Herrenkohl et al.

/ EMPLOYEE EMPOWERMENT THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCESeptember 1999

Defining and Measuring Employee Empowerment

Roy C. Herrenkohl
Lehigh University

G. Thomas Judson
Computing Devices International

Judith A. Heffner
Lehigh University

The study had three objectives: to define employee empowerment, to develop a measure of the concept, and to examine the measures validity. A working definition was specified and a 140-item measure developed. The measure was administered to 698 employees of a high technology company located in the Midwest. Responses were factor analyzed and an 8-factor solution was identified as best representing the concepts underlying the responses. A validity study examined the ability of the 8 dimensions to differentiate among 28 workgroups, identified independently either as more empowered or as less empowered. Two dimensions, fairness of the recognition system and decisions about work processes, clearly contributed to discriminating between the two types of groups. A third dimension, clarity of company goals, was a somewhat less clear contributor. Reasons why some dimensions discriminated more from less empowered groups whereas others did not are discussed.

Problem and Project Goals

The term employee empowerment is frequently used by business leaders and commentators on business activities. It refers to employees being more proactive and selfThe authors express their appreciation to the management and employees of Computing Devices International for their support and encouragement of this study, to J. Gary Lutz for his review of statistical issues, and to this journals editor and reviewers for their helpful suggestions.
THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE, Vol. 35 No. 3, September 1999 373-389 1999 NTL Institute

373

374

THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE

September 1999

sufficient in assisting an organization to achieve its goals. The term became prominent as part of the total quality movement, although its roots are in issues raised earlier under the heading employee involvement (Lawler, 1988; Lawler & Mohrman, 1998) or employee participation. Employee empowerment is a goal that has proved difficult to achieve. One infrequently addressed difficulty is a lack of an agreed on operational definition of empowerment. Simon (1976) indicated that to be scientifically useful, concepts must be operational. Meanings must correspond to empirically observable facts or situations. March and Simon (1993) describe several implications of operational concepts, especially when they are desirable goals such as employee empowerment. Operations specify the course of action to be taken to realize the goal. Operations affect decision processes by making it possible to analyze consequences of different courses of action for realizing the goal. Operations provide for more cognitive rather than motivational perspectives on the goal and its achievement.
Theoretical Background

Locke and Schweiger (1979) trace the concern about employee participation to Elton Mayo and the Hawthorne studies. Haire (1954) points to an article by Allport (1945) as providing the underpinnings for a theory of employee participation or involvement. Trist and Bamforth (1951) conceptualized the socio-technical perspective, which delineates the worker role in work (Emery & Trist, 1962). Although there is support for the view that participation enhances both employee performance and satisfaction, Locke and Schweiger (1979) report that studies, up to the time of their review, provided only mixed support for the existence of either relationship. Furthermore, where relationships between empowerment and either employee satisfaction or performance have been identified, they are contingent on a number of contextual factors, including organizational and leader characteristics. More recent commentators suggest a variety of concerns about the role of empowerment in the contemporary workplace. Argyris (1998) points to the considerable potential for improving employee commitment attributed to empowerment but notes the relatively small success in achieving the potential. Authors have given different reasons for this. Hendry (1995) points to the implicit contradiction between employee empowerment and what is described as the machine-like qualities of process reengineering. Eccles (1993) finds that although managers enthusiastically embrace the concept of empowerment, they have considerable difficulty achieving it due to, among other reasons, their own ambivalence.
Roy C. Herrenkohl is a professor of sociology and anthropology at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. G. Thomas Judson was, at the time of the study, the director of strategic planning at Computing Devices International in Bloomington, Minnesota. He is now the vice president of planning and training at Ceridian Employer Services in Bloomington. Judith A. Heffner was, at the time of the study, a graduate student in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Lehigh University.

Herrenkohl et al. / EMPLOYEE EMPOWERMENT

375

A review of current uses of the phrase indicates a range of different definitions. For example, some consider empowerment to mean sharing power with or moving power to those doing the work (Bardwick, 1991; Block, 1993; Davidon & Malone, 1992; Peters, 1987). Others use phrases such as redistributing authority and control (Champy, 1995; Karsten, 1994); employees and managers sharing equal responsibility for results (Frey, 1993); maximizing employeescontribution to an organizations success (Jaffee & Scott, 1993); full participation of workers and leaders in decision making (Schutz, 1994); pursuit of a shared vision and purpose through team effort (Senge, 1990); self-motivation, which develops through a full understanding of responsibility and authority commensurate with those responsibilities (Tracy, 1990); the capability to make a difference in the attainment of goals (Mohrman, Cohen, & Mohrman, 1995); or a synergistic interaction among individuals, which emphasizes cooperation and leads to expansion of power for the group (Vogt & Murrell, 1990). Several also stress the role of the learning process (Champy, 1995; Jaffee & Scott, 1993; Senge, 1990; Tracy, 1990). Others emphasize the organizational atmosphere or environment (Frey, 1993) that stimulates skill development and motivates increased contributions to the organizations success (Jaffee & Scott, 1993). Operational definitions of empowerment are rare. One example is Vogt and Murrells (1990) instrument to assess management style as it relates to empowerment. It consists of 30 statements grouped in six areas: information/communication, decision making/action, planning/organizing, evaluating/control, leadership/motivation, and selection/placement. Each item is rated on a 5-point scale. No information on reliability or validity is provided.
Working Definition of Empowerment

