by allowing longer time intervals to elapse before requiring them to report results.

Managers can hold regular ceremonies where individuals’ achievements are recognized. It may simply be a matter of listening to people and trying to understand their feelings and points of view. Managers can empower others, then, by engendering a feeling that they are accepted, that they are a valued asset, and that they are an integral part of the overall organizational mission or objective. This support can come from either the manager or colleagues. Cameron, Freeman, and Mishra (1991), for example, described a variety of support activities undertaken by a highly effective manager who was forced to lay off workers due to a corporate downsizing mandate. Understandably, the layoffs resulted in undermined employee trust, increased skepticism, and an escalated sense of powerlessness. Because the announcement came down from the parent company, workers felt that they had lost the ability to control their own destinies.

In short, they felt unempowered. Following the layoff, the manager held personal meetings with each remaining employee to reaffirm his or her value to the organization. People were told in a straightforward manner that they were considered valuable human resources, not human liabilities, to the company. A special “Build with Pride” week was held in which outsiders—the press, government officials, family members, school classes—were invited to tour the facility and provide feedback (which, by the way, consistently took the form of praise) to the employees for the products and services they were producing. An impromptu hot dog roast was held one lunch hour to recognize and celebrate the extra-mile efforts of one group of employees in the facility. People were assured that counseling, training, and assistance would be provided when job assignments changed or positions were merged as a result of the downsizing. In general, this notable manager attempted to re-empower his workforce by providing social and emotional support in a variety of ways. He helped provide the assistance people needed to cope with the uncertainty resulting from this uncontrollable event. Predictably, both organizational and individual performance results did not deteriorate after downsizing. Instead, contrary to what happens in most organizations that downsize, performance actually improved.

EMOTIONAL AROUSAL

Emotional arousal means replacing negative emotions such as fear, anxiety, or crabbiness with positive emotions such as excitement, passion, or anticipation. To empower people, managers help make the work environment fun and attractive. They ensure that the purpose behind the work is clear. They ensure that people’s right brain (the side that controls emotions and passions) is involved in the work as well as their left brain (the side that controls logic and analysis). They provide positive energy to people. Bandura (1977) found that the absence of positive emotional arousal makes it difficult, if not impossible, for individuals to feel empowered.

Baker, Cross, and Wooten (2003), on the other hand, found that positively energizing people enhances performance markedly and is even more important than providing people with powerful positions or special information in their work. Positive energy is easy to detect in people. When we interact with some people they seem to give us life and vigor. Other people seem to be life-depleting or negatively energizing. Emotional arousal is associated with being a positive energy source for people. The visible celebrations of employee accomplishments and motivational events in marketing firms such as Mary Kay Cosmetics, Shaklee Products, and Amway are well known. However, emotional arousal doesn’t simply mean tooting horns, increasing the decibel levels, listening to speeches, or superficially creating excitement.

Instead, emotional arousal occurs more likely when what individuals are doing is connected to values they hold dear. To feel a sense of empowerment, workers must see how what they are doing every day is associated with their basic beliefs. Employees can get more excited, for example, about working for the betterment of humankind, for the improvement of the quality of people’s lives, and for personal growth and development, than they can for a 10 percent return to institutional investors. This is not to say that revenue for stockholders is unimportant. But emotional arousal is associated more with personal values than with organizational profitability.

Managers can also increase workers’ sense of empowerment by holding periodic social gatherings to foster friendships among coworkers. In their official communications, they can occasionally include a joke or lighthearted message to relieve tension. They can use superlatives in providing feedback or describing successes (e.g., say “terrific” instead of “good”; “awesome” instead of “acceptable”). They can make sure that employees are clear about how their work will affect the company’s customers. They can help identify external threats or challenges that need to be met. Successful emotional arousal is often associated with athletic teams. Chuck Coonradt (1985) observed that “people are willing to pay for the privilege of working harder than they will work when they are paid.” That is, individuals will actually pay money in order to work at a more demanding level than the level at which they work when they are receiving a salary.

