Abstract

This thesis examines the topic of employee empowerment and seeks to provide a model for its
implementation which addresses needs identified in the literature but insufficiently addressed
previously. Empowerment is defined as a process whereby: a culture of empowerment is
developed, information is shared, competency is developed, and resources and support are
provided. Each of the components of empowerment—culture, information sharing, competency
development, resource provision, and support—is examined in detail as addressed in the
literature. The benefits of employee empowerment are noted, and objections to it are addressed.
Theoretical foundations of employee empowerment are examined in an extensive literature
review.
A model for understanding and implementing employee empowerment is provided based
upon the precepts of apprenticeship. The apprenticeship model suggests that employees be
viewed first as apprentices while their skills and knowledge within a given task set are
developing, then as journeypersons through continued development, and finally as masters of
their craft. An assessment of organizational empowerment is provided and training responses
based upon this assessment are suggested.
 Table of Contents
Abstract
Acknowledgements
Dedication
Introduction
Literature Review
Definition of Empowerment

Apprenticeship Empowerment Defined

Benefits of Empowerment

Objections Overcome
A Culture of Empowerment

Management Role

Information Sharing

The Value of Vision

Developing Competency

Importance of Resources

Sufficient Support

Theoretical Foundations

Implementation Timeframe

Situational Implementation

Assessment
The Apprenticeship Model
Apprentice level

Journeyperson level

Master level

Support, Culture, and Information

Value of Competency Development

Assessment Questions and Associated Responses
Assessment Questions

Training Responses
Bibliography of Literature Reviewed
Annotated Bibliography
Appendix
A. A Retail Example of the Apprenticeship Model

B. Other Models of Apprenticeship

Introduction
Employee empowerment is one of those terms that everyone thinks they
understand, but few really do. Ask a dozen different people and you'll get a dozen
different answers to the question, "What is employee empowerment?". In fact,
research a dozen organizational theorists and you'll get as many answers to the
same question. This paper seeks to answer that question in a way that it can be
understood by a greater number of people. Some writers indicate that
empowerment consists of sharing power and authority. Others say that
empowerment occurs when the organization's processes are set-up to allow for it. If
you keep in mind the secondary dictionary definition of "to give faculties or abilities
to: enable" (Grove, 1971, p.744), with all that this word implies, then you will be on
the right track for the purposes of this paper.
This paper also seeks to answer the question above in such a way that people
who work within organizations can apply the information to enhance employee
empowerment. "Why would we want to enhance employee empowerment?" you
may be asking. That detailed answer will be provided in the in the literature review
section under the heading "benefits of employee empowerment". However, it has
been shown that employee empowerment results in increased employee
satisfaction, increased productivity, and increased customer satisfaction.
"Aren't there some strong objections to the implementation of an empowerment
program which must be overcome if we are to receive these benefits?" The short
answer is yes. Empowerment, if it is to be implemented effectively, calls for a
culture change for the typical organization. Leaders must learn to be visionaries
who can provide an idea to which employees will want to dedicate themselves.
Supervisors must change their ways of supervising and learn to be coaches and
mentors. All members of the organization must dedicate themselves to sharing
information and to training. Each of these issues will be addressed in turn.
Since this is an academic paper, I would be remiss if I did not include a section
on the theoretical foundations upon which the concepts of employee empowerment
are built. While there are few theorists who have delved very deeply into what
makes up empowerment, what they have mined is rich. There are more
researchers who have attempted to provide a framework for what they have
observed; their ideas which have merit will be addressed.
Implementation of empowerment programs seems to be the biggest challenge
organizations face. The popular press often writes about "failed" empowerment
efforts. What has become evident to me is that there are some speed bumps on
the road to empowerment; often these so called failures are only rough patches
which will be overcome. However, it is also evident that the implementation often
takes years, especially if the organization has a bureaucratic culture. It also seems
that empowerment implementation efforts are often haphazard. By providing an
easily understood definition of empowerment, some information about what must
take place, an assessment of how empowering your workplace is, and a model for
implementation based upon what is commonly understood as an apprenticeship
system, I hope to address unmet needs with this paper.

Literature Review
Definition of Empowerment

The common dictionary definition of empowerment, "to give official authority to:
delegate legal power to: commission, authorize" (Grove, 1971, p. 744) is the one
most understood by most people. As an example, Gandz (1990) writes,
"Empowerment means that management vests decision-making or approval
authority in employees where, traditionally, such authority was a managerial
prerogative." (p. 75) However, this is not the definition of what is usually called
employee empowerment. One author notes empowerment is, "easy to define in its
absence—alienation, powerless, helplessness—but difficult to define positively
because it 'takes on a different form in different people and contexts'" (Zimmerman,
1990, p.169). When most people refer to employee empowerment they mean a
great deal more than delegation. It is for this reason that many authors provide
their own definitions.
Some of these are vague, and meant to be so. Block (1987) describes
empowerment as "a state of mind as well as a result of position, policies, and
practices." (p. 65) One has to read an entire chapter to understand what he means
when he says,
"To feel empowered means several things. We feel our survival is in our own
hands. . . .We have an underlying purpose. . . .We commit ourselves to achieving
that purpose, now." (Block, 1987, p. 65). Other authors (Blanchard, Carlos &
Randolph, 1996; Blanchard & Bowles, 1998) use their entire book to define
empowerment. Still others provide an excellent perspective of effective
empowerment without mentioning the word even once (Freedman, 1998).
Other author provided definitions are simplistic on the surface, but have far
greater implications than a first reading would suggest. For example, Caudron
(1995) articulates empowerment as, "when employees 'own' their jobs; when they
are able to measure and influence their individual success as well as the success of
their departments and their companies." (p.28) The casual reader may think that
owning one's job is what the postal worker's union seeks to provide their members.
Most would agree, however, that job security is not empowerment. Many
employees must measure their jobs by submitting reports. Seeking one's own
individual success is what the American dream is all about. And knowing that one
makes a contribution to the success of the department and the company is a given
in all but the largest organizations. It is only when these ideas are taken together in
one package that they approach a definition of employee empowerment. Ettorre's
(1997) definition of empowerment as, "employees having autonomous decision-
making capabilities and acting as partners in the business, all with an eye to the
bottom-line" (p.1) is more accessible to many readers. While many employees
understand their contribution to the work at hand, how many know their
contribution to the bottom line?
It is this essential ingredient, information with which to make decisions, from
which empowerment is created. Bowen and Lawler (1992) indicate, "We define
empowerment as sharing with front-line employees four organizational ingredients:
[the first being] information about the organization's performance. . . .[another is]
knowledge that enables employees to understand and contribute to organizational
performance" (p. 32). The other two ingredients Bowen and Lawler note are,
"rewards based on the organization's performance [and] power to make decisions
that influence organizational direction and performance." In a later article these
authors conclude that, "research suggests that empowerment exists when
companies implement practices that distribute power, information, knowledge, and
rewards throughout the organization." (Bowen & Lawler, 1995, p. 73) The authors
go on to note that, "if any of the four elements is zero, nothing happens to
redistribute that ingredient, and empowerment will be zero." (Bowen & Lawler,
1995, p. 74)
Another author uses this type of combination of concepts to define
empowerment. Spreitzer (1995) indicates, "psychological empowerment is defined
as a motivational construct manifested in four cognitions: meaning, competence,
self-determination, and impact. Together these four cognitions reflect an active,
rather than a passive, orientation toward a work role." (p. 1442). Spreitzer notes,
"the four dimensions are argued to combine additively to create an overall
construct of psychological empowerment. In other words, the lack of any single
dimension will deflate, though not completely eliminate, the overall degree of felt
empowerment." (p. 1442) This additive construct is distinct from Bowen & Lawler 's
(1995) construct noted above which is multiplicative, indicating that the absence of
any one of their four elements (power, information, knowledge, and rewards) will
completely eliminate empowerment.
Researchers tend to provide definitions of the concept of empowerment which
reflect observed end results or their research into concepts which are known and
are or may be precursors to empowerment. In his 1995 dissertation, Menon
indicates, "the empowered state was defined as a cognitive state of perceived
control, perceived competence and goal internalization. . . .The empirical results
supported the view that empowerment is a construct conceptually distinct from
other constructs such as delegation, self-efficacy and intrinsic task motivation.". In
this case the constructs of delegation, self-efficacy and intrinsic task motivation are
known quantities, each with its own previously tested validity. Conger and Kanungo
(1988) note in their literature review that, "scholars have assumed that
empowerment. . . .[is] the process by which a leader or manager shares his or her
power with subordinates. Power, in this context, is interpreted as the possession of
formal authority or control over organizational resources. . . .This manner of treating
the notion of empowerment from a management practice perspective is so common
that often employee participation is simply equated with empowerment." (p. 471).
However, they also note, " We believe that this approach has serious flaws." (p.
471) Instead, the authors offer this definition, "empowerment is. . . a process of
enhancing feelings of self-efficacy among organizational members through the
identification of conditions that foster powerlessness and through their removal by
both formal organizational practices and informal techniques of providing efficacy
information." (Conger & Kanungo, 1988, p. 474). Implied here are new roles for
managers and supervisors, that is, removing conditions that foster powerlessness
and providing feedback about performance, in other words mentoring.
Other researchers have attempted to classify what has been written and
practiced previously, and found it lacking. Quinn and Spreitzer (1997) provide two
such classifications. In the, "mechanistic approach" (p. 38) managers and
researchers "believed that empowerment was about delegating decision making
within a set of clear boundaries. . . . Delegate responsibility; and Hold people
accountable for results." (p. 37) In the, "organic approach to empowerment" (p. 37)
researchers and managers "believed that it [empowerment] was about risk taking,
growth, and change. . . .understanding the needs of the employees; model
empowered behavior for the employees; build teams to encourage cooperative
behavior; encourage intelligent risk taking; and trust people to perform." (p. 38)
However, they found these two approaches lacking; some combination of the two
was needed. In the end, they indicate, "empowerment must be defined in terms of
fundamental beliefs and personal orientations. . . . Empowered people have a sense
of self-determination. . . .Empowered people have a sense of meaning. . .
.Empowered people have a sense of competence. . . . empowered people have a
sense of impact." (Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997, p. 40)
The most comprehensive definition of empowerment in the literature can be
found in Thomas and Velthouse's 1990 article entitled "Cognitive elements of
empowerment: An 'interpretive' model of intrinsic task motivation". The definition
they provide is:

To empower means to give power to. Power, however, has several meanings…
authority, so that empowerment can mean authorization. . . .capacity. . . .However,
power also means energy. Thus to empower also can mean to energize. This latter
meaning best captures the present motivational usage of the term. Our perception
is that the word empowerment has become popular because it provides a label for a
nontraditional paradigm of motivation. . . .change [has] forced a search for
alternative forms of management that encourage commitment, risk-taking, and
innovation. . . .the newer paradigm involves relaxed (or broad) controls and an
emphasis on internalized commitment to the task itself. . . .We use the word
empowerment to refer to the motivational content of this newer paradigm of
management. (p. 667)
 In her excellent literature review of employee empowerment, Linda Honold indicates, "to be
successful, each organization must create and define it [empowerment] for itself. Empowerment
must address the needs and culture of each unique entity." (Honold, 1997, p. 202) It is in this
spirit that I offer my own definition of empowerment. I have drawn on several of the authors
noted above and below for concepts. I will provide credit in the appropriate sections below.

Apprenticeship Empowerment Defined

Employee empowerment is a process whereby: a culture of empowerment is
developed; information—in the form of a shared vision, clear goals, boundaries for
decision making, and the results of efforts and their impact on the whole—is shared;
competency—in the form of training and experience—is developed; resources, or
the competency to obtain them when needed to be effective in their jobs, are
provided; and support—in the form of mentoring, cultural support, and
encouragement of risk-taking—is provided.
Every employer uses employee empowerment to some extent, though it is often
thought of as delegation. No organization of more than one person can survive
without some employee empowerment. When the owner of a Mail Boxes, Etc. hires
someone to work the weekends, that person is empowered. When a manager hires
an accounting graduate to maintain the departmental ledger, that person is
empowered. When the director of advertising chooses which slogan should go on
the web banner, that person is empowered. In each of these instances the
empowered person has been provided with the training and experience they need
to be effective in their position. Each has the information to know how their
decisions will impact the larger whole. Each has access to the resources he or she
needs to be effective. And the assumption is that each will be supported in the
decisions they make.
Empowerment is a process of becoming, not a task or end result in and of itself,
Just as with continuous improvement, no organization is ever done with its
empowerment implementation; no person is ever "completely empowered".
Empowerment becomes part of the culture of the organization. Empowering others
becomes a transparent act, nobody within the organization notices when an act of
empowerment is exercised. It may be noticeable in the extreme to outsiders, but, if
the implementation effort has been successful, it will be second nature to those
accculturated within the organization.
Clearly, empowerment is not quick nor easy, except in the case of a newly
formed organization where the leaders understand it and have committed
themselves and the organization to it. Given that this is the case it becomes
necessary to demonstrate the benefits and provide an implementation strategy
which builds upon a clear understanding of all that employee empowerment entails.
Benefits of Empowerment
That employee empowerment benefits the organizations which implement it
effectively is widely noted in the literature. The popular press accepts the belief of
benefit almost without question. Thomas Petzinger, in his column "The Front Lines"
in the Wall Street Journal, is a big advocate for empowerment. He writes, "As a
society we know the best way to organize people is freeing them to organize
themselves. Why should it be any different in business?" (Petzinger, 1997a, p. B1).
Also in the Wall Street Journal, Aeppel asks the rhetorical question, " What better
way to tap into workers' brains as well as their brawn than to encourage them to
think on the job, to bring to it a greater sense of professionalism and self-motivation
and to feel committed to the company's success?" (Aeppel, 1997, p. 1). Freeman
(1998) writing in Inc. about applying Marine Corps values in the growing corporate
workplace advocates a form of empowerment where training is key and, within
clear missions, risk-taking is rewarded.
However, a bunch of business writers jumping on a bandwagon was not
sufficient for me to believe that empowerment is beneficial. I wanted evidence and
I found it. A number of writers cited Kanter (1979) as the source of information
about the efficacy of employee empowerment. Kanter writing about positional
power indicates, "Organizational power can grow, in part, by being shared. . . .By
empowering others, a leader does not decrease his power; instead he may increase
it--especially if the whole organization performs better." (Kanter, 1979, p. 73).
Kanter then uses the logic that, "The productive capacity of nations, like
organizations, grows if the skill base is upgraded. People with the tools, information
and support to make more informed decisions and act more quickly can often
accomplish more." (Kanter, 1979, p. 73).
Many authors cite, "anecdotal and case evidence…to show that empowerment
does produce more satisfied customers and employees." (Bowen & Lawler, 1995,
p.75). However Bowen and Lawler go beyond this and provide additional evidence,
"considerable research on practices such as gain sharing, communication programs,
work teams, job enrichment, skill-based pay, and so on has shown the results of
these practices are consistent and positive." (p.75). They go on to cite survey
research conducted by,

The Center for Effective Organizations at the University of Southern California…to

determine the degree to which firms are adopting practices that redistribute power,
information, knowledge, and rewards, and the effects. . . . The… data…suggest that
empowerment may have a positive impact on a number of performance indicators.
Respondents report that empowerment improves worker satisfaction and quality of
work life. Quality, service, and productivity are reportedly improved as a result of
employee involvement efforts in about two-thirds of the companies. Approximately
one-half of the companies also report that profitability and competitiveness have
improved; this is supported by the finding of a relationship between empowerment
and the firms' financial performance. (Bowen & Lawler, 1995, p. 75)
This is the hard evidence most skeptics are seeking.
For those of us seeking softer evidence, Bowen and Lawler (1992) indicate
empowered employees provide, "quicker on-line response to customer needs during
service delivery;. . . . quicker on-line responses to dissatisfied customers during
service recovery;. . . . employees feel better about their jobs and themselves;. . . .
employees will interact with customers with more warmth and enthusiasm. . . .
when employees felt that management was looking after their needs, they took
better care of the customer;. . . . great word-of-mouth advertising and customer
retention" (pp. 33-34). Randolph (1995) indicates, "A more subtle, yet very powerful
benefit" of employee empowerment was increased "trust in the organization" (p.
22). When employees trust that the company is not out to suck their blood and is
providing a competitive produce or service they will respond positively, "people who
have information about current performance levels will set challenging goals--and
when they achieve those goals they will reset the goals at a higher level."
(Randolph, 1995, p. 23).
A number of authors also indicate that the increasing competitiveness of the
global marketplace calls for better service and the benefit of drawing upon the
entire pool of employees for creative ideas (Bowen & Lawler, 1992; Gandz, 1990).
An example of this would be a consumer products company looking to expand into
less developed countries using custodial staff who immigrated from those countries
for marketing ideas and possible distribution contacts. One never knows if someone
has an uncle or aunt in his or her home country who owns a chain of grocery stores,
unless one asks. An empowered organization would think to ask, or would at least
encourage the employees to make helpful suggestions.