The goal of the present study was to develop an operational definition of employee empowerment. To accomplish this required several steps: developing a working definition of empowerment, developing a measure of empowerment based on this definition, and examining the measures validity. A working definition was developed that took into account both the workers actions and the organizations support for those actions. Specifically, empowerment was defined as a set of dimensions that characterize an environments interaction with persons in it so as to encourage their taking initiative to improve process and to take action. At the outset, four broad dimensions were considered. Under each were more specific subheadings that guided the preparation of questionnaire items. One dimension was shared vision. Goal clarity, a subheading, concerned the presence of clear expectations for employee performance, clear company goals, and employees knowing where the company wants to go. Goal achievement referred to employees feeling a sense of responsibility for achieving company goals and feeling commitment to the organization. Customer orientation involved knowing what the companys customers expect and feeling a responsibility to deliver results to the customer. A second dimension was experiencing a supportive organizational structure and governance. Responsibility, a subheading, concerned the level of the organization in

376

THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE

September 1999

which decisions were made, who is responsible for decisions about work activities and arrangements, and who is responsible for the organizations well-being. Teams concerned the effectiveness of work teams and whether teams are responsible for decisions about their own work activities. Risk taking concerned employeeswillingness to take risks to improve performance and whether the organization supports or punishes risk taking. Customers focused on whether employees are oriented to customers and feel accountable to them. A third dimension was responsibility for knowledge and learning. Change involved the organizations encouraging employees to seek knowledge that improves performance, the organizations providing opportunities to learn, and employees seeking changes that benefit customers. Skills and problem solving concerned employees enjoying new challenges, employees having the skills needed to do their work, and having opportunities to learn new skills. Trust involved employees feeling comfortable disagreeing with others, feeling that one learns from mistakes, and confidence that failure is not punished. Communication concerned workers knowing what customers require and value and knowing that punishment will not result from delivering bad news. A fourth dimension concerned institutional recognition. Recognition involved the organizations acknowledging employees accomplishments and employees feeling that they are heard. Knowledge of the reward system concerned employees knowing what the organization rewards, knowing whether delivering value to the customer is rewarded, and knowing whether the organization takes responsibility for its actions.

STUDY STRATEGY AND PROCESS

Design and Pretest of Instrument

Multiple items were written to reflect each of the subcategories under each of the four major headings listed above. For example, under the heading shared vision is the category clarity. A relevant item is Expectations for employees performance are clear. By this process, a pool of 302 items was developed. From these, a preliminary 175-item pilot questionnaire was developed. Responses to items were in a truefalse answer format. This version was responded to by a small number of persons. Based on these responses and respondentscomments, a 150-item pilot instrument was developed. For each item in this set, the responsethat is, true or falsethought to reflect empowerment was identified. An approximate balance between items for which true was the empowered response and items for which false was the empowered response was maintained to avoid bias due to response style (Nunnally, 1967). The 150-item pilot instrument was administered to 183 employees from a high technology company in the Midwest. Potential respondents were offered lunch in return for completing the questionnaire. Based on results from this administration, the instrument was again revised. Unclear items, some redundancies, and other difficulties in the measure were identified and corrected. The resulting measure had 140 items.

Herrenkohl et al. / EMPLOYEE EMPOWERMENT

377

Administration of Instrument

The 140-item instrument was administered to employees in the same company as the pilot test. A cross-functional team (described below) took responsibility for administering the questionnaires. Although some of the questionnaires were administered by a person outside of an individuals workgroup, most were self-administered on the instructions of the workgroups manager. A total of 698 employees returned questionnaires. Of the total number, 36 respondents were excluded from the analyses because five or more responses were missing. No questionnaires were excluded because of missing background information.
Respondent Characteristics