Here is one example: In the frozen food business, people are hired to work in refrigerated warehouses in terrible working conditions at near-zero temperatures. But the unions and OSHA have done much to make conditions bearable. Companies are required to provide insulated clothing and boots. They are required to provide hot drinks within so many feet of cold work areas. Workers must have a ten-minute break every hour. It’s tough to get people to work in those kinds of conditions. Yet, whenever a winter snowstorm passes over . . . the mountains, followed by clearing skies and plunging temperatures, there is a sudden jump in employee absenteeism, particularly among young workers. Instead of staying home to avoid the freezing temperatures, they migrate up the local canyons to test the new and famous powder snow. . . . Equipped with hundreds of dollars of equipment, they gladly take a reduction in pay for the day off and a chance to buy a $40 pass to spend the day outside in subfreezing temperatures. There are no hot-drink vending machines on the slopes, nor does anyone demand a ten-minute break every hour.

Thus, people actually end up working harder, in worse conditions—and paying for the privilege—than when they are at work getting paid. Why is this so? Why does recreation produce such energy, such commitment, and such a sense of empowerment? Part of the explanation relates to the emotional arousal that results from several characteristics of sports. For example, all recreation has a clear goal (e.g., winning, exceeding a personal best). Without a clearly defined goal, no one gets excited. That goal is always pitted against a standard that people care about (e.g., winning the NCAA championship, bowling a 300 game). In recreation, the scorekeeping and feedback systems are objective, self-administered, and continuous. In a basketball game, for example, everyone knows that a free throw always counts one point, that the winner is the team that makes the most baskets, and that there is never a time when everyone can’t find out the exact score of the game. One reason why people get so excited watching athletic events is because of the scorekeeping and feedback systems. In recreation, the out-ofbounds is clearly identified. Everyone knows the consequence of kicking a soccer ball over the end line, of hitting a ball to the left side of third base, or of stepping over the end of the takeoff board in the long jump. They are all out-of-bounds, and everyone knows that out-ofbounds behavior stops action. Managers can help empower people through emotional arousal, not just by being a cheerleader, delivering charismatic speeches, and keeping the work climate fun, but also by capitalizing on some of the principles of recreation that create excitement: clear goals; objective, self-administered, and continuous scorekeeping and feedback; and clearly defined out-of-bounds behavior.

PROVIDING INFORMATION

Kanter (1983) identified information as one of the most crucial managerial “power tools.” Acquiring information, particularly information that is viewed as central or strategic in an organization, can be used to build a power base and to make oneself indispensable and influential in that organization. On the other hand, when managers provide their people with more, rather than less information, those people gain a sense of empowerment and are more likely to work productively, successfully, and in harmony with the manager’s wishes. The manager actually enhances his or her power base by involving others in the pursuit of desirable outcomes.

With more information, people tend to experience more self-determination, personal control, and trust. The resulting sense of empowerment enhances the probability that subordinates will not resist the manager, defend against his or her power, or work at protecting themselves. Rather, they are likely to collaborate with the empowering manager. Therefore, a manager who wishes to increase an employee’s sense of empowerment will make sure that the employee is given all task-relevant information needed to carry out an assignment. The empowering manager will make available, on an ongoing basis, pertinent technical information and data collected by others. Such a manager keeps workers informed about what is happening in other areas of the organization that might affect what the worker is doing.

Managers will keep employees informed of policy-making meetings and senior-level discussions related to their area of responsibility. Workers can be given access to sources closest to the information they need: for example, senior level people in the organization, customers, or the market research staff. Historical or “context” information can be shared in order to give the worker as broad a background as possible. Managers should make certain that employees have information about the effects of their own behavior on others and on the organization’s goals. To be sure, it is possible to overload people with information and to create anxiety and burnout with too much data. But our experience has been that most people suffer from too little information instead of too much. Furthermore, if the information is relevant in this context, overload is less likely to occur.