Objections Overcome
Management's fear of letting employees make decisions which can impact the
profitability of the company is a major factor in the ineffectiveness of many
empowerment programs, and yet is still a major objection. Even Kanter (1979) who,
as noted above, is often cited as providing evidence of the effectiveness of
empowerment indicates,

One might wonder why more organizations do not adopt such empowering
strategies. There are standard answers: that giving up control is threatening to
people who have fought for every shred of it; that people do not want to share
power with those they look down on; that managers fear losing their own place and
special privileges in the system…and so forth. But I would also put skepticism
about employee abilities high on the list. (p. 74)

This objection can be overcome if the managers in question can be assured that the
employees are ready for the level of authority being placed with them.
The apprenticeship model emphasizes the growth and training of the employee
into readiness to be empowered. Only when employees are trained in the
ramifications of their actions and are able to see the big picture should they be
allowed and encouraged to make decisions. The role of the supervisor is as mentor
and coach. The worker must be given the opportunity to make decisions about less
significant things and then the outcomes of these decisions reviewed so that
learning can occur.
For example, when residential life staff members at the University of Hartford
plan a bar-b-que meal for the residents of a building they are given a budget and
encouraged to shop for sufficient food to feed the number of people expected. If
the worker has little experience, a list of items to purchase is discussed prior to the
shopping trip, however the quantity and brand selection are left to the worker so
that the budget can be maximized in the store. A common mistake less
experienced workers make is purchasing brand-name soda in cans. This is a very
expensive way to ensure that drinks are available. As a result less food is able to be
purchased within the budget provided. The worker learns that brand-name canned
soda is quickly drunk by the people who arrive first and then no drinks are available
to later attendees. It is better to buy inexpensive soda in bulk bottles, or some sort
of drink mix, than to provide brand-name soda because it meets the need and does
not inspire greed. This lesson is best learned through direct experience and review
of the results with the supervisor. Being told this reality is not nearly as effective.
Just as we would not expect a person with an associate's degree to articulate
ground-breaking new theories in their field; so too we should not expect untrained
employees to make decisions which affect the bottom line. The manager who has
been involved in the training of the worker will have greater confidence that the
worker will make a decision which is in the best interests of the company. The
benefit of empowerment is that it allows each employee to bring his or her
experience and creativity to bear on the decision.
Middle managers often object to employee empowerment because they perceive
that the effort will take power away from them. The view is, as Blanchard & Bowles
(1998) indicate, "Managers must…give up the levers of control they've worked a
lifetime to get hold of". I call this the "hazing theory of management". One of the
reasons initiation activities and hazing are still a part of many fraternal
organizations is that the current members want the opportunity to do onto others as
was done onto them. If, as a pledging member, they had to run errands for the
brothers then they want the opportunity to have pledges run errands for them once
they become brothers. Running errands are the "dues" pledges must pay in order
to join the brotherhood. Working for the organization for years and being subjected
to the decisions of others are the "dues" middle managers have paid to obtain their
positions.
This type of thinking is called zero sum change. That is, in order for you (the
worker) to gain something I (the manager) must lose an equivalent amount of that
thing, in other words, win-lose thinking. In order for an employee empowerment
implementation to be successful, managers with this objection must change their
attitude. Ward (1996) asks the questions these managers might ask, "How can I
give up control when I am accountable for the results? How can I give greater
decision-making authority to employees, yet ensure the results are of good quality
and are consistent with corporate objectives? How can I manage the empowerment
process so employees feel the project is their own?" (p. 21).
The answer to these questions, and the way this needed change is accomplished
through training. Managers must see that they still have a role despite authority
being shared with empowered employees. This new role is as mentor, coach, and
facilitator. Training should be provided for each aspect of this role. Acting as
mentor comes easily to some people, however others have difficulty seeing
themselves as able to offer anything beyond direction. Proper training can show
the reluctant mentor how to improve his or her skills. Coaching is another skill
some people have difficulty with. Again, training is called for in this instance.
Because empowered employees often are formed into self-managing teams they
often need someone to facilitate their discussions until this skill is developed among
the members of the group—this initially becomes the role of the manager. Later on,
as cross-functional teams are formed, the manager's facilitation skills are called for
again. Many managers will require training to enhance their ability to facilitate
discussions.
Managers who take on these new roles of mentor, coach, and facilitator begin to
recognize that they are still needed. A new win-win attitude replaces the old win-
lose attitude in those managers who are successful at implementation of
empowerment. As the benefits of empowering employees become apparent, the
properly trained manager will become a strong proponent of empowerment—he or
she will recognize the value inherent in taking advantage of everyone's experience
and creativity. If one accepts the premise that empowered employees are more
satisfied with their jobs, and the premise that satisfied employees result in satisfied
customers, then logic dictates that managers will seek empowerment opportunities
in an effort to grow the business and increase revenues.
Bowen & Lawler (1992) note other objections which are raised by management
as a result of these proposed changes, "a greater dollar investment in selection and
training. . . . higher labor costs. . . . slower or inconsistent service delivery. . . .
violations of 'fair play'. . . . giveaways and bad decisions." (p.34-35). Still other
management objections are noted by Conger & Kanungo (1988), "Specifically,
empowerment might lead to overconfidence and, in turn, misjudgments on the part
of subordinates." (p.480). These objections are valid in some respects; proper
training will overcome some of them, but not all. However I believe the benefits of
employee empowerment outweigh the detriments.
Union leaders often express some of the same reservations regarding employee
empowerment as do middle managers. Most union contracts call for seniority as
the guiding principle for increased benefits. If one perceives decision-making
authority as a benefit, then the union will argue that those with the most seniority
should receive it before those with less. If a team is made up of employees of
varying seniority, and all are empowered to make decisions after simultaneous
training then the union may object to less senior members receiving a benefit at the
same time as more senior members.
 Unions perceive that their power comes from collective bargaining with
management on behalf of the workers. Employee empowerment breaks down
barriers to communication between individual workers and the organization's
management thereby reducing the role of the union. It has been my experience
that unions object when their roles are reduced.
Both of these objections may be valid. Both call for a shift in the focus of the
union and an emphasis on new roles. Instead of using seniority as a guiding
principle, unions may be convinced of the increased organizational viability
resulting from a guiding principle of ability. That is, those with the greatest skills,
rather than those with the longest tenure, should receive benefits first. Most
managers, I think, would agree that what is best for the organization to continue its
competitive position is a greater focus on ability over seniority. Unions are in the
business of ensuring jobs for their members. If union jobs are lost because an
organization goes out of business as a result of inflexibility on the seniority versus
ability issue, then the union has not been successful. If, however, the union
changes its focus to ability, and the organization grows, more jobs will be created.
Beyond the issue of seniority versus flexibility, unions can change the focus of
their efforts from communicating with management on behalf of employees to
providing training and pre-qualification of skill-sets for an empowered workforce.
Trade unions already serve this function; witness the carpentry trade. The
carpenter's union provides training opportunities for apprentice carpenters, and the
union bestows journeyperson and master status onto workers who have completed
established parameters. These parameters may be number of hours on the job,
completion of training programs, demonstration of skills and abilities, etc. A union
contract for a given job will call for a set number of master level, journeyperson
level, and apprentice level carpenters; the union is then able to provide
appropriately trained individuals to fill the positions available. This could be the
case for other unions as well. For example, a manufacturer might have need for
workers skilled in a specific process. The union runs a training program which
teaches workers the skills needed for this process and certifies their level of
training. Workers are then assigned to work on this process based upon their level
of training and upon that which is needed at that time.
Employees, too, sometimes object to empowerment efforts. Aeppel (1997)
noted that one of the complaints by Eaton employees is the responsibility the group
has for each individual, "with everyone watching everyone else, it can feel like
having a hundred bosses" (p.1) Another common employee objection is that they
don't want any more responsibility than they already have. My experience is that
an employee with this complaint is already not sufficiently motivated, and some
management response is called for. Perhaps she or he is not aware of the benefits
which accrue to the organization because of her or his work. Perhaps the employee
lacks the understanding that purposeful work is often less demanding than what
she or he may already be doing. Perhaps there are difficulties in other aspects of
that employee's life which could benefit from timely intervention by a caring
supervisor. In any case, it is likely that this objection can be overcome.
 Conger and Kanungo (1988) raise the possibility of, "major organizational
changes…seriously challenge[ing] employees' sense of control and competence as
they deal with the uncertainty of change and accept new responsibilities, skills, and
guidelines for action and behavior." (p. 477). Bridges (1991) indicates, "Stability
through change demands clarity about what you are trying to do. . . .[there must
be] a clear sense in people's minds of how their activities contribute to the entire
undertaking." (p. 76). It is the responsibility of the leader to provide the vision
which assists employees to have this peace of mind.
At the Eaton plant noted above, an additional objection is, "The plant's emphasis
on fitting into the group can seem almost cultish. . . .Some people do well with all
the physical aspects of the work, but fall short by other measures--such as their
communications skills." (Aeppel, 1997, p. 1). In response to this objection I bow to
the more articulate Linda Honold (1997) who states, "The critiques of employee
empowerment emanate from what appears to be half-hearted attempts by
employers that allow for a very limited degree of decision making and control by
employees." (p. 210).

A Culture of Empowerment
An organization's culture is a complex thing, not easily described. Yet it is upon
this foundation that empowerment is built. The organizations which successfully
implement employee empowerment will have certain values at their core from
which the process of empowerment can flow. Among these values are respect and
appreciation for individuals and the value they bring to the organization. Values
alone do not make up an organization's culture, and respect for individuals is only
one of the outward signs of an empowered culture.

Edgar Schein defines organizational culture as,

a pattern of basic assumptions—invented, discovered, or developed by a given
group as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal
integration—that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to
be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation
to those problems. (Schein, 1985, p. 9)

However coherent this definition seems, the concept is much more complex.
Schein uses the bulk of his book Organizational Culture and Leadership to provide a
more complete understanding of what culture really is. Such in depth study of this
single concept is beyond the scope of this paper and I would refer the reader to
Schein's book for a deeper understanding.
Nonetheless, the culture of the organization must support the thrust of
empowerment if there is any chance for success. I am resolved to discuss the
"'artifacts' and 'values' that are the manifestations or surface levels of the culture"
(Schein, 1985, p. 6-7) since that is within the scope of this thesis. Other authors try
to get at this essence that is organizational culture which must be supportive for
empowerment to succeed. By Schein's definition, they tend to focus on the surface
manifestations, though several try to imply the greater depth.
For example, Quinn and Spreitzer (1997) indicate, "empowerment must be
defined in terms of fundamental beliefs and personal orientations" (p. 40), which is
an apt description of organizational culture. Yet they go on to note the
manifestations, "Empowered people have a sense of self-determination. . .
.Empowered people have a sense of meaning. . . .Empowered people have a sense
of competence. . . . Empowered people have a sense of impact." (Quinn & Spreitzer,
1997, p. 40). Other manifestations these authors note in an earlier article include,
"actual barriers to change present …and the social support available to the
manager from his/her boss and peers." (Spreitzer & Quinn, 1996, p. 239), these
barriers are aspects of culture. Another example is provided by Gandz (1990), "A
set of shared values is needed. . . .beliefs about the way things should be done, the
standards of behavior that are appropriate, the ethics of organizational actions. . .
.Such values compel and propel behavior" (p. 75)—significant cultural artifacts
which will lead to empowerment.
Ford and Fottler (1995) provide a model of how empowered an individual is on
two scales, job content and job context. The aspects of job context are
manifestations of culture; they indicate, "Job context is much broader. It is the
reason the organization needs that job done and includes both how it fits into the
overall organizational mission, goals, and objectives and the organizational setting
within which that job is done. Organizational structure, rewards systems, mission,
goals, objectives and so forth make up the rich tapestry of job context." (p. 22-23).
Organizational structure and reward systems are often put into place with the
unknowing and unquestioned basic assumptions which are part of the culture of the
organization. Shein's position supports this view thusly, "If culture has developed in
this sense, it will affect most of the aspects of an organization—its strategy, its
structure, its processes, its reward and control systems, and its daily routines."
(Schein, 1985, p. 244)
An organization seeking to implement empowerment is likely to examine its
structure and reward systems, however if the culture is not also examined by the
change agents, replacement structures and systems are likely to reflect the old
assumptions. One such assumption is whether individuals or groups (teams) should
be rewarded for their efforts. Many organizations in the United States hold that
country's value of individualism. If, on the one hand, teams are being promoted as
a tool of empowerment, and on the other hand, individuals are being rewarded for
the work of the team, then employees will unconsciously (or consciously) pick-up on
the cultural norm and will be reluctant to dedicate themselves to the teaming
concept where their work may not be recognized and rewarded. In other words,
empowered organizations put their money where their mouth is.
Mallak and Kurstedt (1996), perhaps more articulately, express this sentiment
when they write, "Managers who understand how empowerment integrates with
organizational culture are motivated to lead employees…and help them internalize
the values and traditions [of empowerment]. These managers help create a work
environment where employees take action for intrinsic reasons more so than for
extrinsic reasons." (p. 8). Mallak and Kurstedt provide a four stage model for
cultural integration, because they understand how important the organization's
culture is to the successful implementation of empowerment.
Shipper and Manz (1992), in their description of W. L. Gore and Associates,
demonstrate how committed to empowerment that company is by describing the
cultural manifestations. Some examples include: there are no position titles, all
employees are called Associates; every associate has one or more sponsors who
provide training, act as coach or mentor, and advocate with the compensation
committee for the employee's pay increases; all associates are encouraged to apply
their creativity, even to the extent of finding their own job within the organization
after being hired. While these tactics far surpass what another organization
interested in empowering its employees is likely to do, they do reflect what has
been successful for Gore. The cultural values which brought about this unique
organizational culture are the result of the personal values of Gore's founder.
Schein notes, "Founders usually have a major impact on how the group defines and
solves its external adaptation and internal integration problems." (Schein, 1985, p.
210), these are essential components of the development of culture.
Other authors provide less articulate, though no less powerful, demonstrations of
the importance of organizational culture to employee empowerment. Witness:
Blanchard and Bowles (1998), "It's the understanding, not the work. It's how the
work helps others, not units dealt with." (p. 170); Block (1987), "Creating a vision of
greatness [is] the first step toward empowerment" (p. 99); Ginnodo (1997)
"Empowerment serves a purpose. It's not a feel-good program. It's about
accomplishing business objectives. It's a means to an end, not an end in itself.
Empowerment helps employees help the organization and themselves…." (p.12).
By now, it should be clear that the organization's culture is important to
employee empowerment. If an organization's culture does not already support
empowerment it must be changed, However, as Schein points out, "we may be
suggesting something very drastic when we say, 'Let's change the culture'" (Schein,
1985, p. 5). And you may be asking yourself, "How would we go about changing the
culture, should we decide we need to do so?". A very good question indeed.
Fortunately, Schein provides some insight into this. He notes, "Leaders create
culture, but cultures, in turn, create their next generation of leaders." (Schein, 1985,
p. 313). If the leader is acting in a growing organization, he or she needs, "both
vision and the ability to articulate it and enforce it." (Schein, 1985, p. 317). If,
however, the organizational culture is mature, "If it is to change its culture, it must
be led by someone who can, in effect, break the tyranny of the old culture." (Schein,
1985, p. 321). This is accomplished through replacement of assumptions. "If an
assumption is to be given up, it must be replaced or redefined in another form, and
it is the burden of leadership to make that happen." (Schein, 1985, p. 324) Schein
makes a distinction between leaders and managers. I make that distinction as well
in the section on the manager's role below. Schein also provides a useful table of
organizational, "Growth Stages, Functions of Culture, and Mechanisms of Change"
(Schein, 1985, p. 271-272).