The characteristics of the respondents were as follows: 38.7% were women, 61.3% were men; 15.6% had a high school education, 35.0% had some college or technical training but had not graduated from college, 30.9% had a college degree, and 18.1% had post-bachelors education; less than 1% were younger than 25 years of age, 11.9% were 25 to 34, 33.9% were 35 to 44, 38.9% were 45 to 54, and 14.3% were 55 years or older; 89.0% were white, 4.0% were Afro-American, 2.7% were Asian; less than 1% were Hispanic; the remainder were other or did not know; both executives and maintenance personnel were each just less than 1.0%, 9.3% were managers or supervisors, 20.0% were line personnel, 38.2% were engineers, 10.0% were administrative personnel, 14.0% were support staff, and 6.6% were other.
Analysis of Item Responses

In converting the responses to machine-readable format, all true or false responses were identified by a 1 or a 2, respectively. Analyses of responses involved several steps. The first step was to calculate the frequency of true and of false responses for each of the 140 items. The second step was to factor analyze the 140 items. A principle components analysis with Varimax rotation was done using SPSS (1996). There is no universally accepted criterion for selecting the number of factors. In the interests of parsimony, a small number is desirable. It is also important that the set of factors selected reflect as closely as possible the conceptual framework underlying the writing of items. There are several quantitative criteria, each of which can give different indications of the number of factors. Missing datathat is, items for which an individual gave no responseposed a problem. Most respondents missed no or very few responses. However, for those who did miss responses, a strategy was needed to address the problem. Because early in the analysis process it was determined that employees on the teams labeled less empowered tended to miss more responses than employees on teams labeled empowered, it was considered important to retain in the analyses as many as possible of these respondents. A strategy was sought that did not bias the analysis in behalf of either more empowered or less empowered employees. The strategy chosen was to exclude those who missed five or more responses (n = 36). Those with four or fewer missed responses had

378

THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE

September 1999

the missing responses replaced item by item by randomly selecting a response, that is, either a 1 or a 2, to be the replacement value.
Analysis of Scores

Each respondent received a score on each of the factor analytically derived dimensions. A score was arrived at by assigning a 2 to each response considered to reflect being empowered. Each response considered to be nonempowered was assigned the value 1. The scores for items on each factor dimension for each respondent were summed, giving a total score for that dimension. Possible scores ranged from a minimum, the number of items on a factor, to a maximum, 2 times the number of items on a factor. The reliability of scores on each factor was computed using Cronbachs alpha (Nunnally, 1967), a measure of internal consistency.
Differentiation of More and Less Empowered Workgroups

To determine which of the anticipated dimensions could differentiate more empowered from less empowered employees, and thus provide evidence of validity, a further step was taken. Although individual respondents were anonymous, the workgroups of many could be identified. This enabled the company cross-functional team, which was responsible for administering the questionnaire, to judge workgroups levels of empowerment. Most of the nine members of this team had worked together for as long as 3 years, although a few had been members for approximately 1 year. This team was charged with addressing quality improvement, which included employee empowerment. For this study, this team labeled a subset of workgroups as more empowered or less empowered. The basis for this designation was consensus. All team members agreed to each designation, although some used different language to explain their decision. For example, more empowered groups were described as solving real problems, needing little outside direction, seeking new ideas, acting independently, being confident about their abilities, and having positive interactions among members of the workgroup. Less empowered workgroups lacked these qualities. Thirty-five workgroups were categorized in this way. Among these, 12 groups, which included 109 respondents, were labeled more empowered. There were 16 groups with 367 respondents labeled less empowered. Respondents whose groups could not be labeled were undesignated. In this category, there were 7 groups with 186 respondents.
Validity Analysis

The validity analysis involved two steps. First, for each empirically derived dimension, an average score for respondents in the more empowered workgroups and an average score for respondents in the less empowered workgroups were computed. A one-way analysis of variance was then calculated for each dimension comparing the mean score of the more empowered with the mean for the less empowered respondents. Second, using discriminant analysis, all dimensions were examined

Herrenkohl et al. / EMPLOYEE EMPOWERMENT TABLE 1

379

Factor Eigenvalues and Percentage of Variance

Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11-37 38 39 Eigenvalue 23.91 5.07 3.63 3.06 2.82 2.59 2.38 2.04 1.93 1.86 1.76-1.02 1.00 0.99 Percentage Variance 17.1 3.6 2.6 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3-0.7 0.7 0.7

simultaneously to determine their relative contributions in differentiating the two levels of empowerment. The undesignated groups were not included in the validity analysis.