Spreitzer (1992) found, for example, that people who received relevant information about costs, customers, and strategy felt significantly more empowered than those who did not. Block (1987) argued: Sharing as much information as possible is the opposite of the military notion that only those who “need to know” should be informed. Our goal is to let people know our plans, ideas, and changes as soon as possible. . . . If we are trying to create the mindset that everyone is responsible for the success of this business, then our people need complete information. Our own research further confirms the importance of providing information to enhance empowerment.

In one study, for example, we interviewed CEOs of large, well-known companies every six months to assess organizational changes and strategies they were using to cope with declining revenues. In one firm, not much progress was being made in improving the financial outlook. The CEO was very careful to share information on financial, productivity, cost, and climate indicators in the company only with his senior management team. No one else in the firm had access to that information. A change of CEO, however, led to a dramatic change in information-sharing policy. The new CEO began to provide information to every single employee in the firm who desired it. No data were treated as the sole possession of senior management. The sweepers had the same access as the vice presidents. The resulting empowerment that employees experienced led to dramatic results. Employee-initiated improvements increased markedly, morale and commitment surged, and the resulting financial turnaround made the CEO look like a genius. He attributed his success to his willingness to empower employees by sharing the information they needed to know to improve.

PROVIDING RESOURCES

In addition to providing information, empowerment is also fostered by providing people with other kinds of resources that help them accomplish their tasks. In this sense, managers who empower others act more like blocking backs on a football team than quarterbacks. They are less directors and commanders than they are resource providers (creating time to throw a pass or make a handoff) and obstacle eliminators (blocking onrushing defensive linemen). One of the primary missions of empowering managers, then, is to help others accomplish their objectives. Managers attempting to enhance other people’s empowerment by providing them with needed resources will ensure that they receive adequate and ongoing training and development experiences. Sufficient technical and administrative support will be provided to ensure success.

Managers will give their people space, time, or equipment that may not be readily available otherwise. They will ensure that these people have access to communication or interpersonal networks that will make their jobs easier. Individuals can also be given discretion to spend money or commit resources to activities that they consider important. It is unrealistic, of course, to assume that everyone can have everything he or she desires. Very few successful organizations have excess resources to be distributed at will. On the other hand, the most important resources that empowering managers can provide are those that help people achieve control over their own work and lives; that is, foster a sense of self-efficacy and self-determination.

When individuals feel that they have what they need to be successful and that they have the freedom to pursue what they want to accomplish, performance is significantly higher than when these types of resources are not available (Spreitzer, 1992). One of the best examples of using resources to empower comes from Carl Sewell, one of the most successful car salesmen in the United States, who described his approach to empowerment through providing resources: Not many people get to see our service repair shop—our insurance company wants to keep traffic there to a minimum—but those who do always comment on its cleanliness. And, in fact, it’s immaculate. Why? Because, while customers rarely see it, our technicians do. They live and work there every day. Where would you like to spend your day—in a place that’s dirty or one that’s spotless? But it’s more than just aesthetics. If we make the technicians’ work environment more professional, more pleasant, more efficient, if we provide them with the very best equipment and tools, we’re going to be able to hire the best technicians. . . . All this gives them another reason for working for us instead of our competition. One reason Carl Sewell has been so dramatically successful is that he provides each individual with everything necessary to accomplish desired goals. This is true whether Sewell is dealing with mechanics or top salespersons, and whether his company is selling Cadillacs and Lexuses or Hyundais and Geos. It is not only needto-have resources that Sewell provides, but also some nice-to-have resources. The point is: “Resources lead to empowerment.”