Management Role
In an empowered organization the managers and supervisors take on a different
role than they usually would in most organizations. The literature is unanimous on
this point. It may be obvious that one aspect of this role change is the sharing of
power and authority. Yet, many managers and supervisors already do this, either
actively or passively, through delegation or abdication, neither of which is
empowering people.
Empowerment implies a great deal more. There is an active role for managers
and supervisors rather than the passive one of abdication. There are stages an
employee must go through before he or she should have authority delegated to him
or her. There should also be a recognition that while the employee may be ready to
have one aspect of the job delegated to her or him, she or he may not be ready for
delegation in other functional aspects of the job (Blanchard, Zigarmi &
Zigarmi,1985). Managers and supervisors must reframe their perception of their
roles because, "The primary task of supervision is to help people." (Block, 1987, p.
63). Block (1987) also tells us, "As managers we become more powerful as we
nurture the power of those below us." (p. 64).
So what are these new, active roles for managers? First we must understand
that, "Managers and supervisors need to be empowered, too" (Ginnodo, 1997, p.
12). One use of manager's new found empowerment should be to allow them to
remove barriers to employee empowerment. Conger and Kanungo (1988) describe
this as, "providing autonomy from bureaucratic constraint" (p.478). Harari (1997)
asks us to, "imagine that your job is to create an environment where your people
take on the responsibility to work productively in self-managed, self-starting teams
that identify and solve complex problems on their own." Ginnodo (1997) tells us
this, "involves articulating a vision, values, strategies and goals; aligning policies,
practices and business plans; improving processes; organizing, communicating and
'walking the talk' of total quality. . . .and removing barriers that prevent outstanding
performance"[italics are mine] (p. 8). Gandz (1990) indicates, "Managers need to
be willing and capable of changing their roles from supervisors and work directors
to visionaries and coaches." (p. 77)
This new role of coach is also nearly universal in the literature. Coaching is
defined as, "teaching and practice focused on taking action, with celebration when
things go well and supportive redirection when things go wrong, while all the time
creating excitement and challenge for those being coached" ( Blanchard & Bowles,
1998, p.159). Ward (1996) indicates of coaching, "The objective is to keep giving
employees responsibilities which move them along the capability continuum,
eventually reaching 'fully capable of the task'. Naturally, the manager must be
careful to keep adjusting his or her leadership style as the employee becomes more
capable." (p. 22) "Managers also have to learn how to nurture and reward good
ideas." (Caudron, 1995, p. 30)
 Conger and Kanungo (1988) discuss the importance of the employee's sense of
their own abilities as a factor in their empowerment. These coaching, or,
"empowerment strategies…[are] aimed not only at removing some of the external
conditions responsible for powerlessness, but also (and more important) at
providing subordinates with self-efficacy information" (p. 478). Among the coaching
strategies noted are, "(a) expressing confidence in subordinates accompanied by
high performance expectations, (b) fostering opportunities for subordinates to
participate in decision making, (c) providing autonomy from bureaucratic constraint,
and (d) setting inspirational and/or meaningful goals."(p. 478). Thomas and
Velthouse (1990) indicate events such as, "inputs from supervisors, staff peers, and
subordinates, for example, performance evaluations, charismatic appeals, training
sessions, mentoring advice, and general discussions of ongoing projects…provides
data on which to base task assessments." (p. 671). Task assessments are those
perceptions by the employee of his or her ability to perform, or interest in, the task.
That is, management can change the environment to make completion of the tasks
rewarding intrinsically (for example, through praise and recognition or increased
opportunities), or management can work as a mentor to help the employee
perceive his or her contribution as valuable.
Mallak and Kurstedt (1996) echo this mentoring approach for employees, "and
help them internalize the values and traditions [of the organization]. These
managers help create a work environment where employees take action for intrinsic
reasons more so than for extrinsic reasons." (p. 10). Another aspect of mentoring is
role modeling. Block (1987) indicates, "One way we nurture those below us is by
becoming a role model for how we want them to function." (p. 64). Other authors
use a sports analogy to get this same point across. "By setting the key goals and
values, you define the playing field and the rules of the game. You decide who
plays what position. Then you have to get off the field and let the players move the
ball." ( Blanchard & Bowles, 1998, p.79)
If a manager does not perceive her or his role is to help those she or he supervises
to grow, then any empowerment implementation effort will not be successful. A
change in role perception is called for in this instance when implementing employee
empowerment. The supervisor must see potential in the employee and work to
bring that potential out. The process is best described as mentoring or coaching
and it entails:

 determining the skill level of the employee

 sharing information about the goal to be achieved and why it is important to the
organization as a whole

 providing for employee training as needed

 depending upon the employee's skill level, providing appropriate supervisory

support
 a directing style for those tasks for which the employee has a low skill level

 coaching for those tasks with which the employee has some skills but is lacking
experience or motivation

 a supporting style for those tasks where the employee knows what to do but is
still lacking confidence in their abilities

 a delegating style for those tasks where the employee is motivated and fully
capable. (Blanchard, Zigarmi & Zigarmi,1985)

 ensuring that the employee is consistently growing in skill by providing new

responsibilities for which a higher level of supervision is needed

 mentoring the employee such that they absorb both the organizational culture
and the value of empowerment

 removing barriers to empowerment present in the organizational structure

 ensuring that appropriate resources are available for the employee, or ensuring
that the employee has the appropriate skills to obtain needed resources

 providing support for the continued empowerment of the employee

 and sharing information about the employee's and the organization's

effectiveness.

Information Sharing
Information is what the organizational culture is made of initially. Information is
the gatekeeper to power. The literature is unanimous on this point as well, every
author indicated a need for increased information sharing. Each author provided a
different way of describing the importance of sharing information, "The first key is
to share information with everyone. . . .People without information cannot act
responsibly." (Blanchard, Carlos & Randolph, 1996, p. 34); "[if information shared] is
zero, nothing happens to redistribute…[it], and empowerment will be zero." (Bowen
& Lawler, 1995, p. 74); "Communication and information are the lifeblood of
empowerment." (Ginnodo, 1997, p. 12). In the absence of information employees
do not know the ramifications of their actions and therefore are not responsible.
Caudron (1995) in reporting about, "How to get the best from employees…[in
Eastern European countries]" indicated, "managers gave employees information
about the business, invested in new skills training, set goals for employees and
gave them ongoing feedback on how they were meeting those goals." (p. 28). The
author reports that the results in this case study are, "nothing short of amazing. . .
.Job satisfaction is high, most employees appear to trust management, and when
you ask Berry [director of human resources] if he thinks workers have become
empowered, he answers with an emphatic 'Yes.'" (Caudron, 1995, p. 28). Despite
the workers having never been exposed to this type of involving management, and
perhaps never having trusted management before, the effort was a success—due to
the power of information sharing.
Block (1987) advises, "Share as much information as possible. . . .Most
supervisors think part of their role is to shield their subordinates from bad news
coming from above. When we shield our people we are acting as their parents and
treating them like children. If we are trying to create the mind-set that everyone is
responsible for the success of this business, then our people need complete
information." (p. 90-1). An important part of employee empowerment is
demonstrating confidence in the worker, yet many managers hesitate to just let
people go on their own. This may be a call for some limitations in the form of
shared information.
Blanchard, Carlos and Randolph's (1996), "second key is to create autonomy
through boundaries." (p. 40). This statement sounds counterintuitive, however the
authors explain that when employees understand the boundaries they are then free
to take any action within those boundaries; they can bring their own creativity to
bear on the task at hand and perhaps improve its effectiveness. Other authors cite
the need for boundaries, "The third lever is discipline and control. . . .While they
[employees] have autonomy, they are aware of the boundaries of their decision-
making discretion." (Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997, p. 45) "Setting clear boundaries tells
people what they're authorized to do" (Ginnodo, 1997, p. 12). Bowen and Lawler
(1995) also address the issue of, "setting reasonable boundaries for employee
heroism" (p. 79) when responding to a service failure or the customer's needs.
Shipper and Manz (1992) in their case study of W. L. Gore and Associates note one
of the four principles all employees are expected to abide by is, "Consult with other
Associates prior to any action that may adversely affect the reputation or financial
stability of the company. . . . associates can (and are encouraged to) make
decisions on their own as long as the downside risk does not threaten the
organization's survival." (p. 51). Creating boundaries avoids one of the objections
noted in the section above, that is, that employees will become overconfident and
exceed their authority.
Sharing information about goals and, "Effective communication about the
organization's plans, successes, and failures." (Byham, 1997, p. 27) may seem
commonplace, however its importance cannot be undervalued. Randolph informs
us that, "research…revealed that people who have information about current
performance levels will set challenging goals—and when they achieve those goals
they will reset the goals at a higher level." (Randolph, 1995, p. 22)
Spreitzer (1995) provides additional evidence of this value; she notes,

Hypothesis 2d: Access to information about the mission of an organization is

positively related to psychological empowerment
Hypothesis 2e: Access to information about the performance of a work unit is
positively related to psychological empowerment. . . .
Hypothesis 2f: An individual-performance-based reward system is positively related
to psychological empowerment. . . .(p. 1448)
Spreitzer supports hypothesis 2d and 2e with this information, "Information about
mission is an important antecedent of empowerment because (1) it helps to create
a sense of meaning and purpose and (2) it enhances an individual's ability to make
and influence decisions that are appropriately aligned with the organization's goals
and mission." (p. 1448).
As noted in the management role section above, one of the skills of this new role
is sharing feedback about the employee's effectiveness. Cauldron (1995) indicates,
"empowerment programs fail because HR initiates the process the wrong way. . . .
empowerment isn't something you do to people. . . . [rather it is developed by]
creating an empowering environment--one in which employees are given goals,
information, feedback, training, and perhaps most importantly, positive
reinforcement. [italics mine]" (p. 29). Conger and Kanungo (1988) use nearly the
same words to express the same sentiment, "The employment of these strategies is
aimed not only at removing some of the external conditions responsible for
powerlessness, but also (and more important) at providing subordinates with self-
efficacy information (p. 474). Without this positive reinforcement employees do not
easily come to realize how skilled they really are and how important their work is to
the success of the organization, "Empowered people have a sense of competence . .
. empowered people have a sense of impact." (Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997, p. 40). The
importance of, "Performance management systems that provide a clear
understanding of job responsibilities and methods for measuring success." (Byham,
1997, p. 25) "is fundamental to reinforcing a sense of competence and believing
that one is a valued part of an organization." (Spreitzer, 1995, p. 1450)
To make employee empowerment work, not only do we need to give them
information about their own work, we must, "Give employees information about the
business and demonstrate how their work fits in. . . .'Everyone wants to feel they do
something of value. When you demonstrate the value individuals bring to the
business, people want to grow.'" (Caudron, 1995, p. 29). "Empowerment must be
placed in a context of responsibility to the larger whole." (Mohrman, 1997, p. 16)
Managers must help employees understand that their work is, "directly aligned with
strategic goals and individual accountability [is maintained] all the way along the
line to senior management, customers and stockholders." (Ettorre, 1997, p. 1), and
that they are considered, "partners in the business, all with an eye to the bottom-
line implications." (p. 1). Empowered employees will only understand these bottom
line implications if organizational information is shared with them.

The Value of Vision

The value of providing a compelling vision of an empowered workplace should
not be underestimated. Because empowerment is often poorly understood, and
usually has not been experienced by employees, it is the vision of what is possible
that brings their commitment to it. Vision is perhaps the most visible component of
organizational culture; it is through the vision of what is possible that leaders can
inspire employees to apply their skills, knowledge, and creativity towards its
achievement. Whatever the mind of man can conceive, and believe, it can achieve.