RESULTS
Factor Analysis

A principal components factor analysis was done using SPSS (1996). Results indicated that, if the eigenvalue = 1.0 criterion were used to determine the number of factors, there were 38 factors. Table 1 gives the eigenvalues and percentages of variance accounted for by Factors 1 through 39. For several reasons, the number of factors was limited to between 5 and 12 factors. First, the number of factors hypothesized was in this range. Furthermore, any number greater than 12 resulted in factors with too few items for there to be reasonably reliable measurement. Less than 5 resulted in factors with items that were considered conceptually independent. After examining the possible factors in that range, an 8-factor solution was found to be most meaningful conceptually. Eight factors was also the point at which the second major drop in eigenvalues occurred (Rummel, 1970), and it was the number after which the eigenvalue dropped below 2.00.
Factor Item Content

The item content of the eight factors is described below. The three highest loading items on each factor are listed. Each items factor loading is in parentheses after the item. Following each factor description, there is an alpha reliability coefficient. The

380

THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE

September 1999

factors are ordered according to the amount of variability accounted for by the factor, from greatest to least. Factor 1 was designated fairness of the recognition system. This factor concerns recognition for achievement and the fairness of rewards. The focus is on the organization as a whole. There are 22 items on the factor. The highest loading items are In this organization, there is an unfair distribution of rewards (.76); Rewards for outstanding achievements are fairly distributed in this company (.75); and This organization often fails to recognize exceptional accomplishments (.69). The factor was scored so that a high score indicates that an employee perceives that there is fair and equitable recognition for achievement. The reliability is rxx = .90. Factor 2 was designated clarity of company goals. It concerns awareness of and clarity of company goals and the process by which to achieve them. There are 23 items. The focus is both other employees perceptions and the respondents perceptions. The highest loading items are Employees in this company are clear about the companys goals (.70); I do not know what this companys strategy for success is (.65); and I do not know what this companys guiding principles are (.59). A high score indicates a high level of awareness of, and clarity of, company goals and the path to them. The reliability is rxx = .88. Factor 3 was designated response to risk taking. This factor concerns how the company responds to risk taking and making mistakes. There also is an overtone of whether there are negative consequences for those who point out mistakes. There are 21 items. The focus is the organization as a whole. The highest loading items are Employees in this company know that they will not be punished for taking risks (.54); Mistakes are not forgiven in this company (.48); and Employees feel that they can openly disagree with management concerning their decisions (.45). The factor was scored so that a high score indicates that the respondent perceives that the organization is an environment in which one can take risks and make mistakes on behalf of improved performance without being punished. It is notable that one of the high loading items on this factor concerns feeling empowered. The reliability is rxx = .87. Factor 4 was designated responsibility for quality. This dimension addresses whether employees assume responsibility for quality of work and for providing benefit to customers. Responsibility for performance and for mistakes and for working in partnership with other employees is involved. The focus is the organization. There are 24 items. The items most indicative of this focus are Most people in this organization feel responsible for the quality of work produced (.53); Employees in this organization resist changes to improve performance (.51); and There is little sense of partnership among employees (.48). A high score means that the respondent perceives a high degree of personal responsibility and working for quality on the part of employees in the organization. The reliability is rxx = .84. Factor 5 is designated encouraging work in teams. Emphasis is on working in teams and on how effective teams are. The focus is both the organization and the respondents own workgroup. There are 14 items. The items with the highest loadings on this factor are This company does little to help employees work as teams (.57); This organization encourages employees to work as teams (.55); and Teams do not work effectively in this company (.47). The factor was scored so that a high score indicates a

Herrenkohl et al. / EMPLOYEE EMPOWERMENT

381

high degree of encouragement to work as teams and that the work of teams is effective. The reliability is rxx = .77. Factor 6 is designated responsibility for company success. This factor concerns feeling a personal responsibility for achieving the companys goals and for the companys success. Most of the 15 items focus on the individuals sense of responsibility. The highest loading items are I feel responsible for achieving this companys goals (.59); My work has little to do with this companys accomplishments (.49); and Employees feel responsible for this companys successes (.49). A high score indicates a strong feeling of personal responsibility for the companys accomplishments and success. The reliability is rxx = .73. Factor 7 was designated decisions about work processes. It concerns who decides how work is to be done, those who perform the work or those who supervise. The focus is on employees and workgroups. There are 10 items. The highest loading items are Those closest to the work decide how the work is to be done (.66); Decisions about how to do the work are made by those who do it (.58); and Decisions affecting work processes are made by those closest to the work (.55). A high score indicates a strong sense that decisions about work processes are made by those doing the work. The reliability is rxx = .77. Factor 8 was designated responsibility for company problems. This factor concerns which level within the company has responsibility for quality, costs, and solving company problems. The distinction is between managers and employees. There are 10 items. The highest loading items are Responsibility for quality rests with this companys experts rather than the employees who provide the product or service (.51); Identifying ways to cut costs is primarily the responsibility of top management (.47); and In this company, employees identify problems, management solves them (.43). A high score indicates that the respondent perceives employees as taking responsibility for quality, cost cutting, and identifying and solving problems. A low score indicates that employees see this as managements responsibility. The reliability is rxx = .57.
Factor Score Statistics