CONNECTING TO OUTCOMES

One of the important lessons learned by U.S. manufacturing companies as a result of the Japanese entrance into the North American automobile and consumer electronics industries is that workers experience more empowerment when they can see the outcomes of their work. It was often a surprise to U.S. companies, for example, that their Japanese counterparts regularly visited customers in their homes or place of business, regularly observed how the products that the workers produced were used, and regularly received feedback directly from end users. This connection to the ultimate customer helped workers feel more empowered as well as provided a valuable source of improvement ideas. (…) These investigators found that people are motivated at work when they can interact with ultimate customers in order to see the effects of their work.

A related idea is to provide employees with the authority to resolve problems on the spot. Studies at IBM, Ford Motor Company, Carl Sewell’s auto dealerships, and other companies indicated that allowing employees to address customer concerns at the time the complaint was registered positively affected both employee and customer. When employees were given discretion to resolve a problem, respond immediately to a customer’s complaint, fix the error instantly, or commit a certain level of company resources in pursuing customer satisfaction, not only was customer satisfaction dramatically increased (an average improvement of 300 percent), but workers felt far more empowered as well. Employees were given the necessary authority to go along with their responsibility for customer satisfaction, and they were provided with an opportunity to affect outcomes directly.

Hackman, Oldham, Janson, and Purdy (1975) suggested that another of the highly effective ways to enhance employee motivation and satisfaction is to create task identity, that is, the opportunity to accomplish a whole task. Individuals become frustrated and lack a sense of empowerment when they work on only part of a task, never see the end result of their work, and are blocked from observing the impact that their job creates. One of us has a colleague who quit a very lucrative job in a prestigious Wall Street firm because he became frustrated with his inability to see the results of his work. He was regularly given assignments to accomplish the first few steps in a complicated job and then had to hand the work off to a senior executive who completed the work and received most of the recognition. Not only was this colleague denied deserved rewards, but more important to him, he was unable to feel that he had completed a whole job. Task identity and the resulting sense of empowerment were completely lacking. Having task identity implies that individuals can plan, implement, and evaluate the success of their efforts. The effects of what is accomplished can be assessed as well as the outcome. To feel empowered, in other words, I want to know whether I successfully completed my assigned job as well as whether that job made any difference to the overall success of my work unit. The more clear that connection is, the more I will feel empowered. In sum, clarifying the connections between individuals’ work and their outcomes and effects fosters empowerment by helping others develop a sense of self-efficacy (they feel more capable and competent) and a sense of personal consequence (a sense of having personal impact). 458

CREATING CONFIDENCE

One additional technique to be mentioned here— among many others—for engendering empowerment is to create a sense of confidence among workers in the trustworthiness of the manager. Rather than being on guard and suspicious, workers are secure in their feeling that the manager and the organization are honorable. This confidence helps drive out uncertainty, insecurity, and ambiguity in the relationships between employees and the manager. There are at least two reasons why individuals feel more empowered as they develop greater confidence in their manager.

First, the wasteful, unproductive behaviors associated with mistrust and suspicion are avoided. When people distrust one another, they don’t listen, they don’t communicate clearly, they don’t try hard, and they don’t collaborate. On the other hand, when trust exists, individuals are free to experiment, to learn, and to contribute without fear of retribution. Second, individuals who are admirable and honorable always create positive energy for others and make them feel more capable. Not without reason do universities trumpet the number of Nobel Prize winners on their faculties, the past Heisman trophy winners on their football teams, the number of outstanding faculty members in their business schools, and the notable achievements of their best students.

Although other members of the university may have nothing to do with the achievements being publicized, they gain an enhanced selfimage and a sense of empowerment because they are affiliated with the same organization. For the same reasons, creating confidence in a manager helps employees develop a sense of empowerment. In creating such a sense of confidence and trustworthiness, five factors are especially important: (1) reliability, (2) fairness, (3) caring, (4) openness, and (5) competence. Managers create confidence, and thereby engender empowerment in others, as they display these five characteristics which are associated with being honorable.