Charismatic leaders understand the power of vision; Thomas and Velthouse

(1990) report, "the most important motivational aspect of
charismatic/transformational leadership is the heightened intrinsic value of goal
accomplishment produced by the articulation of a meaningful vision or mission." (p.
668). Witness President John F. Kennedy's vision of a man on the moon by the end
of the decade of the 1960s. Because JFK was able to envision the possible, and to
articulate it effectively, he was able to marshal the resources of the entire country
to achieve it.
There are numerous examples of the importance of providing a vision in the
literature. Block (1987) identifies, "Creating a vision of greatness [as] the first step
toward empowerment." (p. 99). Vision provides employees with that sense of "what
do we do next" which can inspire creativity; Bowen and Lawler (1995) describe this
as, "Awareness of the context." (p. 75). It also allows for employees to not make
decisions which are in the direction opposite that of which the leaders of the
organization believe is right. On the importance of organizational vision Gandz
(1990) indicates, "There needs to be a shared vision. . . .lacking buy in to such
visions, employees can hardly be expected to be self-directing in their fulfillment."
(p. 75). Quinn and Spreitzer (1997) identify, "The first lever" of "organizational
characteristics [which] facilitate employee empowerment. . . .is a clear vision and
challenge." (p. 43).
Blanchard and Bowles (1998) use the term "values" in place of vision. They
indicate, "Values guide all plans, decisions and actions." (p. 171). The authors
make a distinction between goals and values: "Goals are for the future. Values are
now. Goals are set. Values are lived. Goals change. Values are rocks you can
count on. Goals get people going. Values sustain the effort." (Blanchard & Bowles,
1998, p. 171).
Some other authors indicate that the vision is articulated through the basic
values of the organization. At W. L. Gore these basic values are, "1. Try to be fair.
2. Use your freedom to grow. 3. Make your own commitments, and keep them. 4.
Consult with other Associates prior to any action that may adversely affect the
reputation or financial stability of the company." (Shipper & Manz, 1992, p. 51).
Within these values is the vision of a growing, profitable concern which has instilled
employee empowerment to its core.
The question of what vision to instill is answered by Gandz (1990), "There are
many appealing visions such as the provision of excellent customer service, that are
the precursors of profit, productivity and market share growth; but they must be
articulated as such for them to be compelling. (p. 75). In short, employees must
understand and share the vision of the organization if they are to empowered.
Developing Competency
In order to implement employee empowerment the employees must be
competent. Competency goes beyond developing job-task specific knowledge.
Bowen and Lawler (1995) cite the importance of "training in which employees are
familiarized with how their jobs fit into upstream and downstream activities."
(p.80). "Employees must be properly trained. It does not make sense to empower
employees to do things such as make decisions or approve or initiate action if they
are not properly trained." (Gandz, 1990, p. 76) Byham (1997) indicates that among
the "Characteristics of an empowered organization" (p. 25) are, "Empowering
leadership/training. . . .Job and technical skills/training. . . .Interpersonal and
problem-solving skills/training. . . .Front-line customer service skills/training. . .
.Empowering support groups/training." (p. 28-30). Gandz (1990) indicates,
"Technical training, decision making skills, group process skills, all are required if
empowerment is to be accepted and produce results." (p. 76).
Authors indicate the importance of training throughout the literature. Caudron
(1995) indicates, "Once employees understand what needs to be done to improve
the company, they must have all the skills and resources necessary to be able to
accomplish those improvements." (p. 32). Kanter (1979) notes, "spreading power
means educating people to this new definition of it." (p. 73) Ginnodo (1997)
indicates, "Empowerment training is more than remedial; it prepares people for
collaboration and higher level performance, and sends a message to employees:
we're spending money on you because this is important to the organization's
future." (p. 13). Ettorre (1997) defines empowerment, "as employees having
autonomous decision-making capabilities and acting as partners in the business, all
with an eye to the bottom-line implications." (p. 1). One must then ask, "Where do
employees get those decision-making capabilities and information about bottom
line implications?" The answer, of course, is through training.
Training does not come cheaply. Not only must empowered organizations invest
in training materials and facilitators, they must value training sufficiently to release
employees from regular work duties to attend. Gandz (1990) reports, "it is a
common experience for organizations that seek to empower employees to find that
their training and development budgets are woefully underfunded. (p. 75).
However, it is not only the responsibility of the training department and
supervisors to provide training. "There must be procedures and occasions for
empowered individuals and teams to learn from each other." (Bowen & Lawler,
1995, p. 81) In an empowered environment more experienced, "employees tend to
take a more active role in intervening in the actions of newer employees and
offering feedback regarding culture-consistent behaviors." (Mallak & Kurstedt, 1996,
p. 8). "In short, these newly empowered participants empowered their associates
through their actions. They shared success stories and helped one another
diagnose situations to develop appropriate coping strategies." (Quinn & Spreitzer,
1997, p. 43)
"Stories make information easier to remember and more believable." (Morgan &
Dennehy, 1997, p. 495) Freedman (1998) reports that for the U.S. Marines, "Sea
stories are the very best way to…" (p. 60) pass on learning and recognition of
problem patterns. The marines have institutionalized organizational storytelling,
these sea stories, as a valid way to train employees. A good story which
emphasizes the value of errors is the one about the 3M engineer who was trying to
formulate a new adhesive. Unfortunately the glue was not sufficiently sticky and
pieces of paper glued with it could be pulled apart. The engineer could have
decided his effort was a failure, however 3M has a corporate value of risk-taking and
encourages workers to find other applications for their products. The engineer
described the failed glue's properties one day in a group meeting and was asked by
another worker if the adhesive could be applied to bookmarks. It seems that the
second worker was a member of a church choir and his bookmarks would often fall
out of his choir book making it difficult to find the next song they were to sing. His
thought was that if the bookmarks had a removable glue applied they would stay in
place and yet still be movable to the next week's song selections. The engineer
agreed to provide the choir with some pieces of paper with the adhesive applied.
The engineer also kept some of these removable notes to use on memos and such.
Soon he was supplying all the workers in his area with pads of these removable
notes. One day someone said, "we should market these!" and so was born the
post-it note. The engineer learned that what seems like a mistake one day can be
of tremendous benefit the next. Now the Post-It? note is one of 3M's biggest sellers.

"Another approach is through interventions that provide unusually dramatic,

memorable examples of high task assessments and, thus, are more likely to shift a
person's global assessments. This approach is analogous to the one taken in such
programs as Upward Bound." (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990, p. 679) This may be an
example of challenge and support training.
Challenge and support (Sanford, 1962) is a concept used in the field of student
affairs to describe how to help students learn and grow. The concept proceeds from
the perspective that people do not learn or grow when they are comfortable. Nor
do they learn when they are too uncomfortable.. The lack of interpersonal skills
training in the Eaton company is a situation where too much challenge and
insufficient support were provided, "new workers are required to give speeches
before new employees and managers and to attend training seminars about saying
'we,' never 'I' or 'you,' when being critical, to avoid sounding accusatory." (Aeppel,
1997, p.10). If this is the extent of their communications skills training, then it
leaves a great deal to be desired. The plant manager indicates, "It can be
taught...but the worker has to want to learn it." (Aeppel, 1997, p.10). And, as this
company has learned, must be taught if empowerment is to be well received.
When past coping behaviors or understandings of the-way-things-are become
insufficient for the present circumstances people experience feelings of discomfort.
This uncomfortable feeling is called cognitive dissonance. At the point of cognitive
dissonance people are ready to learn a new way of coping or to develop a new
understanding of the-way-things-are. This is "the teachable moment". It is at this
point that employees will be most receptive to learning something new.
 If we choose to help people to grow it is incumbent upon us to challenge them to
the point of cognitive dissonance. We can then use the teachable moment to
provide new information that the person can use to change their perspective on
the-way-things-are. However, if too much challenge is provided, people will revert
to old ways of coping and avoid the learning experience all together. Because the
environment often provides so many challenges that the learning individual can
become overwhelmed, we must provide sufficient support to them so they do not
regress.
Challenging and supporting then become new roles for the teaching supervisor.
We do not want to allow people we are trying to empower to grow too comfortable
in their roles such that there is no reason for them to expand their knowledge and
grow in their empowerment. Nor do we want to provide so much challenge that the
employee tosses in the towel and decides to work elsewhere. Rather we want to
provide sufficient challenge to allow for growth and sufficient support to avoid
overwhelming our associates.
Just as individuals must be developed through the apprenticeship stages noted
below, teams, too, must be supported and trained as they go through stages.
Blanchard, Carlos and Randolph (1996) indicate, "You have to start by giving them
what they need at the place where they are."(p. 63) That is,

groups, like individuals, go through predictable stages of development. They need

different kinds of leadership at each stage. . . .the orientation stage. . . is a time
when a team needs strong, clear leadership. . . .dissatisfaction stage. The reality of
working as a team always seems to be more difficult than team members expect. . .
.need continued strong, clear leadership. But they also need support. . . .resolution
[stage]. . .when members begin to learn to work together we start to rotate the role
of team coordinator among team members. . . .production stage. . . .A self directed
team acts to direct and support individual efforts itself." (Blanchard, Carlos, &
Randolph, 1996, p. 100-101).

Importance of Resources
In many organizations access to resources is controlled by supervisory staff. If
employee empowerment is to be implemented successfully, those controls must be
removed and resources placed under empowered employees' control. "Resources
include items such as funding, access to support staff, or experts who have
knowledge on which the employee can draw." (Ward, 1996, p. 22) Typically
restriction of access to resources is in place to avoid employee abuse. However, if
information about the costs and effect on the bottom line procurement of resources
has is shared with employees they are not likely to abuse them. Caudron (1995)
notes, "Once both employees and managers have received proper training, the next
step is to give employees control of the resources needed to make improvements.
Nothing is more demotivating or disempowering than being stopped in your tracks
because you either don't know how to proceed or lack the tools necessary to do a
good job." (p. 31).
 Bowen and Lawler (1995) describe what happens if insufficient resources are
provided. Relying on people to provide service improvements without resources is
called the human resources trap. "The HR trap occurs when managers expect their
front-line people to provide better and better service without simultaneously trying
to improve the core service offering itself, enhance the tangibles, make available
state-of-the-art technology and market research, and so on. It can result in
unreasonable responsibility for damage control placed on the front-line workers in a
poorly designed, inadequately coordinated service system." (Bowen & Lawler, 1995,
p. 82)
Release of control to employees demonstrates management trust and
confidence in their competence. This is very empowering.

Sufficient Support
The organization which chooses to implement empowerment must ensure that
sufficient support is available to keep it going. Blanchard and Bowles (1998) remind
us, "You can't be in control unless the rest of the organization supports you and
doesn't rip you, or your work, apart." (p. 172). Zimmerman (1990) notes that, "It
[empowerment] is not an absolute threshold that once reached can be labeled as
empowered. Empowerment embodies an interaction between individuals and
environment that is culturally and contextually defined. . . . sense of community
plays an important role in the development of personal control and participation."
(p. 170-1). In other words, the environment must be a supportive one.
Support can take the form of workplace social supports. Spreitzer and Quinn
(1996) note, "managers who made transformational organizational change had
significantly higher social support scores" (p. 249). In other words, the more
support the managers had the more effectively empowered they were.
"Empowerment techniques and strategies that provide emotional support for
subordinates and that create a supportive and trusting group atmosphere can be
more effective in strengthening self-efficacy beliefs." (Conger & Kanungo, 1988, p.
479) Also, "inputs from supervisors, staff peers, and subordinates…mentoring
advice, and general discussions of ongoing projects. . . .provides data on which to
base task assessments." (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990, p. 671). The task
assessments, as noted above, are the employee's perception of his or her abilities
and motivation and are the basis for intrinsic motivation. So we can conclude that
with a good support system in place the likelihood of employees developing intrinsic
motivation and a sense of self-efficacy is increased, thereby increasing
empowerment.
Support can also take the form of, "recognizing and rewarding improvement
efforts and success" (Ginnodo, 1997, p. 8). "Reward and recognition systems…build
pride and self-esteem." (Byham, 1997, p27) Blanchard and Bowles (1998) note,
"Congratulations are affirmations that who people are and what they do matter, and
that they are making a valuable contribution toward achieving the shared mission."
(p. 174) Spontaneous, Individual, Specific, and Unique" (p. 175) congratulations are
most effective. These authors also tell us, "You can't overdo TRUE congratulations:
Timely, Responsive, Unconditional, [and] Enthusiastic." (p. 174). Ginnodo also
indicates, "Celebration and recognition for forward motion and accomplishment are
needed." (p. 13).
Quinn and Spreitzer (1997) raise other aspects support by noting, "The fourth
lever [of effecting empowering changes] is support and a sense of security" (p. 46).
Shipper and Manz (1992) discuss the powerful and general support which is
provided to associates at W. L. Gore,

every associate has one or more sponsors who provide training, act as coach or
mentor, and advocate with the compensation committee for the employee's pay
increases. . . .The sponsor tracks the new associate's progress, providing help and
encouragement. . . .A sponsor is a friend and an Associate. All the aspects of the
friendship are also present. (p. 51).

Gandz (1990) indicates, "Managers need faith in employees. . . .Risks can be

minimized through training and shared vision, values and benefits, but the
empowered organization requires confident managers who have faith in employees.
. . .The overall culture of the organization must support risk taking." (p. 76-7).

Theoretical Foundations
One author in the field of social psychology writes, "psychological empowerment
refers to the individual level of analysis, but does not ignore ecological and cultural
influences. Psychological empowerment is a contextually oriented conception of
empowerment that embraces the notion of person-environment fit. It includes, but
is not limited to, collective action, skill development, and cultural awareness…"
(Zimmerman, 1990, p. 173-4). This perception of empowerment raises the
questions, so as to bring about a more empowered workplace, How does one:

• bring about employee collective action?

• provide for employee skill development?
• increase employee cultural awareness?
Spreitzer (1995) presents her hypothesises thus:

Hypothesis 1a: There are four distinct dimensions of psychological empowerment.

Hypothesis 1b: Each dimension contributes to an overall construct of psychological
empowerment. . . .(p. 1446)
Hypothesis 2a: Self-esteem is positively related to psychological empowerment. (p.
1446)
Hypothesis 2b: Locus of control is positively related to psychological
empowerment. . . .(p. 1447)
Hypothesis 2c: Self-esteem and locus of control are distinct from the overall
construct of psychological empowerment. . . .(p. 1447)
Hypothesis 2d: Access to information about the mission of an organization is
positively related to psychological empowerment.
Hypothesis 2e: Access to information about the performance of a work unit is
positively related to psychological empowerment. . . .(p.1447)
Hypothesis 2f: An individual performance-based reward system is positively related
to psychological empowerment. . . .(p. 1448)
Hypothesis 3a: Psychological empowerment is positively related to managerial
effectiveness. . . .(p. 1449)
Hypothesis 3b: Psychological empowerment is positively related to innovative
behaviors.
These predictions represent a partial nomological network for the construct: the
variables included are believed to be key personality and contextual antecedents
and individual consequences of psychological empowerment. (p. 1449)

Spreitzer goes on to check the validity of the instrument she created through
combining and refining previous instruments which measured the dimensions noted
above. She reports,

both internal consistency and the test-retest reliability are established for the
empowerment scale items. . . .Contrary to expectations, locus of control (gamma
= .05) was not found to be significantly related to empowerment. Because the
theoretical links between locus of control and empowerment are quite strong, the
lack of support for this hypothesis may be a result of measurement limitations. . . .
support for Hypothesises 2a, 2c, and 2d was found, though support was not found
for Hypothesis 2b. . . .(p. 1458) support for Hypotheses 2d and 2e was found. . . .(p.
1460) These findings provide support for Hypotheses 3a and 3b and suggest that
managerial effectiveness and innovative behaviors tend to be moderately related.
(Spreitzer, 1995, p. 1460)

Despite these positive findings, Spreitzer (1995) notes, "The limited discriminant
validity found her and some differences across the two samples suggest that
continued refinement of the measures is necessary. . . .A more powerful test of the
full empowerment model would be to tie empowerment to certain organizational
manipulations" (p. 1461)
The questions then become, How does one

• increase employee self-esteem?