Descriptive statistics were computed for each dimension. Table 2 gives these results. Table 3 gives the factor score intercorrelations. These are of interest for two reasons. First, Factors 1 through 7 are highly intercorrelated, even though the factor analysis procedure aimed to identify independent (that is, uncorrelated) factors. The second observation is that Factor 8 is essentially unrelated to Factors 1 through 7. Although to some degree these low correlations are influenced by the lower than desirable reliability of Factor 8, the primary significance is that Factor 8 is essentially independent of the other seven factors. This independence was confirmed by a secondary factor analysis of the eight scores. This further analysis revealed two second-order factors, one consisting of the first seven factors, and one of Factor 8. This suggests that Factor 8, with its emphasis on problems such as quality, cutting costs, benefit to the customer, and job security, is distinct from the issues reflected in the first seven factors. It is noteworthy, however, that the overall mean on Factor 8 is high, indicating that

382

THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE TABLE 2

September 1999

Factor Score Descriptive Statistics

Factors 1. Recognition fairness 2. Goal clarity 3. Risk taking 4. Quality 5. Teams 6. Company success 7. Work processes 8. Company problems NOTE: N = 662. Mean 32.61 38.86 32.38 42.45 25.51 27.52 16.93 18.19 SD 6.08 5.48 5.26 4.52 2.61 2.44 2.57 1.70 Min. 22 24 21 25 16 16 10 11 Max. 44 46 42 48 28 30 20 20 Number of Items 22 23 21 24 14 15 10 10 Reliability 0.90 0.88 0.87 0.84 0.77 0.73 0.77 0.57

TABLE 3

Factor Score Intercorrelations

Factors 1. Recognition fairness 2. Goal clarity 3. Risk taking 4. Quality 5. Teams 6. Company success 7. Work processes 8. Company problems Recognition Goal Fairness Clarity 1.00 0.54 0.71 0.49 0.52 0.48 0.53 0.03 Risk Taking Quality Teams Company Work Success Processes

1.00 0.69 0.59 0.59 0.53 0.48 0.05

1.00 0.63 0.60 0.52 0.61 0.08

1.00 0.59 0.50 0.52 0.15

1.00 0.52 0.57 0.15

1.00 0.48 0.14

1.00 0.07

NOTE: N = 662; r > .08, p < .05; r > .11, p < .01.

respondents tend to see these as employee problems as much as management problems.

Validity Analysis of Workgroup Scores

The validity study was to determine if any of the dimensions identified by the factor analysis could discriminate between the groups labeled more empowered and groups labeled less empowered. The expectation was that the more empowered groups would have higher empowerment scores than the less empowered groups. Such a discrimination would support the view that the measure was assessing what it was intended to measure, that is, being empowered. Table 4 indicates for each factor the mean score for the more empowered, the less empowered, and the undesignated workgroups. A one-way analysis of variance was done for each factor to test the difference between the more empowered groups and the less empowered groups. The undesignated respondents were not included in this analysis. Two factor dimensions differentiated more empowered from less empowered

Herrenkohl et al. / EMPLOYEE EMPOWERMENT TABLE 4

383

Mean Factor Score for Each Empowerment Designation

Empowerment Designation Undesignated More empowered Less empowered Total population F between groupsa Significance N 186 109 367 662 Recognition Goal Risk Fairness Clarity Taking 31.63 34.50 32.55 32.61 8.56 .004 40.10 37.77 38.55 38.86 1.62 ns 33.36 32.65 31.80 32.38 2.10 ns Quality Teams 42.46 25.60 42.66 25.51 42.38 25.47 42.45 25.51 <1 <1 ns ns Company Work Company Success Processes Problems 27.65 27.57 27.44 27.52 <1 ns 16.80 17.68 16.77 16.93 10.45 .001 18.03 18.35 18.23 18.19 <1 ns

a. Only between more and less empowered groups.

to a degree that was statistically reliable. On Factor 1, recognition fairness, respondents in more empowered groups see the organization as more equitable in its recognition than do the less empowered. On Factor 7, decisions about work processes, respondents in the more empowered see their workgroups as making more of their own decisions than do respondents in the less empowered workgroups. To explore the ability of the factors jointly to differentiate more empowered and less empowered respondents, the eight sets of factor scores were entered into discriminant analyses performed two ways. First, all eight factors were entered simultaneously. Second, a stepwise analysis was done, entering only those factors that were statistically significant contributors to differentiating more from less empowered groups. Considering results when all eight factors were entered, the three largest standardized discriminant function coefficients involve Factor 1, recognition fairness; Factor 2, goal clarity; and Factor 7, work processes. When the correlations between the discriminating variables and the discriminant function from the same analysis are considered, the three largest are Factor 7, work processes; Factor 1, recognition fairness; and Factor 3, risk taking. Using univariate analysis results, Factor 1, recognition fairness, and Factor 7, work processes, are statistically significant. Using the stepwise analysis strategy, Factor 1, recognition fairness; Factor 2, goal clarity; and Factor 7, work processes, are statistically significant. Table 5 gives these results. The discriminant analysis also provides an indication of the ability of the factors to predict correctly the group membership of respondents. With all eight factors in the equation, 60% of the cases were correctly classified.