❏ Reliability. Managers who wish their people to develop confidence in them need to exhibit reliability. Managers’ behavior must be consistent, dependable, and stable. Their actions are congruent with their words and attitudes. ❏ Fairness. Good managers also need to be fair and must not take wrongful advantage of anyone. They are equitable in their actions. Workers are clear about the criteria used by the manager in making judgments as well as how the manager applies those criteria. Managers must make clear the standards by which workers will be judged and ensure that those standards are applied in an unbiased way.

❏ Caring. Managers must show a sense of personal concern for others and help each one feel important to the manager. Managers validate the points of view of other people and avoid denigrating them as individuals. When correction is needed, caring managers focus on the mistake or the behavior, not on the individual’s personal characteristics.

❏ Openness. Confidence-building managers are open in their relationships. No harmful secrets exist, and relevant information is shared openly and honestly with employees. This does not suggest that a manager cannot keep confidences. But it does mean that other people should not have to worry about hidden agendas that could negatively affect them because their manager is straightforward and honest.

❏ Competence. People should be made aware of the manager’s competence. They need to be assured that the manager has the necessary ability, experience, and knowledge to perform tasks and to solve problems. Without flaunting their expertise, skillful managers inspire a feeling on the part of employees that their confidence in the expertise and proficiency of their leader is not misplaced.

The power of creating confidence in others is illustrated by several CEOs who were interviewed regarding their keys to successful organizational change. Each CEO had managed a downsizing or redesign of his organization and was attempting to maintain a healthy, productive workforce in the midst of turmoil. The key role of trust and confidence in management is hard to miss. If they don’t believe what I’m telling them, if they think it’s all a bunch of bull, don’t expect them to go out there and work a little harder. They won’t work a little different. They’re not going to be receptive to change unless they understand and trust the things that we’re talking about are true. I think trust is the biggest single issue. I had a boss one time who said, “What you do speaks so much louder than what you say.” I’ve always stuck that in the back of my mind. I believe that. The people watch very closely what you do. And, boy, you cannot underestimate that. What’s most important in my organization is this: being truthful. Don’t b.s. anyone. Tell them what it is. Right or wrong or different. Tell them the truth. My people are all 150 percent dedicated to helping one another. Because not one of them can do it alone, they need each other badly. But here comes the openness and trust. You have to talk about those things. I don’t think you can go in and accomplish things without talking about what the barriers are going to be in trying to make a change or set a new direction. Successful managers create confidence in themselves among their colleagues. They are authentic, honorable, and trustworthy.

CONTROL & DEPENDANCY

If the data are clear that empowering people produces superior results, and if techniques for enhancing empowerment are clear, why then is empowerment in organizations so rare? Why do a majority of people feel that they are alienated from their work, unengaged, and flourishing? In his book on managerial empowerment, Peter Block (1987) noted that empowerment is very difficult to accomplish.

Many, increasingly aware of the price we pay for too many controls, have had the belief that if some of these controls were removed, a tremendous amount of positive energy in service of the organization would be released. While in many cases this has happened, too often our attempts at giving people more responsibility have been unwelcome and met with persistent reluctance. Many managers have tried repeatedly to open the door of participation to their people, only to find them reluctant to walk through it. [In a study of managers who were offered total responsibility for their work areas], about 20 percent of the managers took the responsibility and ran with it, about 50 percent of the managers cautiously tested the sincerity of the offer and then over a period of six months began to make their own decisions. The frustrating part of the effort was that the other 30 percent absolutely refused to take the reins. They clutched tightly to their dependency and continued to complain that top management did not really mean it, they were not given enough people or resources to really do their job, and the unique characteristics of their particular location made efforts at participative management unreasonable. As Block noted, many managers and employees are reluctant to accept empowerment, but they are even more reluctant to offer empowerment. One reason for this is the personal attitudes of managers. Several management surveys, for example, have examined the reasons managers have for not being willing to empower their employees. These reasons can be organized into three broad categories.