• Increase access to information about the mission?
• increase access to information about the performance of the work unit?
In a later article, Spreitzer (1996) indicates, "perceptions of both empowerment
and social structural characteristics were the primary focus in this study." (p. 486).
She goes on to note,

this work contributes to the literature by articulating the importance of perceptions

in the interpretation of the work environment as either empowering or
disempowering to individuals. . . .by providing one of the first empirical
examinations of the relationship between social structure and empowerment. . .
.This study supports the proposition that high-involvement social structures
(specifically , low role ambiguity, wide supervisory spans of control, sociopolitical
support, access to information, and a participative climate) create opportunities for
empowerment in the workplace. In spite of these contributions, the study has a
number of limitations and raises questions for future research on the nature of the
relationship between social structure and empowerment. (p. 500).

Additional questions raised by this research are, How does one

• ensure employees have low role ambiguity?

• ensure wide supervisory spans of control?
• provide sociopolitical support?
• provide access to information?
• create a participtative climate in the organization?
Unfortunately, one study which sought to answer some of these questions had
an excellent study design, but the null hypothesis was not rejected. The study
design used a study group who were being empowered and a control group who
were not. "Both groups had responded to a previous, extensive survey of
management practices, which served as a baseline measure." However, apparently
due to an organizational downsizing effort in the middle of the study, "Results
provided minimal support for the positive influence of empowerment. The null
hypothesis that empowered workers would have no difference in how they viewed
their situation than non-empowered workers was not rejected." (Thorlakson &
Murray, 1996, p. )
Some definitions are needed to help understand Thomas and Velthouse's (1990)
perspective on empowerment. These include, "intrinsic task motivation involves
positively valued experiences that individuals derive directly from a task. . . .Task
assessments are presumed to be the proximal cause of intrinsic task motivation and
satisfaction. . . .task refers to a set of activities directed toward a purpose." (p. 668)
So, when a person does a set of activities (read work) he or she assesses the task at
hand and decides if it is motivating and satisfactory. Over the course of time the
individual generalizes these individual task assessments into an overall perspective
of this type of work. If the intrinsic task motivation is present and is supported by
management, that person becomes empowered.
Thomas and Velthouse (1990) report,

Thus far, two studies have provided support for the parts of the model that involve
interpretive styles and task assessments. . . .A more extensive test of the model…
involved a questionnaire survey of 164 managers in three organizations, using
multiple-item measures of the task assessments and interpretive styles. Factor
analysis of the task assessment items demonstrated four separate factors,
corresponding to the task assessments [impact, competence, meaningfulness, and
choice] in the present model. The authors identify, "Two general intervention
strategies…: changing the environmental events on which the individual bases his
or her task assessments and changing the individual's style of interpreting those
events." (p. 667)

Additional questions raised by this study include, How does one:

• change environmental events on which the individual bases perception of her

or his impact, competence, meaningfulness of the task, and choice about the
task?
• change the individual's style of interpreting the environmental events on
which the task assessments regarding impact, competence, meaningfulness,
and choice are based?
Spreitzer and Quinn (1996) provide follow-up to their initial studies conducted at
Ford. Their research efforts were targeted at what could be learned from those
middle managers who attended Leadership Education and Development (LEAD)
programs and who then were encouraged to effect change on behalf of the
organization. The authors report,

only those with positive affect, self-esteem, and social support embraced the charge
to make transformational change. Those with negative affect, poor self-esteem,
and little social support, responded with management style changes that had little
affect on the organization. The findings suggest that individual mind-set was a key
moderator in determining who embraced change and who resisted it. (p. 250)
these results show, when stimulated to make change, middle managers with
negative affect tend to be unsuccessful in their efforts. Second, developing
transformational middle managers may require much more than most senior
executives want to consider expending. . . .real change requires real investment.
The LEAD program represents creative design, long-term commitment, and heavy
expenditure. But the long term pay-offs can be high. . . .Third, the findings also
suggest that an important resource in many organizations may be unintentionally
wasted or consciously destroyed. . . . In this study, it was found that the plateaued
managers were most likely to take the greatest risks on behalf of the company. (p.
252)
this article…has several limitations. First, the study is primarily exploratory in
nature. . . .Second, the generalizability of the findings is limited. . . .Third. . .
.causality cannot be ascertained. (p. 252-253)

It seems that the questions raised by this article have already been raised by the
articles above. In some cases, the authors of the studies provide suggested
answers to these "How does one" questions, in others the questions are left for the
reader. My hope is that with the information I have provided above, and the
information I will provide below, I will answer all of these questions.
Implementation Timeframe
It should be clear at this point that implementing an empowerment program is
quite and extensive affair. I would be remiss if I did not support the contention that
it may take several years before the organization will see the benefits of
empowerment. Several authors echo this sentiment: Caudron (1995),
"empowerment doesn't provide immediate gratification. . . . the length of the
learning curve is the greatest challenge to most empowerment programs" (p. 28);
Gandz (1990), "keep at it!. . . .It will not be done through a 90 day program with
empowerment t-shirts and coffee mugs. It is critical to signal that this will be a new
way of running the organization that might take several years to develop." (p. 78);
Ginnodo (1997), "Empowerment is hard work and takes time." (p. 13); Quinn and
Spreitzer (1997),"empowerment is anything but simple and quick--it demands a
willingness to embrace uncertainty, trust people, and exercise faith." (p. 43); and
Thorlakson and Murray (1996), "recognize that empowerment is not an overnight
process but rather a 'way of life,' which can take time to implement. Finally, view
empowerment not as a fad but as an opportunity and a challenge to help unleash
an organization's full potential." (p. 79). 'Nuff said!

Situational Implementation
A number of authors indicate that employee empowerment is a process which
must be implemented in stages. This concept applies both for each individual and
for the organization as a whole. From the overall effort described by Blanchard, et
al. in all three books cited in this paper (Blanchard & Bowles, 1998; Blanchard,
Carlos & Randolph, 1996; Blanchard, Zigarmi & Zigarmi, 1985), to those who draw
upon their work (Ward, 1996), to the social psychologists, who note that, "It
[empowerment] is not an absolute threshold that once reached can be labeled as
empowered." (Zimmerman, 1990, p. 170), there is this sense that empowerment is
not an all or nothing proposition.
Bowen and Lawler (1992) identify three levels of empowerment in
organizations. From least empowering, or "control oriented", to most empowering,
or "involvement oriented" (p. 35). Caudron, 1995 indicates, "The best way to
empower team members is gradually and systematically. . . . Responsibilities for
self-management and decision making should be turned over to employees on as
as-ready basis." (p. 30).
Conger and Kanungo, (1988) echo this perspective, "When subordinates perform
complex tasks or are given more responsibility in their jobs, they have the
opportunity to test their efficacy. Initial success experiences (through successively
moderate increments in task complexity and responsibility along with training to
acquire new skills) make one feel more capable and, therefore, empowered" (p.
479). In other words, employees must be developed through ever more challenging
tasks. The concept is that as they experience success with less challenging tasks
they will develop confidence in their skills and be ready and willing to accept further
challenge. The authors note, "Empowerment techniques and strategies that
provide emotional support for subordinates and that create a supportive and
trusting group atmosphere can be…effective in strengthening self-efficacy beliefs."
(p. 479).
Ford and Fottler (1995) also recommend an incremental implementation of an
employee empowerment program, "this approach would focus first on the job
content and, later, the empowered employees would become involved in making
decisions about job context as well. Management could oversee the progress to
assess the readiness of employees as well as their own comfort level with giving up
authority." (p. 26).
One of the factors which cause many empowerment programs to fail is a lack of
recognition that, "empowerment is a continuous variable; people can be viewed as
more or less empowered, rather than empowered or not empowered." (Spreitzer,
1995, p. 1444) as well as that, "empowerment is not a global construct
generalizable across different life situations and roles but rather, specific to the
work domain." (p. 1444). Indeed, I would argue that it is not generalizable from one
work task to another.

Assessment
The literature is ripe with ways to assess an organization either for how ready it
may be for an empowerment effort, or how empowered it currently is. Conger and
Kanungo (1988) indicate, "The first stage is the diagnosis of conditions within the
organization that are responsible for feelings of powerlessness among
subordinates." (p. 474). They provide a table of, "Context Factors Leading to
Potential Lowering of Self-Efficacy Belief" (p. 477) which can be used to create an
instrument to ensure these factors are eliminated or minimized.
Caudron (1995) provides an, "HR Checklist: do you have an empowered
environment?" (p. 33) based upon the Colgate-Palmolive model which may be
useful as a measuring device for workplace empowerment efforts. Byham (1997)
provides 14 "characteristics of an empowered organization" and indicates "These
factors are basically goals to be achieved." (p. 25). Ginnodo (1997) also provides a
list of dos and don'ts from which a survey could easily be developed. Ettorre (1997)
provides a seven question survey, "How empowered are your managers?" (p. 3).
Randolph (1995) provides an exhibit of, "The Empowerment Plan" (p. 29) which
could be adapted into a survey to determine if these factors are currently present
within the organization. Ford and Fottler (1995) provide an implied survey with
their "Employee Empowerment Grid" (p. 24). An assessment of where the
employee's decision making authority lands on the job content and job context
helps to identify how empowered that employee is.
Quinn and Spreitzer (1997) provide "Seven questions every leader should
consider" on, "The road to empowerment" (p. 37); they are:

1. What do we mean when we say we want to empower people?

2. What are the characteristics of an empowered person?
3. Do we really need empowered people?
4. Do we really want empowered people?
5. How do people develop a sense of empowerment?
6. What organizational characteristics facilitate employee empowerment?
7. What can leaders do to facilitate employee empowerment? (p. 45)

The authors indicate that the questions above raise "Some Hard Questions" and
"Some Harder Questions" (p. 44), which provide more of an assessment set for the
organization.
Bowen and Lawler (1992) provide a table reproduced below to assist with
determination of the best strategy given the contingencies of the organizational
environment.

Production
Contingen Empowerme
Line
cy nt
Approach

Differentiati
Basic Low cost,
on,
business high 1 2 3 4 5
customer
strategy volume
personalized

Transactio
Relationship
Tie to n, short
1 2 3 4 5 , long time
customer time
period
period

Technolog Routine, Nonroutine,

1 2 3 4 5
y simple complex

Business Predictable Unpredictabl

environme , few 1 2 3 4 5 e, many
nt surprises suprises

Types of Theory X 1 2 3 4 5 Theory Y

people managers, managers,
employees employees
with low with high
growth growth
needs, low needs, high
social social needs
needs, and and strong
weak interpersona
interperso
 nal skills l skills

(Bowen & Lawler, 1992, p. 37)

Clearly, within each contingency, the higher number circled, the more likely that
employee empowerment will be effective in the organization conducting the survey.

Bowen and Lawler (1995) also provide measures of how effective empowerment
efforts have been. The authors include: asking employees if they feel more
empowered, "survey customers to determine if they view employees as
empowered,. . . . track changes in the percentage of employees who are 'covered'
by empowering management practices,. . . . monitor changes in organizational
structure. . . . decreasing management levels and increasing span of control are
important indexes of empowerment success." (p. 77).
Thorlakson and Murray (1996) provide a table with the results of their survey
where responses have been categorized. The actual survey can be obtained from
one of the authors. Spreitzer and Quinn (1996) also provide a table with
categorized responses from which a useful assessment instrument could be
developed. Spreitzer (1996) provides a table with the actual questions used in her
survey. Spreitzer (1995) provides an appendix with the "Text of Items Measuring
Empowerment" (p. 1464).

The Apprenticeship Model

Apprenticeship, as commonly practiced in the trades, consists of three levels of
competency and an associated level of empowerment. This concept can easily be
transferred to any organizational environment. Employees do the work and make
the decisions for which they have sufficient skills and knowledge. Employees and
their employer also recognize their responsibility to continue the training and
development of the employee. Because the empowerment concept calls for a
recognition of the value of every employee (Blanchard & Bowles, 1998), no
employee is looked down upon based upon his or her job responsibilities or level of
skill.

Apprentice level
Rather than as a lowly, know-nothing, the apprentice is viewed as an unskilled
worker with potential. He or she may be assigned tasks which are seemingly
menial yet are essential to the effective working of the shop. The apprentice is
expected to be aware of how the organization works and to ask questions at
appropriate times. Also he or she is expected to be eager to learn new skills and to
practice these skills under the guidance of journeymen and masters.
Journeyperson level
Journeypersons do the primary work of the organization. In order to be
considered a journeyperson an individual is expected to have all but the most
specialized skills of their craft. She or he must be able to work without supervision.
There must also be a recognition of one's responsibility to provide skills training for
apprentices. Journeypersons know how to get the answers to their questions, and
are developing the sense of what are the right questions to ask.

Master level
Masters provide the overall direction and vision for the organization. They
decide which jobs to do and how they can be done. Masters understand their
responsibility to supervise the continued development of journeypersons so as to
teach and develop the next generation of leaders. As part of sharing their vision,
masters provide information about the overall organization to both journeypersons
and apprentices. As befitting their advanced knowledge, masters advance the
trade through innovation and complete the work for which only they are trained.
This model is deceptively simple. Anyone can quickly grasp the three levels
(Freedman, 1998) and place workers they know into one of the three categories.
However, it is important to realize that the model calls for a recognition that an
individual could be at any one of the three levels for different aspects of their job
(Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Zigarmi, 1985; Blanchard, Carlos & Randolph, 1996; Ward,
1996). I have provided an example of how this may be the case in a retail
department store in Appendix A.

Support, Culture, and Information

One must also realize that the model calls for individuals with greater skills to
accept responsibility for training those who are less skilled (Thomas & Velthouse,
1990; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Zimmerman, 1990; Blanchard & Bowles, 1998;
Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Zigarmi, 1985). This form of mentoring also provides the
necessary social support for empowerment to occur (Ginnodo, 1997; Byham, 1997;
Quinn and Spreitzer, 1997; Shipper and Manz, 1992; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990;
Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Zimmerman, 1990; Blanchard & Bowles, 1998).
An additional consideration is the importance of passing along the culture
(Schein, 1985; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997; Mallak & Kurstedt, 1996; Shipper & Manz,
1992; Blanchard & Bowles, 1998; Block, 1987). As noted above, the apprentice
develops a sense of the values of the craft as he or she watches the care the master
puts into his or her work. A recognition of the importance of every task is
developed while sweeping the floor—for without a swept floor the shop becomes
potentially dangerous and may drive away paying customers. Both the master and
the journeyperson share this perspective with the apprentice as the floor is swept.
It is this type of information sharing which will allow the apprentice to grow and
develop (Bowen & Lawler, 1995; Mallak & Kurstedt, 1996; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997).
As she or he develops, information beyond the simplistic, "we must sweep so no
one gets hurt and customers don't think we do sloppy work" is shared. The
journeyperson must learn how to set prices for the finished work; the master shares
information about how to estimate the time it will take to complete a given project
and what the overhead costs during that time period will be.
Perhaps this information sharing will be in the form of a story (Thomas &
Velthouse, 1990; Morgan & Dennehy, 1997; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997) about a time
when the master estimated incorrectly and had to live frugally for the next month
as a result. The master may also share the perspective that it may be better to
overestimate a project's costs, then one can inform the customer of the reduced
cost of the project and delight him or her. This is an example of sharing the vision
the master has for his or her organization (Blanchard & Bowles, 1998; Quinn &
Spreitzer, 1997; Block, 1987). In this instance the vision is one of superior customer
service (Gandz, 1990).
The master also must help the journeyperson understand that doing this may
result in the customer going elsewhere to obtain what is needed. This sense of
balancing the opportunity costs is an important concept, and lacking it, one which
might force the journeyperson to fail in his or her own shop. The master could just
as easily have shared a vision of being the low cost leader. In this instance, the
apprentice would be told to not waste time sweeping the floor and that it was more
important to be constantly working on projects; the journeyperson would be told
that we can make up in volume what we may loose in margin. One can see how
this apprenticeship model can be adapted to the different types or organizational
strategies which exist.