DISCUSSION
Empirically Derived Definition of Empowerment

The working definition of empowerment in this study focused on taking responsibility for work-related activities. Emphasis was on four issues: shared vision, supportive organizational structure and governance, institutional recognition, and knowledge and learning. Under these headings were 11 sub-issues: clarity of goals, responsibility

384

THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE TABLE 5

September 1999

Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients and Correlation Between Discriminating Variables and Discriminant Function
Standardized Function Coefficient .85 .82 .03 .03 .40 .07 .77 .16 Correlation With Discriminant Function .48 .21 .23 .09 .02 .08 .53 .11 Univariate F Levela 8.56* 1.62 2.10 <1 <1 <1 10.45* <1 Stepwise F Level to Removeb 10.61* 19.75** ne ne ne ne 9.23* ne

Factor 1. Recognition fairness 2. Goal clarity 3. Risk taking 4. Quality 5. Teams 6. Company success 7. Work processes 8. Company problems

NOTE: ne = not entered in equation. a. df = 1 and 474. b. df = 1 and 472. *p < .01. **p < .001.

for achieving goals, leadership, teamwork, risk taking, accountability to customers, problem solving, trust, communication, acknowledgment of accomplishments, and knowledge of rewards. Questionnaire items were written to reflect these issues and to provide sufficient, relevant items to achieve reliable measurement. A factor analysis of responses indicated that eight factors most closely approximated the constructs presumed to underlie the responses. These factors, in order of the amount of variance accounted for, are (a) fairness of the recognition system, (b) clarity of company goals, (c) response to risk taking, (d) responsibility for quality, (e) encouraging work in teams, (f) responsibility for the companys success, (g) decisions about work processes, and (h) responsibility for company problems. Two factors, clarity of goals and fairness of recognition, directly reflect major issues in the original conceptualization. Four reflect sub-issues: risk taking, quality for and benefits to customers, teamwork, and responsibility for company accomplishments. The remaining two, decisions about work processes and responsibility for company problems, were not specified as sub-issues but were represented among the items. Do these eight dimensions represent an operational definition of empowerment? This is essentially a question about validity.
Validity Results

As described above, many respondents were in workgroups that could be labeled by a company cross-functional team either as more or as less empowered. This designation made it possible to determine which of the eight dimensions could differentiate these two levels of attributed empowerment. Univariate analysis of variance results indicated that two dimensions differentiated the two types of workgroups. One was Factor 1, fairness of the recognition system. Respondents in the more empowered

Herrenkohl et al. / EMPLOYEE EMPOWERMENT

385

groups see the organization as more equitable in its recognition than do respondents in the less empowered groups. This difference is as expected. The second dimension was Factor 7, decisions about work processes. Employees in the more empowered groups perceive those closest to the work as deciding how the work is to be done. This is also as expected. This dimension was not originally pinpointed as a single issue; rather, it was seen as cutting across several issues. However, such a dimension has been suggested by several authors (Bardwick, 1991; Block, 1993; Davidon & Malone, 1992; Peters, 1987; Schutz, 1994; Tracy, 1990; Vogt & Murrel, 1990). A second step in the validation process involved using discriminant analysis to determine which combination of dimensions most accurately differentiates more empowered from less empowered workgroups. This was done two ways. One was to do the analysis with all eight factors in the equation. The other was to introduce into the equation only those factors that made a statistically significant contribution to discriminating more empowered from less empowered workgroups. Considering the standardized discriminant function coefficients, the correlations between the discriminating variable and the discriminant function, or the significance levels from either discriminant analysis strategy, Factor 1 (recognition fairness) and Factor 7 (decisions about work processes) are the more influential by each criterion. Factor 2, clarity of goals, has a high standardized function coefficient and is statistically significant in the analysis of factors using the stepwise procedure. Employees in the more empowered groups perceive the goals to be less clear than employees in the less empowered groups. This is not as predicted. It is possible that more empowered employees, accepting the responsibility that goes with empowerment, have a higher expectation for goal clarity than do their less empowered associates. It also is possible that this perception is specific to the company from which the respondents were obtained, indicating that goals in the organization were unclear. Two factors, Factor 3 (risk taking) and Factor 5 (working in teams), have a more ambiguous status. Neither is statistically significant by either discriminant analysis strategy. Factor 3 has the third largest correlation with the discriminant function but has a relatively small discriminant function coefficient. One would expect risk taking to be involved in empowerment. Certainly, making decisions about work processes involves risks. Work environments in which well-intentioned, work-related mistakes are punished would not be supportive of empowerment. Factor 5 is the fourth largest contributor to the discriminant function but has a relatively low correlation with the discriminant function. This, too, is somewhat surprising. Several authors (e.g., Lawler, 1988) see teamwork as a feature of employee involvement. On the other hand, although teamwork is often associated with empowerment, working in teams is not essential to it. Working in teams pertains to organizational structure rather than to organizational dynamics. Empowerment is more related to the latter, and as a result working in teams may not be related directly to empowerment. Three dimensions do not contribute notably to the differentiation. These are Factor 4, responsibility for quality; Factor 6, responsibility for company accomplishments; and Factor 8, responsibility for company problems. That the dimension responsibility for quality did not differentiate more empowered from less empowered groups is puzzling. As a term, empowerment was introduced by the quality movement (Lawler &