ATTITUDES ABOUT SUBORDINATES

PERSONAL INSECURITIES

NEED FOR CONTROL

Nonempowering managers also often have a high need to be in charge and to direct and govern what is going on. They presume that an absence of clear direction and goals from the boss and a slackening of controls will lead to confusion, frustration, and failure on the part of employees. They feel that direction from the top is mandatory. Moreover, they often see shortlived, disappointing results from pep talks, work teams, suggestion systems, job enrichment programs, and other fix-it activities (“We tried that, and it didn’t work”). The rationale is: I’m willing to empower people, but they require clear directions and a clear set of guidelines; otherwise, the lack of instructions leads to confusion. Whereas it is true that clear goals and specific directions enhance performance, self-established goals are always more motivating than those prescribed by someone else.

Thus, people will perform better if they are empowered to establish their own goals rather than to have the manager superimpose them as a prerequisite to success. The rationale associated with each of these inhibitors may be partially true, of course, but they nevertheless inhibit managers from achieving the success associated with skillful empowerment. Even if managers demonstrate the willingness and courage to empower others, success still requires skillful implementation. Incompetent empowerment, in fact, can undermine rather than enhance the effectiveness of an organization and its employees. For example, such incompetent empowerment as giving employees freedom without clear directions or resources has been found to lead to psychological casualties among individuals, as manifested by increased depression, decreased performance and job satisfaction (Greenberger et al., 1989), lowered alertness, and even increased mortality.

Of course, these negative consequences are not solely associated with incompetent empowerment. They have been noted, nevertheless, in situations in which attempted empowerment was ineffective and unskillful. For example, when managers associated empowerment with behaviors such as “simply letting go,” refusing to clarify expectations, abdicating responsibility, having an absence of ground rules, or giving inflexible or inconsistent directions—none of which are consistent with skillful empowerment—the results were not only unsuccessful, but even harmful. Because of the negative psychological and physiological consequences for workers resulting from nonempowerment or from incompetent empowerment, Sashkin (1984) labeled skillful empowerment “an ethical imperative” for managers. Delegating Work The situation in which empowerment is most needed is when other people must become involved in accomplishing work. Obviously, if a person is doing a task alone, knowing how to empower others is largely irrelevant. On the other hand, it is impossible for a manager to perform all the work needed to carry out an organization’s mission, so work and the responsibility to carry it out must be delegated to others. All managers, therefore, are required to empower their employees if they are to accomplish the tasks of the organization. Without delegation and the empowerment that must accompany it, no organization and no manager can enjoy long-term success. Delegation involves the assignment of work to other people, and it is an activity inherently associated with all managerial positions. In this section, we discuss the nature of delegation as well as ways in which delegation can be most effectively empowered. Delegation normally refers to the assignment of a task. It is work-focused. Empowerment, on the other hand, may involve nonwork activities,

ASSIGNMENT OF TASKS

ADVANTAGES OF EMPOWERED DELEGATION

Learning to become a competent delegator who can simultaneously empower others has several important advantages for managers. It obviously helps managers accomplish more work than they could accomplish otherwise and can be used as a time-management tool to free up discretionary time. On the other hand, if delegation occurs only when managers are overloaded, those receiving the delegated tasks may feel resentful and sense that they are being treated only as objects to meet the managers’ ends. In such cases, they will experience a sense of disempowerment. However, skillful use of empowered delegation can provide significant benefits to organizations, managers, and individuals receiving assigned tasks.

Empowered delegation can help develop subordinates’ capabilities and knowledge so that their effectiveness is increased. It can be a technique to encourage personal mastery experiences. Delegation can also be used to demonstrate trust and confidence in the person receiving the assignment. Mishra (1992) and Gambetta (1988) summarized research showing that individuals who felt trusted by their managers were significantly more effective than those who didn’t feel that way. Empowered delegation can be used to enhance the commitment of individuals receiving work. Beginning with the classic study of participation by Coch and French (1948), research has consistently demonstrated a positive relationship between having an opportunity to participate in work and subsequent satisfaction, productivity, commitment, acceptance of change, and desire for more work.