Value of Competency Development

Perhaps the easiest aspect to understand from the apprenticeship model is that
of developing employee competency (Blanchard, Carlos & Randolph, 1996; Quinn &
Spreitzer, 1997; Ginnodo, 1997; Byham, 1997; Blanchard & Bowles, 1998). It is
clear that as one's skills develop one moves through the levels from apprentice to
journeyperson to master. The importance of understanding that competency is
more than just technical skills cannot be overemphasized (Bowen & Lawler, 1995;
Caudron, 1995; Mohrman, 1997). Perhaps the apprentice develops sufficient skills
to become a journeyperson, but does not develop a sense of the importance of
keeping a clean floor—the results could be disastrous if the newly minted
journeyperson slips and injures him or herself and cannot work. Or perhaps the new
master, who did not learn how to mentor an apprentice and winds up out of
business for lack of labor (or as an alternative for those with a sense of the
macabre, is paid a visit by "representatives" of the other masters who make sure he
or she "understands" the importance of keeping the price level high—perhaps by
having extra medical bills imposed). While the possibilities of suffering injury or
financial loss are used as extreme examples here, one can appreciate the
complexities which must be understood in any organizational environment.
Developing competency is developing this appreciation as well as developing skills.

Assessment Questions and Associated Responses

Based on the research cited in the Assessment Instruments section above, and keeping in
mind my definition of empowerment (culture, information, competency, resources, and support),
there seems to be a need for an assessment instrument which leaders can use to assess the
empowerment level of their organization within the constructs of the apprenticeship model. I
would argue that assessing is only half of the effort needed to successfully implement
empowerment. The other half is responding with organizational changes and competency
development. The assessment questions below are the starting point. The training responses in
the next section are cross-referenced by question number, then lettered to provide the appropriate
response based upon the answer to the question. For example, after answering question 237, the
organizational leader can look for the appropriate response under 237A, 237B, or 237C
depending upon the what fits best given the organizational circumstance present. If this
instrument was based on a computer, hyperlinks could be created from the possible answers
directly to the appropriate response.
Any survey of this type has its drawbacks. I address these first so that an understanding can
be achieved that these questions and the associated training responses in no way represent the
only possible way to implement an empowerment program in a given organization. It is possible
that the individual or group which uses the assessment instrument do not know the organization
sufficiently well to be able to answer the questions; or that they will want to make the
organization look good and skew the results.
As in any assessment instrument, the terms used within are subject to interpretation by the
users, this could cause confusion and thereby not address the needs of the organization. A
significant event in the life of the organization could completely change how the questions are
answered or whether the training responses are appropriate. Certainly, the ability of the
instrument users to implement or recommend change or training might make the entire exercise
worthless. Nonetheless, I believe the instrument and the suggested responses to be useful.

Assessment Questions
1. Can a consensus be reached by any group of organizational members as to the
definition of empowerment?

YES NO DON'T KNOW

2. What perquisites become available as climbs up in the organizational hierarchy?

NONE FEW MANY DON'T KNOW

3. Who are your mentors within the organization?

 MANY FEW NONE

4. In the course of a week, how may times does a low-level, front-line employee need to seek
approval for an action she or he believes is the correct one?
NONE FEW MANY

5. Can any given employee accurately answer the question, "How is the organization doing"?
YES NO DON'T KNOW

6. What is the vision of the organization?

EASILY ANSWERED DON'T KNOW

7. In what aspects of your job have you reached master status?

SEVERAL FEW NONE—NEW TO ORG. NONE—NO EFFORT

8. Are you providing training to anyone within the organization?

YES NO

9. In what aspects of your job do you continue to grow?

SEVERAL FEW NONE

10. When was the last time a project or work effort was delayed due to lack of resources?
LONG TIME AGO RECENTLY ALL THE TIME

11. If your supervisor was away and a customer or another department asked you to complete a
project for which you knew there was capacity to complete, would you be able to agree to
complete the project and access the needed resources?
YES YES, AFTER SEEKING APPROVAL NO

12. If the above request slightly exceeded the known capacity to complete, what would be your
supervisor's boss's response if you decided to accept the project anyway?
PRAISE DON'T KNOW ANGER

13. How would such a decision affect the organization?

POSITIVELY NEGATIVELY DON'T KNOW

14. What would you do if another member of your department disagreed with you about the
decision to accept the project?
DISCUSS TO RESOLUTION GO OVER HIS/HER HEAD

15. Who are your friends in the organization?

MANY FEW NONE DON'T KNOW
Training Responses
1A. YES: Good for you! Your organization is making progress toward
empowerment. Keep doing what you have been doing.

1B. NO: Discussions about what empowerment is and how it will impact the organization need
to begin. Without at least some shared understanding of the concept of empowerment there will
be confusion in the organizational ranks and your empowerment effort will be sidetracked if not
derailed.
1C. DON'T KNOW: Go and find out. If consensus can be reached see 1A, if not see 1B. But
first, read the thesis so at least you'll have some understanding of the concept.

next question
2A. NONE: Great! Keep up the effort to eliminate perquisites which are not available to
everyone.
2B. FEW: Work to eliminate them or make them available for everyone. Discuss with those
who benefit from the perquisites how they felt when they were in a position where they were
unavailable. Ask them if they think those who do not receive these added benefits feel the same
way they did. Encourage honest reflection.
2C. MANY: Work to eliminate them or make them available for everyone. If a culture of
empowerment is to be achieved then those who receive perquisites must demonstrate their belief
in it by equalizing the organizational environment.
2D. DON'T KNOW: Try to find out and then address as noted above. Hint: if no one will
discuss perquisites with you then there are probably many of them.

3A. MANY: Congratulations! The value of mentors is manifold. Be sure that you are acting as
a mentor to others as well.
3B. FEW: Work to increase the number of people you can look to for advice, training, and
cultural clues; also be sure to be offering mentoring to others with less experience than you.
3C. NONE: The empowerment effort in your organization is probably off-track or non-
existent . As a first step, find yourself a mentor who can show you the ropes and enhance your
skills. Continue to find people who can provide mentoring advice, and offer mentoring advice to
those with less experience.

4A. NONE: Good. The organization has probably established clear boundaries for decision-
making for these employees. This is also an indication that trust has been placed in their ability
to make good decisions, generally this type of trust comes from effective competency
development, clear vision, and good information about the impact of decisions on the bottom
line. It also indicates that appropriate resources have been made available to these individuals.
4B. FEW: Work to increase these individuals' skills and understanding of their impact on the
work of the organization. Establish clear boundaries for their decisions and share the
organization's vision with them. Ensure that the resources they need are at their disposal.
4C. MANY: Does your organization consider itself an empowering one? If so, then this is an
important place to begin demonstrating commitment thereto. These front-line workers interact
with your customers so empowering them will enhance your customer service. Implement
whatever changes are needed in higher levels of your organization, then follow the suggestions
in 4B.

5A. YES: Your organization is probably sharing information about the bottom line and how
that individual impacts it. This is very empowering.
5B. NO: Work to increase information sharing. Empowered individuals understand how their
work impacts the bottom line. If employees don't know what that bottom line is then they cannot
possibly know their impact upon it. Of course, employees will need to be trained to understand
whatever information is shared with them, so developing this competency is an important step as
well.
5C. DON'T KNOW: This is probably an indication that they don't. Refer to the suggestions in
5B.

6A. EASILY ANSWERED: Very good. Sharing a vision is an important aspect of empowering
employees—it allows people to think about how their work fits into the larger picture and
provides opportunity for them to apply their creativity to help achieve that vision.
6B. DON'T KNOW: Work to develop a vision for the organization, or at least for your unit.
Help employees to see where the organization hopes to go so they can help to get it there.

7A. SEVERAL: Great! This is an indication that you have been developed to this point. Be
sure that you are training journeypersons and apprentices in what you know. Also, keep
challenging yourself to achieve master level in other aspects of your job or in tasks beyond your
current responsibilities.
7B. FEW: Continue to work to achieve this level. See suggestions in 7A as well.
7C. NONE, BECAUSE I AM NEW: Continue to work to achieve this level. See suggestions in
7A.
7D. NONE, NO EFFORT MADE: Work to enhance your skills. Seek out mentors and people
with additional skills and information who can help you to grow professionally. Even if your job
responsibilities seem menial, you have an impact on the organization's bottom line so enhancing
your skills will be of benefit to the organization.

8A. YES: Good. Continue to develop the skills of others as you continue to develop your own.
8B. NO: If your organization is an empowering one, you must ask yourself "Why not?". If you
consider yourself too busy, reconsider. Think of your responsibilities for the future needs of the
organization—will you ever be less busy if you don't train others to do what you do? If you don't
think you have sufficient stills to teach anyone anything, think again. Perhaps you are the most
inexperienced person in your department, but are there people in other areas with whom you
could share what little experience you do have. Do you have talents which are not apparent in
the organizational setting? If so, share those with your colleagues so that the balance is
maintained.

9A. SEVERAL: Very good. This demonstrates a recognition of the importance of developing
competency. Even if you are a master at all aspects of your current job, you are seeking
opportunities to learn aspects of other jobs. Even if you are the CEO you recognize that you
don't know everything. Allowing an employee at a lower level to provide the CEO with training
is tremendously empowering to them.
9B. FEW: Unless you are relatively new to your position, this is still good. See ideas in 9A.
9C. NONE: Probably not an empowering organization. Work to develop the apprenticeship
model within your organization. Seek out opportunities to develop your competency to the point
of mastery. Or, if you have achieved mastery in your area of specialty, seek out opportunities to
grow in other areas.

10A. LONG TIME AGO: Good. Empowering organizations provide the resources needed for
employees to get the job done, or the employees have developed the competency to obtain
needed resources themselves.
10B. RECENTLY: Unless this was an unusual circumstance, work to develop systems or
competencies which make the needed resources available to empowered employees.
10C. ALL THE TIME: Probably not an empowered organization. Work to make needed
resources available to employees. Develop employee competency such that they can obtain
resources they need. Work to develop trust in employees such that higher-ups will have
confidence that resources will not be squandered.

11A. YES: This is a clear indication that you are empowered. Continue doing whatever
brought you to this point and work to enhance other's ability to reach it.
11B. YES, WITH APPROVAL: This is either an indication that you are new and still
developing competency, or that the organization is not empowered. If you are still developing
ask the approving individual what factors she or he took into consideration when making the
decision. If not an empowered organization, work to develop employees competency such that
they would be able to make the decision for themselves. If the answer is going to be yes, better
that those closest to the customer have all the information needed to give the answer more
quickly.
11C. NO: Either you are still developing competency, or the organization is not empowered.
See suggestions in 11B.

12A. PRAISE: Great! This demonstrates support for risk-taking and is very empowering. It
also provides the opportunity for continued challenge and ever increasing goals to become the
norm.
12B. DON'T KNOW: This may be an indication of lack of support for risk-taking and could be
disempowering. It is also an indication that insufficient communication is occurring about the
organization's vision and between levels of the organization.
12C. ANGER: Very disempowering. Unless there is a clear explanation of why this was a bad
decision and how it negatively impacted the organization, no learning will take place. Keep in
mind the benefits to the customer of allowing employees at the lowest level possible to make
decisions. Also, work to develop an understanding of continued incremental challenges inherent
in the apprenticeship model.

13A. POSITIVELY: This demonstrates an understanding of the bottom line implications of

one's work and the presence of a clear vision. There also seems to be support for risk-taking.
Good!
13B. NEGATIVELY: Well, at least there is an understanding of the implications of one's
work. This may be an indication of a disgruntled employee who is working to sabotage the
organization's success, and knows how to do it. It may also be an indication of insufficiently
developed competency. Work to develop competency to make this type of decision such that it
has positive impact on the bottom line.
13C. DON'T KNOW: This is an indication of insufficient information sharing and lack of clear
vision. Employees must have access to the information about how their work impacts the
organization as a whole if there is any hope of a successful empowerment implementation.

14A. DISCUSSION TO RESOLUTION: Good. This is an indication that employee

competency has been developed in the skills of communication among an empowered group.
There is also evidence that the environment is supportive and this will enhance empowerment.
14B. GO OVER HER/HIS HEAD: This is very disempowering. Work to develop the
competencies needed for employees to be able to discuss differences of opinion and learn from
each other's perspective. Also, work to develop an environment which is supportive of employee
risk-taking.

15A. MANY: Good. This may be an indication of a supportive environment within which
employees can challenge themselves to grow.
15B. FEW: If you are new to the organization, this is probably OK. If tenured, then this is a
sign of a lack of a supportive environment and could be disempowering. Work to develop an
organizational value of friendliness and cooperation.
15C. NONE: May be a bad sign for organizational empowerment. Even if you are a brand new
employee, there should be somebody with whom you are friendly. Work to change the
organizational culture to make friendliness a value.
15D. DON'T KNOW: Look out! If you don't know who your friends are in the organization,
the they all may be enemies. Empowerment depends, in part, upon a supportive environment.
This doesn't sound like one, or it is an indication that this issue has not been evaluated. Work to
ascertain who your friends are in the organization. Be friendly and approachable yourself. Offer
assistance and mentoring advice, if appropriate. Work to change the organizational culture to
make friendliness a value.