386

THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE

September 1999

Mohrman, 1998). One reason organizations seek to empower employees is to improve the quality of output (Vogt & Murrell, 1990). Furthermore, the logic that empowered workers to take responsibility for local work decisions would lead one to expect that responsibility for quality would be included. The present results, however, do not indicate that this dimension plays a role. It is important to note that the correlation between Factor 7, decisions about work processes, and Factor 4, responsibility for quality, is r = .52. In that sense, there is a notable relationship between the two dimensions. Responsibility for company success (Factor 6) and responsibility for company problems (Factor 8) do not differentiate more from less empowered workgroups, possibly because these are perceived as responsibilities belonging to management. Respondents may perceive dual levels of responsibility and decision making. From this perspective, individuals and their immediate workgroups know what their goals are, make decisions related to achieving the goals, and then work to achieve them. Decisions pertaining to the larger organization are left to management. There are other possible explanations for these results. One is that some dimensions did not differentiate more and less empowered workgroups because the distinction between the two types of group was not sufficiently precise. The cross-functional team members who labeled the workgroups as more or less empowered described the issues they considered in making their judgment. As was noted above, the wording used by various team member differed, but the underlying issues were much the same. Although the team reached consensus on their designations, the lack of a more objective procedure for judging level of empowerment may have posed a problem. The judgment system was not sufficiently objective to allow interrater reliability to be calculated. Were unreliability present in the differentiation, this would have a negative effect on the validity results. Still another possibility is that the work teams, although representative of the empowerment status in the company from which the respondents were taken, are not in fact highly empowered. The broad distribution of scores on each of the dimensions, even within each of the more empowered groups, suggests that the more empowered groups may not be highly empowered. Had they been, the more empowered groups would have been more distinctly differentiated from the less empowered groups. Furthermore, that the more empowered groups on Factor 2, clarity of goals, feel that goals are less clear than the less empowered groups may indicate that more responsible employees are not clear about direction and consequently lack an important foundation for decision making.
Definition of Empowerment

The present study began from a broad perspective on employee responsibility for work-related activities and proceeded to identify a narrower focus. The definition of empowerment concerned a set of dimensions that characterize an environments interaction with persons in such a manner as to encourage their taking initiative to improve process and to take action.

Herrenkohl et al. / EMPLOYEE EMPOWERMENT

387

The picture of empowerment that emerges underscores the importance of responsibility to make decisions about how immediate work activities are to be carried out. It also points to the importance of a fair reward and recognition system. The importance of clear goals is somewhat less definitive. Clear goals are crucial for informed, relevant decision making. Rewards and recognition certify that progress toward the goals is being made, thus maintaining employee motivation. Other facets of responsibility, such as for quality, for company success, or for addressing company problems are either outside the bounds of empowerment or are only indicated when there is greater empowerment than existed among the present respondents. Finally, responsibility for knowledge and learning did not surface as a dimension. Several authors (Champy, 1995; Jaffee & Scott, 1993; Senge, 1990; Tracy, 1990) note its importance in assisting employees to actualize the potential that empowerment imparts. Although several items relevant to this issue are included in the existing questionnaire, there is not a large number. Further study of ways to represent the issue of knowledge and learning is needed.
Implications and Future Research Issues