Empowered delegation can also be used to improve the quality of decision making by bringing to bear more information, closer to the source of the problem, than the manager has alone. Delegating tasks to those who have direct access to relevant information can enhance efficiency (i.e., require less time and fewer resources) as well as effectiveness (i.e., result in a better decision). Finally, empowered delegation can increase the coordination and integration of work by funneling information and final accountability through a single source. Empowering managers, in other words, can ensure that no cross-purposes occur in delegation and that different tasks are not producing contradictory effects. Competently administered, empowered delegation can produce all five dimensions of empowerment: a sense of competence, choice, impact, value, and security.

On the other hand, when delegation is ineffectively performed, several negative consequences can result that not only inhibit empowerment but also subvert the ability to get work accomplished at all. For example, instead of freeing up time, ineffective delegation may require even more time to supervise, evaluate, correct, and arbitrate disagreements among employees. Employees may find themselves spending a longer time to accomplish a task because of lack of know-how, experience, or information. Stress levels and interpersonal conflict may increase when tasks, accountability, or expectations are unclear. Managers may find themselves out of touch with what is really going on with employees, may lose control, and may find goals being pursued that are incompatible with the rest of the organization. Chaos, rather than coordination, can result. Subordinates may also begin to expect that they should be involved in all decisions and that any decision the manager makes alone is autocratic and unfair. In this section, we identify ways in which the positive outcomes of delegation can be cultivated and the potential negative outcomes of poor delegation avoided. Empowerment and delegation must be linked in the accomplishment of work.

DECIDING WHEN TO DELEGATE

Empowered delegating involves deciding, first of all, when to delegate tasks to others and when to perform them oneself. When should subordinates be assigned to design and perform work or make decisions? To determine when delegation is most appropriate, managers should ask five basic questions (Vroom & Yetton, 1973; Vroom & Jago, 1974). Research indicates that when delegation occurs based on these questions, successful results are almost four times more likely than when these questions are not considered. These questions are equally applicable whether assigned work is to be delegated to a team or to a single subordinate.

1. Do subordinates have the necessary (or superior) information or expertise? In many cases, subordinates may actually be better qualified than their managers to make decisions and perform tasks because they are more familiar with customer preferences, hidden costs, work processes, and so forth, due to being closer to actual day-to-day operations.

2. Is the commitment of subordinates critical to successful implementation? Participation in the decision-making process increases commitment to the final decision. When employees have some latitude in performing a task (i.e., what work they do, and how and when they do it), they generally must be involved in the decision-making process to ensure their cooperation. Whereas participation usually will increase the time required to make a decision, it will substantially decrease the time required to implement it.

3. Will subordinates’ capabilities be expanded by this assignment? Delegation can quickly get a bad name in a work team if it is viewed as a mechanism used by the boss to get rid of undesirable tasks. Therefore, delegation should be consistent, not just when overloads occur. It should reflect an overall management philosophy emphasizing employee development. Enhancing the abilities and interests of subordinates should be a central motive in delegating tasks.

4. Do subordinates share with management and each other common values and perspectives? If subordinates do not share a similar point of view with one another and with their manager, unacceptable solutions, inappropriate means, and outright errors may be perpetuated. In turn, this produces a need for closer supervision and frequent monitoring. Articulating a clear mission and objective for subordinates is crucial. In particular, managers must be clear about why the work is to be done. Coonradt (1985) found that important people are always told why, but less important people are merely told what, how, or when. Telling subordinates why the work is meaningful creates a common perspective.

5. Is there sufficient time to do an effective job of delegating? It takes time to save time. To avoid misunderstanding, managers must spend sufficient time explaining the task and discussing acceptable procedures and options. Time must be available for adequate training, for questions and answers, and for opportunities to check on progress.