Bibliography of Literature Reviewed

Aeppel, T. (1997, September 8). Missing the boss: Not all workers find idea of
empowerment as neat as it
sounds. The Wall Street Journal, pp. 1, 10.
Blanchard, K. & Bowles, S. (1998). Gung Ho! Turn on the people in any
organization. New York: William
Morrow.
Blanchard, K., Carlos, J.P. & Randolph, A. (1996). Empowerment Takes More Than a
Minute. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, P. & Zigarmi, D. (1985). Leadership and the One Minute
Manager: Increasing
Effectiveness Through Situational Leadership. New York: William Morrow.
Block, P. (1987). The Empowered Manager: Positive Political Skills at Work. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bowen, D.E. & Lawler, E.E. (1992). The empowerment of service workers: What,
why, how and when. Sloan
Management Review, Spring 1992, p. 31.
Bowen, D.E. & Lawler, E.E. (1995). Empowering service employees. Sloan
Management Review, Summer
1995, p.73.
Bridges, W. (1991). Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesey.
Byham, W.C. (1997). Characteristics of an empowered organization. In Ginnodo, B.
(ed.) The Power of
Empowerment: What the Experts Say and 16 Actionable Case Studies. Arlington
Heights, IL: Pride
Caudron, S. (1995). Create an empowering environment. PersonnelJournal, 74-9,
p.28.
Conger, J.A. & Kanungo, R.N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating
theory and practice. Academy
of Management Review, 13-3, p. 471.
Ettorre, B. (1997, July). The empowerment gap: Hype vs. reality. HRfocus, p.1.
Ford, R.C. & Fottler, M.D. (1995). Empowerment: A matter of degree. Academy of
Management Executive,
9-3, p.21.
Freedman, D.H. (1998, April). Corps values. Inc., pp. 54-66.
Gandz, J. (1990). The employee empowerment era. Business Quarterly, 55-2, p. 74.

Ginnodo, B. (ed.), (1997). The Power of Empowerment: What the experts say and
16 actionable case
studies. Arlington Heights, IL: Pride.
Grove, P.B. (ed.), (1971). Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the
English Language Unabridged.
Springfield, MA: G&C Merriam.
Honold, L. (1997). A review of the literature on employee empowerment.
Empowerment in Organizations, 5-4,
p.202.
Kanter, R.M. (1979). Power failure in management circuits. Harvard Business
Review, 57-4, p. 65.
Mallak, L.A. & Kurstedt, H.A., Jr. (1996). Understanding and using empowerment to
change organizational
culture. Industrial Management, 38-6, p. 8.
Menon, S.T. (1995). Employee Empowerment: Definition, Measurement and
Construct Validation. Doctoral
dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. Abstract available:
http:// wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/search Publication Number: AAT NN08135.
Mohrman, S.A. (1997). Empowerment: There's more to it than meets the eye. In
Ginnodo, B. (ed.) The Power
of Empowerment: What the Experts Say and 16Actionable Case Studies.
Arlington Heights, IL: Pride.
Morgan, S. & Dennehy, R.F. (1997). The power of organizational storytelling: a
management development
perspective. Journal of Management Development,16-7, p. 494.
Petzinger, T. (1997, January 3). The front lines: Self-organization will free
employees to act like bosses. Wall
Street Journal, p. B-1.
Petzinger, T. (1997, March 7). The front lines: How Lynn Mercer managers a
factory that manages itself. Wall
Street Journal, p. B-1.
Petzinger, T. (1997, October 17). The front lines: Forget empowerment this job
requires constant brainpower.
Wall Street Journal, P. B-1.
Quinn, R.E. & Spreitzer, G.M. (1997). The road to empowerment: Seven questions
every leader should
consider. Organizational Dynamics, 26-2, p.37.
Randolph, W.A. (1995). Navigating the journey to empowerment. Organizational
Dynamics, 23-4, p.19.
Sanford, R.N. (1962). The developmental status of the freshman. In Sanford, R.N.
(ed.), (1962). The American
College. New York: Wiley
Schein, E.H., (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Shipper, F. & Manz, C.C. (1992). Employee self-management without formally
designated teams: An
alternative road to empowerment. Organizational Dynamics, 21-3, p. 48.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace:
Dimensions, measurement, and
validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38-5, p.1442.
Spreitzer, G.M. & Quinn, R.E. (1996). Empowering middle managers to be
transformational leaders. Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 32-3, p.237.
Thorlakson, A.J.H. & Murray, R.P. (1996). An empirical study of empowerment in the
workplace. Group &
Organization Management, 21-1, p.67.
Thomas, K.W. & Velthouse, B.A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An
"interpretive" model of
intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15-4, p. 666.
Ward, B. (1996). How to empower. Canadian Manager, 21-4, p. 20.
Yates, R.E. (1992, September 20). Workers go back to school as firms learn to
compete. Chicago Tribune,
p. 1.
Zimmerman, M.A. (1990). Taking aim on empowerment research: On the
distinction between individual and
psychological conceptions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18-1,
p.169.

Annotated Bibliography

Aeppel, T. (1997, September 8). Missing the boss: Not all workers find idea of empowerment
as neat as it
sounds. The Wall Street Journal, pp. 1, 10.
Type: Newspaper article. High usefulness.
Audience: general public, managers, CEOs.
This article uses the example of the employee empowerment process in the Eaton
Corporation's South Bend, IN forge plant to highlight some of the problems experienced by
newly empowered workers. Interviews with former employees who departed because of the
expectations placed upon them are coupled with information about Eaton's empowerment
procedures and interviews with workers who have stayed. There is a clear slant to the article,
despite the author's efforts to provide a balanced view, that there are some serious problems with
the empowerment movement.
The article fails to delve into root causes of the problems identified and leaves the reader
either convinced that employee empowerment is seriously flawed or wanting a great deal more
information.

Blanchard, K. & Bowles, S. (1998). Gung Ho! Turn on the people in any organization. New
York: William
Morrow.
Type: Book. High usefulness
Audience: CEOs, managers, general public.
This book is the sequel to Raving Fans a Revolutionary Approach to Customer Service. The
concept was to write about how to make employees as enthusiastic about their work as the
customers of Raving Fans were about doing business with the company. Written as a first hand
account of one manufacturing plant's efforts to "Gung Ho themselves", the book provides a
seemingly simple process by which managers can bring about the revolution described below.
While the book never uses the term empowerment, it is clear that this is the goal of a Gung Ho
workplace. Presented in the guise of Native American wisdom, the authors summarize the
process at the end of the work, pp. 170-176.

Blanchard, K., Carlos, J.P. & Randolph, A. (1996). Empowerment Takes More Than a Minute.
San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Type: Book Medium usefulness.
Audience: Managers, general public.
This short book is written in the style of the other One Minute Manager series of books. A
manager develops an interest in the topic and seeks advice from someone with experience
implementing the process. The concepts are presented over the course of about 100 pages, and
can be summarized in about three pages at the end of the book.
The authors provide three key concepts on the "journey to the land of empowerment". "The
first key is to share information with everyone." "The second key is to create autonomy through
boundaries." This statement sounds counterintuitive, however the authors explain that when
employees understand the boundaries they are then free to take any action within those
boundaries. A shared vision for the organization must be developed, and each employee must
identify their role within that vision. Also, goals are developed by managers and employees
together in the spirit of shared vision and complete information. "The third key is to replace
hierarchy with self-directed teams." A component of this effort is providing training to the
members of the teams, "groups, like individuals, go through predictable stages of development.
They need different kinds of leadership at each stage." This leadership model closely follows
that of situational leadership as discussed in Leadership and the One Minute Manager.
In this book no effort is made to support the contentions beyond that they make sense within
the context of the story. One must read the preface to learn that the authors have seen this
process work effectively in organizations with which they have consulted. The book is written
as a case study of the implementation of empowerment within a fictitious organization, so it does
not even have the benefit of an actual case study. Despite these drawbacks, the book presents
useful information in an entertaining style which reinforces the concepts.

Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, P. & Zigarmi, D. (1985). Leadership and the One Minute Manager:
Increasing
Effectiveness Through Situational Leadership. New York: William Morrow.
Type: Book. High usefulness.
Audience: Managers, general public.
Using the style of all the One Minute Manager books, the authors present a story of a manager
seeking advice and education from another manager experienced in situational leadership. In
this way the concepts of situational leadership are presented in an easily understood manner.
Situational leadership calls for a diagnosis of the employee's development level. Employees
with "low competence and high commitment" as is typical of the newly hired are at the first
development level; employees with "some competence and low commitment" as is typical of
employees with incomplete training and for whom the excitement of the newness of the job has
worn off are in the second development level; employees who have "high competence and
variable commitment" typical of mid-management are in the third development level; and
employees with "high competence and high commitment" typical of senior managers and high
performers are at the fourth level.
Once the development level is known the appropriate leadership style can be used with that
employee.
'Directing (Style 1) is for people who lack competence but are enthusiastic and committed (D1).
They need direction and supervision to get them started. Coaching (Style 2) is for people who
have some competence but lack commitment (D2). They need direction and supervision because
they're still relatively inexperienced. They also need support and praise to build their self-
esteem, and involvement in decision-making to restore their commitment. Supporting (Style 3)
is for people who have competence but lack confidence or motivation (D3). They do not need
much direction because of their skills, but support is necessary to bolster their confidence and
motivation. Delegating (Style 4) is for people who have both competence and commitment
(D4). They are able and willing to work on a project by themselves with little supervision or
support.'
This book again uses a pseudo-case study as evidence to support the theory. Logical argument
is also used to support this management scheme. I find the logic compelling and there is strong
alignment between this theory and the apprenticeship model presented in this paper.

Block, P. (1987). The Empowered Manager: Positive Political Skills at Work. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Type: Book. High usefulness.
Audience: Managers.
In this oft cited and influential book written early in the empowerment movement, Block
provides advice for managers seeking to move their organizations from a bureaucratic one
toward an entrepreneurial one. Block notes the bureaucratic cycle and contrasts it with the,
entrepreneurial cycle. Block then goes on to discuss the origins of each cycle and provides
reasoning behind moving toward the entrepreneurial one.
Block notes, "empowerment is a state of mind as well as a result of position, policies, and
practices. As managers we become more powerful as we nurture the power of those below us.
One way we nurture those below us is by becoming a role model for how we want them to
function." (p. 63-4). Block also advises managers to, "Share as much information as
possible. . . .Most supervisors think part of their role is to shield their subordinates from bad
news coming from above. When we shield our people we are acting as their parents and treating
them like children. If we are trying to create the mind-set that everyone is responsible for the
success of this business, then our people need complete information." (p. 90-1). Block identifies,
"Creating a vision of greatness [as] the first step toward empowerment" (p. 99)

Bowen, D.E. & Lawler, E.E. (1992). The empowerment of service workers: What, why, how
and when. Sloan
Management Review, Spring 1992, p. 31.
Type: Journal article. High usefulness.
Audience: CEOs, managers, researchers.
The authors provide information useful to managers about how to assess the appropriateness,
costs, and benefits of empowerment within their organizations. The authors then analyze
service employee empowerment first by identifying the benefits, which include: "quicker on-line
response to customer needs during service delivery;. . . . quicker on-line responses to dissatisfied
customers during service recovery;. . . . employees feel better about their jobs and themselves;. . .
. employees will interact with customers with more warmth and enthusiasm. . . . when employees
felt that management was looking after their needs, they took better care of the customer;. . . .
empowered employees can be a great source of service ideas;. . . . great word-of-mouth
advertising and customer retention." Next the costs of empowerment are examined: "a greater
dollar investment in selection and training. . . . higher labor costs. . . . slower or inconsistent
service delivery. . . . violations of 'fair play'. . . . giveaways and bad decisions."
Bowen and Lawler identify three levels of empowerment in organizations. From least
empowering, or "control oriented", to most empowering, or "involvement oriented", they are:
"suggestion involvement. . . .employees are encouraged to contribute ideas through formal
suggestion programs or quality circles, but their day-to-day work activities do not really
change. . . . job involvement. . . . [where] jobs are redesigned so that employees use a variety of
skills. Employees believe their tasks are significant, they have considerable freedom in deciding
how to do the work, they get more feedback, and they handle a whole, identifiable piece of work.
. . . high involvement organizations give their lowest level employees a sense of involvement not
just in how they do their jobs or how effectively their group performs, but in the total
organization's performance."
The authors consider "when to empower" and identify a "contingency approach". They
present a short list of contingencies which are ranked on a scale with production line approach at
one end and empowerment at the other.
This article provides a sophisticated definition of empowerment, and an effort to develop a
costs/benefits analysis for the implementation of empowerment. The authors categorize
empowerment within several levels and try to provide direction for managers seeking to
implement the appropriate level of empowerment given their circumstances.
Bowen, D.E. & Lawler, E.E. (1995). Empowering service employees. Sloan Management
Review, Summer
1995, p.73.
Type: Journal article. High usefulness.
Audience: managers, academic researchers.
An excellent overview of what empowerment is and how it has been implemented and
successful at a variety of service organizations. Strong research foundation (though many self
references by the authors) is provided to support assertions made by the authors. Previous books
have documented the success of empowerment programs in manufacturing environment. This
article provides a good list of references.
The authors indicate that, "The empowerment equation is: empowerment = power x
information x knowledge x rewards. A multiplication sign, rather than a plus, indicates that if
any of the four elements is zero, nothing happens to redistribute that ingredient, and
empowerment will be zero.". The authors discuss the factors which contribute to an "empowered
state of mind". These include: "Control over what happens on the job. . . . Awareness of the
context. . . . and Accountability for work output." They provide evidence of effectiveness
through anecdotal and case evidence, and also through "Research on individual management
programs, work teams, job enrichment, skill-based pay, and so on. . . " The authors provide
evidence that there is "a positive correlation between employee satisfaction and customer
satisfaction." Measures of how effective empowerment efforts have been are provided.
Other issues the authors address include assessing the "degree of fit" of employees and the
utilization of the empowerment approach; "setting reasonable boundaries for employee heroism",
"training in which employees are familiarized with how their jobs fit into upstream and
downstream activities". The authors suggest that organizations take "a contingency approach to
empowerment". They go on to state, "Evidence indicates that empowerment can have positive
returns for employees, customers, and the bottom line -- when it is right for the situation.
However, empowering service employees also brings new challenges, such as setting boundaries
for service recovery, ensuring organizational learning, and integrating empowerment with other
change initiatives."

Caudron, S. (1995). Create an empowering environment. PersonnelJournal, 74-9, p.28.

Type: magazine article. Medium usefulness.
Audience: CEOs and managers.
The article opens with a case study of Colgate-Palmolive in Central Europe's former
communist countries where employees had never experienced anything like empowerment
previously. The author reports that the results in this case study are "nothing short of amazing."
The author asserts several concepts about how to go about creating an empowering
environment, and supports these assertions with testimony from authors and successful
managers. Several steps toward creating an empowering environment are presented: "first of
these changes is information sharing." Next the author recommends providing training and
resources. Next comes, "helping management learn to empower others. . . . [this is] more about
coaching and creating an environment open to new ways of doing things. . . . Managers also have
to learn how to nurture and reward good ideas." The author indicates, "The best way to empower
team members is gradually and systematically. . . . Responsibilities for self-management and
decision making should be turned over to employees on as as-ready basis." "The next step is to
give employees control of the resources needed to make improvements."
 This pattern of creating an empowering environment fits well with Bowen & Lawler's (1995)
framework article. They posit an empowerment equation which requires that power,
information, knowledge, and rewards all be provided for empowerment to be successful. All
these components are part of the recommendations provided for by this author. This author also
presents an "HR Checklist: do you have an empowered environment" which may be useful as a
measuring device for workplace empowerment efforts.