The present research is based on responses from only one company. Responses from additional companies are needed to determine if the present findings generalize to other organizations or in some way are limited to the single organizational setting. To extend the study to include other companies would provide an opportunity to determine the generality of the factor analytic results. The validation process demonstrated that a subset of the dimensions can differentiate groups identified as more empowered from groups identified as less empowered. Because the degree to which the classification is precise cannot be determined, developing a more precise procedure is a high priority for any follow-up to the present study. Such a procedure would include both definitions of the issues being rated as well as the assessment of interrater reliability. The availability of a measure of empowerment opens the way to research in several directions. There is an opportunity for comparative analyses. Scores reflective of an individuals position on the identified dimensions allow for comparisons of individuals, of their workgroups, of categories of employees, and of organizational divisions. It also is possible, where relevant data are available, to benchmark other companies. Another direction would be to examine the relationship between empowerment level and both employee satisfaction and performance. To do so will require clear definitions and adequate measures of both satisfaction and performance. A rationale and hypotheses for how empowerment relates to these issues are important aspects of such an examination. Finally, assuming that empowerment does influence both satisfaction and performance, an understanding of ways to enhance empowerment is needed. For example, even if goals are clarified and recognition systems made more significant, how to encourage employees to make their own decisions and to improve their decisionmaking skills is an important consideration. Rationale and relevant hypotheses that address such issues are needed.

388

THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE

September 1999

Conclusion

The preceding report details the conceptualization and measurement of employee empowerment. Eight dimensions were identified. Current evidence suggests that two of these contribute to distinguishing between more empowered and less empowered workgroups. Making decisions related to ones work activities was a central issue. Fairness of the recognition system is the other. Clarity of goals may also be involved. These results provide a point of departure for further study of operations that reflect the concept of empowerment and for examining the relationship between empowerment and both employee satisfaction and performance. It also raises the possibility of identifying more focused strategies by which to enhance empowerment should the anticipated relationship between empowerment and employee performance and satisfaction be found.

REFERENCES
Allport, G. (1945). The psychology of participation. Psychological Review, 53, 117-132. Argyris, C. (1998, May-June). Empowerment: The emperors new clothes. Harvard Business Review, 98-105. Bardwick, J. H. (1991). Danger in the comfort zone. New York: American Management Association. Block, P. (1993). Stewardship. San Francisco: Benett-Kochler. Champy, J. (1995). Reengineering management: The mandate for new leadership managing the change to reengineered corporations. New York: HarperCollins. Davidon, W. H., & Malone, M. S. (1992). The virtual corporation: Structuring and revitalizing the corporation for the 21st century. New York: HarperCollins. Eccles, T. (1993). The deceptive allure of empowerment. Long Range Planning, 26, 13-21. Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1962). Socio-technical systems. In C. W. Churchman & M. Verhulst (Eds.), Management sciences: Models and techniques (Vol. 2, pp. 83-97). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon. Frey, R. (1993, September/October). Empowerment or else. Harvard Business Review, 80-94. Haire, M. (1954). Industrial social psychology. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1004-1123). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hendry, J. (1995). Process reengineering and the dynamic balance of the organization. European Management Journal, 13, 52-57. Jaffee, D. T., & Scott, C. D. (1993). Building a committed workplace: An empowered organization as a competitive advantage. In M. Ray & A. Rinzler (Eds.), The new paradigm in business: Emerging strategies for leadership and organizational change (pp. 139-148). New York: Tarcher/Perigee. Karsten, M. F. (1994). Management and gender. New York: Praeger. Lawler, E. E. (1988). High involvement management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lawler, E. E., & Mohrman, S. (1998). Employee involvement, reengineering, and TQM: Focusing on capability development. In S. Mohrman, J. R. Galbraith, E. E. Lawler, & Associates (Eds.), Tomorrows organization (pp. 179-207). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Locke, E. A., & Schweiger, D. M. (1979). Participation in decisions making: One more look. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 265-339). Greenwich, CT: JAI. March, J., & Simon, H. (1993). Organizations (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G., & Mohrman, A. M. (1995). Designing team based organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Nunnally, J. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Peters, T. (1987). Thriving on chaos: Handbook for a management revolution. New York: Harper Perennial. Rummel, R. J. (1970). Applied factor analysis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Herrenkohl et al. / EMPLOYEE EMPOWERMENT

389

Schutz, W. (1994). The human element: Productivity, self-esteem, and the bottom line. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency. Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior. New York: Free Press. SPSS, Inc. (1996). SPSS Base 7.0 for Windows users guide. Chicago: Author. Tracy, D. (1990). 10 steps to empowerment: A common sense guide to managing people. New York: William Morrow. Trist, E. L., & Bamforth, K. W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal-getting. Human Relations, 4, 3-38. Vogt, J. F., & Murrell, K. L. (1990). Empowerment in organizations: How to spark exceptional performance. San Diego, CA: University Associates.