DECIDING TO WHOM TO DELEGATE

DECIDING HOW TO DELEGATE EFFECTIVELY

When a decision has been made to delegate a task, and the appropriate recipients of the delegation have been identified, empowered delegation has just begun. Positive outcomes of empowered delegation are contingent upon managers following 10 proven principles throughout the process.

Begin with the end in mind. Managers must articulate clearly the desired results intended from the delegated task. Being clear about what is to be accomplished and why it is important is a necessary prerequisite for empowered delegation. In fact, unless people know why a task is important and what is to be achieved by performing it, they are unlikely to act at all.

No voluntary action ever persists unless these two elements are present. We don’t stick with work, school, assignments, or other activities unless we have an idea of the purposes and intended outcomes involved. At a minimum, recipients of delegation will infer or fabricate a purpose or desired outcome, or the task will not be performed at all. To ensure that the ends desired by a manager are likewise perceived as desirable by others, the manager should point out the personal benefits to be achieved, the connection of task accomplishment to the organization’s mission, or the important values represented by the task (e.g., service, learning, growth).

Delegate completely. In addition to the desired ends, managers must clearly specify the constraints under which the tasks will be performed. Every organization has rules and procedures, resource constraints, or boundaries that limit the kind of action that can be taken. These should be clarified when the task is delegated. In particular, managers must be clear about deadlines and the time frame for reporting back. When should the task be completed, who should receive the report, and to whom is accountability being assigned? No empowerment can occur without employees knowing what these boundaries are. Managers also must specify precisely the level of initiative expected.

No other oversight in the delegation process causes more confusion than the failure to delineate expectations regarding the level of initiative expected or permitted. At least five levels of initiative are possible, each of which may vary in terms of the amount of empowerment available to subordinates. These initiative levels differ in terms of the amount of control permitted over the timing and content of the delegated task.

The five alternatives are:

❏ Wait to be told what to do. Take action only after specific directions are given. This is the least empowering form of delegation because it permits no initiative on the part of the subordinate. There is no control over timing, that is, when the task is to be accomplished, or content, that is, what is to be done.

❏ Ask what to do. Some discretion is provided to subordinates in that they have some control over the timing of the task, but not its content. Subordinates may formulate ideas for approaching the task, but because no action can be taken until the manager gives approval, empowerment is highly constrained.

❏ Recommend, then take action. This alternative is more empowering because subordinates are given some freedom over both the timing and the content of the delegated task. However, at least three different types of recommendations are possible, each with a different level of empowerment. One is for subordinates to simply gather information, present it to the manager, and let him or her decide what needs to be done. Another is for subordinates to determine alternative courses of action for each part of the task, leaving the manager to choose which course will be followed. Still another possibility is to outline a course of action for accomplishing the entire task and have the whole package approved at once. Progressively more empowerment is associated with each of these three recommendation types.

❏ Act, then report results immediately. Subordinates are given the freedom to act on their own initiative, but they are required to report to the manager immediately upon completion to ensure that their actions are correct and compatible with other organizational work. Subordinates may be permitted to perform only one part of a task at a time, reporting the results of each individual step. Or, they may be given the discretion to perform the entire task, reporting only when the final result has been accomplished. The latter alternative, of course, is the most empowering. But it may not be possible unless subordinates possess the necessary ability, information, experience, or maturity. ❏ Initiate action, and report only routinely. Subordinates receive complete control over timing and over content of the tasks assigned. Reporting occurs only in a routine fashion to maintain coordination. With sufficient ability, information, experience, and maturity among subordinates, this level of initiative is not only the most empowering but also the likeliest to produce high satisfaction and motivation among subordinates (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). The important point for managers to remember is that they must be very clear about which of these levels of initiative they expect of their subordinates. 3. Allow participation in the delegation of assignments. Subordinates are more likely to accept delegated tasks willingly, perform them competently, and experience empowerment when they help decide what tasks are to be delegated to them and when.

RESEARCH RESULTS

STEVE JOBS

TESTIMONIAL (ENGLISH)

REFERENZ (DEUTSCH)

QUELLE