Conger, J.A. & Kanungo, R.N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and
practice. Academy
of Management Review, 13-3, p. 471.
Type: Journal article. High usefulness.
Audience: researchers, CEOs, managers.
This article seeks to analyze empowerment through diverse theoretical foundations. The
authors cite research from psychology, sociology, leadership and management, and team
building. The authors indicate that most management writing on this topic takes the view of
empowerment as a set of management techniques, "and have not paid sufficient attention to its
nature of the processes underlying the construct."
A review of the management and social influence literature regarding power is provided. The
authors go on to analyze the psychology literature. Two dictionary definitions of empowerment
are compared to contrast the typical management view and the typical psychological view. The
authors, "propose that empowerment be viewed as a motivational construct--meaning to enable
rather than simply to delegate. . . . Enabling implies creating conditions for heightening
motivation for task accomplishment through the development of a strong sense of personal
efficacy."
The authors propose five stages of the empowerment process, "The first stage is the diagnosis
of conditions within the organization that are responsible for feelings of powerlessness among
subordinates. This leads to the use of empowerment strategies by managers in Stage 2. The
employment of these strategies is aimed not only at removing some of the external conditions
responsible for powerlessness, but also (and more important) at providing subordinates with self-
efficacy information in Stage 3. As a result of receiving such information, subordinates feel
empowered in Stage 4, and the behavioral effects of empowerment are noticed in Stage 5."
The authors cite works by A. Bandura who identified sources of personal efficacy.
"Information in personal efficacy through enactive attainment refers to an individual's authentic
mastery experience directly related to the job. When subordinates perform complex tasks or are
given more responsibility in their jobs, they have the opportunity to test their efficacy. Initial
success experiences (through successively moderate increments in task complexity and
responsibility along with training to acquire new skills) make one feel more capable and,
therefore, empowered."
The authors provide little support for their model beyond logical reasoning. When placed in
the context offered by the authors, this model is sensible. It makes sense to evaluate why
employees may feel disempowered; this acknowledgment may lead to managers seeking to
implement empowerment processes. Helping employees to develop self confidence is a logical
next step, and is essential in the author's context. However, self confidence is not equivalent to
empowerment, yet the authors indicate that "as a result of receiving such [self-efficacy]
information [in stage 3], subordinates feel empowered in Stage 4, and the behavioral effects of
empowerment are noticed in Stage 5." There seems to be no recognition that an organizational
culture change must occur, that employees will need training and resources to increase their
sense of self-efficacy, or that continued support is necessary for the successful implementation of
an empowerment program.
No evaluation of the model is provided, nor even suggested. It appears that the authors expect
the reader to be so appreciative of the research they conducted in other fields that no expectation
of proof will be forthcoming. Unfortunately, this may not be the case. Given the date the article
was authored (early in the employee empowerment movement), this article may have provided
the theoretical foundation for others to evaluate the model's applicability. Nonetheless, this
article presents a simplistic understanding of the implementation of employee empowerment.

Ettorre, B. (1997, July). The empowerment gap: Hype vs. reality. HRfocus, p.1.
Type: Magazine article. High usefulness.
Audience: HR professionals, managers.
The author attempts to call attention to a common problem with employee empowerment
implementation efforts. There is a clear slant toward favoring empowerment and the article
seeks to assist the reader to successfully implement it by highlighting how to avoid falling, "into
the empowerment trap", that is, "'Empowerment by default...when management turns its back,
pulls away resources and leaves workers to their own devices.'" The gap noted in the article title
is the one between common empowerment implementation efforts and successful ones; it is a
focus on the bottom line and big picture by every employee which is often lacking and causes the
gap. No effort is made beyond logical argument to provide evidence in support of the author's
views.

Ford, R.C. & Fottler, M.D. (1995). Empowerment: A matter of degree. Academy of
Management Executive,
9-3, p.21.
Type: Journal article. High usefulness.
Audience: CEOs, managers.
This article presents a construct for determining extent of empowerment within "two
dimensions: content and context. Job content represents the tasks and procedures necessary for
carrying out a particular job. Job context is much broader. It is the reason the organization
needs that job done and includes both how it fits into the overall organizational mission, goals,
and objectives and the organizational setting within which that job is done."
The authors recommend an incremental implementation of an employee empowerment
program, "this approach would focus first on the job content and, later, the empowered
employees would become involved in making decisions about job context as well."
Management could oversee the progress to assess the readiness of employees as well as their
own comfort level with giving up authority.
This article presents another theoretical framework for employee empowerment without any
evaluation thereof. The authors use logical reasoning to support their contention that
empowerment is a construct of content and context. Also, the authors provide no evidence that
an employee's decision-making authority progresses in the order they articulate--from problem
identification, to alternative development, to alternative evaluation, to alternative choice, to
implementation/follow-up. It may be that there are times when employees are thrown into the
deep end of the pool and are expected to make alternative choices without having first grown
through the levels below. This growth is an essential step in the empowerment process, a point
not clearly made by the authors. This article may be an attempt to describe how empowerment is
implemented in real organizations, however that is not how the information is presented. Rather,
the authors seem to indicate that this is the way empowerment should be implemented. If this is
the case, too little evidence is supplied to convince most readers.
No evaluation of the model of the content and context construct is offered, though one is
clearly needed. The authors also do not have the luxury of having written early in the timeline of
employee empowerment, by 1995 the concept was well developed and most academics were
seeking information and instruments to evaluate empowerment efforts, rather than a new model.
The model is not useless, because it does have an internal logic. A visionary manager may be
able to develop the organizational culture and other systems needed to utilize this construct as a
way to implement an empowerment program, however no one will know how effective it could
be due to the lack of an objective and replicable evaluation.

Gandz, J. (1990). The employee empowerment era. Business Quarterly, 55-2, p. 74.
Type: Journal article. High usefulness.
Audience: Managers, human resources professionals.
In this article Gandz relies on logical analysis to predict the increasing importance of
employee empowerment. He notes the benefits of empowerment as, "liberating the creative and
innovative energies of employees to compete effectively in a global environment. Within
coherent and articulated visions, employees at all levels will be freed to pursue goals and
objectives." The author provides a number of useful definitions and perspectives: training,
organizational vision and culture, risk-taking, new roles for managers, and the time involved in
the implementation process.

Ginnodo, B. (Ed.) (1997). The Power of Empowerment: What the experts say and 16
actionalble case
studies. Arlington Heights, IL: Pride.
Type: book. High usefulness.
Audience: general public, managers.
This collection of articles from "experts" provides a good overview of empowerment--what it
is, characteristics of empowered organizations, defining boundaries, roles and behaviors,
preparation of supervisors and employees, as well as looking at the strategic implications of
effecting an empowering organizational change. The only problems with this book are its
reliance on so called experts and the relative lack of references.
The case studies (including ones from Marriott, Federal Express, Monsanto Chemical, USAA,
Motorola, Saturn, as well as other companies) provide the only supporting evidence beyond the
reasoning of the chapter authors. In general, the authors' reasoning is valid and they provide
useful guidelines for the practicing manager. Despite being edited by a single individual, the
book presents a choppy view of empowerment; it seems as if the chapters were written as
independent articles, though, with minor exceptions, there is no indication of this. Each chapter
author, however, has written other books, and it may be from these sources from which they
draw their information and ideas. Ginnodo presents 12 guiding principles from interviews he has
conducted in companies. These guiding principles are useful and can be referred to by nearly
anyone writing on the topic of employee empowerment.
Another chapter of this book was written by Susan Albers Mohrman who is a researcher at
University of Southern California. This author provides the working definition of employee
empowerment for the book. Mohrman notes, "Empowerment must be placed in a context of
responsibility to the larger whole." Mohrman goes on to say that, "Studies have demonstrated
that it is possible to teach disempowerment. . . .when people repeatedly experience negative
consequences as they try to accomplish things." She argues that the manager's task then
becomes "to remove the 'electric shocks' that result in a low sense of efficacy." Mohrman
presents a sociological view of empowerment and an organizational design view, and notes that
empowerment includes both an individual and an organizational focus." The author relies on
logical reasoning and spurious conclusions drawn from animal psychology experiments to
support her arguments. Nonetheless, Mohrman provides the reader with food for thought and a
strong summary of the complexity of the concept of employee empowerment.
The next chapter author, William C. Byham, a consultant and author, discusses the
characteristics of an empowered organization. Again personal experience, and logical reasoning
are used as the supporting foundation. Byham defines "14 factors that are needed to achieve
maximum empowerment. . . .These factors are basically goals to be achieved.". These factors
provide useful information about the empowerment implementation process.
Other chapters include one on the boundaries of empowerment written by Ken Somers who is
a consultant; one on training employees and managers to be empowered written by John R. Dew
a facilitator with Lockheed Martin; and one on empowerment fundamentals for strategic change
written by consultant Steven A. Leth. The remainder of the book provides case studies which
demonstrate the concepts in practice.

Honold, L. (1997). A review of the literature on employee empowerment. Empowerment in

Organizations,
5-4, p. 202.
Type: Journal article. High usefulness
Audience: researchers.
In an excellent literature review on the topic of employee empowerment, Honold tracks the
history of the movement, seeks a clear definition, and reviews the various approaches which
have been used to provide a theoretical framework for employee empowerment. The author
attempts not to draw conclusions, rather she makes observations based upon what she has found
in her research. Clearly, an author must summarize what has been written by others and this
process emphasizes some information and de-emphasizes other points; I believe that Honold has
provided as fair an overview as anyone is capable.
In seeking a definition Honold points out, "to be successful, each organization must create and
define it [empowerment] for itself. Empowerment must address the needs and culture of each
unique entity." The aspects of individual and organizational readiness for empowerment are
reviewed. Honold notes some historical terms for what can now be considered empowerment:
"The socio-technical approach. . . .the idea of job enrichment. . . . job autonomy. . . . employee
participation." Honold indicates, "The literature on employee empowerment can be divided into
five groupings: leadership, the individual empowered state, collaborative work, structural or
procedural change, and the multi-dimensional perspective which encompasses most of the four
previously stated categories." She then goes on to summarize the works she has reviewed and
places them into these categories.
Honold also has a section regarding critiques of employee empowerment. Here she does draw
the conclusion that those who cite the failure of empowerment programs have studied ones
where the implementation effort was incomplete or unsophisticated. Other conclusions she
draws are that, "it appears as though employee empowerment is on the rise in organizations. As
well, it looks as though it is an evolutionary process that cannot be achieved in the short term.
Initially, there will be mistakes as both employees and management internalize what it means to
be empowered."

Kanter, R.M. (1979). Power failure in management circuits. Harvard Business Review, 57-4, p.
65.
Type: Journal article. High usefulness.
Audience: Managers, CEOs, academics.
This article seeks to identify some of the causes of a feeling of powerlessness among specific
groups within organizations. These groups are first-line supervisors, staff professionals, and
chief executive officers. The author argues that each of these groups suffers from the common
problems of lack of open channels to supplies, support, and information. The author uses a case
study to demonstrate that by sharing what power the individual members of these groups have
they are able to thereby increase their own power, and the effectiveness of the organization.
The shortcomings of this article are its age (for example, the author devotes a section to the
special problems of powerlessness felt by women managers), the fact that a model is provided
which relies primarily upon logical analysis for support, and the fact that a single case study is
cited as evidence. Nevertheless, this article provides support for what many who study
organizations would consider self-evident. That is, that organizations which take better
advantage of their human resources will be more productive and successful. "Access to
resources and information and the ability to act quickly make it possible to accomplish more and
to pass on more resources and information to subordinates."

Mallak, L.A. & Kurstedt, H.A., Jr. (1996). Understanding and using empowerment to change
organizational
culture. Industrial Management, 38-6, p. 8.
Type: Journal article. Medium usefulness.
Audience: Managers, researchers.
This article presents a model of the stages employees go through as they internalize the
organization's culture. The authors posit that the more that the employee has internalized the
culture, the more empowered he or she becomes. Mallak and Kurstedt note that empowered
employees give feedback to others to enhance cultural consistency. The authors adapt other
theorists' models and use logical analysis to support their position. The importance of mentoring
employees through their internalization of the culture is noted.

Menon, S.T. (1995). Employee Empowerment: Definition, Measurement and Construct

Validation. Doctoral
dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. Abstract available:
http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/search Publication Number: AAT NN08135.
Type: Dissertation abstract. Medium usefulness.
Audience: Researchers.
Within the abstract Menon provides a definition of empowerment, "the empowered state was
defined as a cognitive state of perceived control, perceived competence and goal internalization. .
. .The empirical results supported the view that empowerment is a construct conceptually distinct
from other constructs such as delegation, self-efficacy and intrinsic task motivation." The author
notes, "Empowerment was also found to be significantly related to a number of outcome
variables including job satisfaction, job involvement and organizational commitment." Menon
also cites antecedents of prior research and creates, validates, and applies an instrument to
measure empowerment.

Petzinger, T. (1997, January 3). The front lines: Self-organization will free employees to act
like bosses. Wall
Street Journal, p. B-1.

Petzinger, T. (1997, March 7). The front lines: How Lynn Mercer managers a factory that
manages itself. Wall
Street Journal, p. B-1.

Petzinger, T. (1997, October 17). The front lines: Forget empowerment this job requires
constant brainpower.
Wall Street Journal, P. B-1.
Type: newspaper column. Medium usefulness.
Audience: Managers, general public.
In a regular column, Thomas Petzinger, Jr. provides his perspective on what is happening in
the front lines of business. This series of columns, though unrelated, all have employee
empowerment as the topic. Petzinger seems to liken an empowered organization to an organic
being; he advocates for empowering the workforce by noting how responsive it can be just as a
living organism is responsive to stimulus. Petzinger provides examples from actual companies
which demonstrates the effectiveness of employee empowerment—documenting increased
productivity and high employee morale. Clearly these are opinion pieces, but are useful for the
examples they provide.

Quinn, R.E. & Spreitzer, G.M. (1997). The road to empowerment: Seven questions every
leader should
consider. Organizational Dynamics, 26-2, p.37.
Type: Journal article. High Usefulness.
Audience: Researchers, CEOs and managers.
This article examines factors related to why empowerment efforts in the work place are often
ineffective. In a very good literature review, the authors provide two approaches to defining
empowerment. The authors contrast the "mechanistic approach" with the "organic approach to
empowerment". The authors indicate that to be successful and empowerment program must
include aspects of both the mechanistic and organic approaches.
The authors describe what I would call a mentoring approach to the enhancement of
empowerment in the work place: "In short, these newly empowered participants empowered
their associates through their actions. They shared success stories and helped one another
diagnose situations to develop appropriate coping strategies. In addition, they built networks to
expand their power base in the organization." However the authors were quick to point out that
senior executives must feel empowered before they are likely to support the process of
empowerment, and that many executives are not empowered. They remind the reader,
"empowerment is anything but simple and quick--it demands a willingness to embrace
uncertainty, trust people, and exercise faith."
 The researchers indicate, "Based on our research, we suggest four key levers that can assist
this integration [between the mechanistic and organic perspectives of empowerment]. The first
lever is a clear vision and challenge. . . . The second lever is openness and teamwork. . . . The
third lever is discipline and control. . . .The fourth lever is support and a sense of security." The
seven questions mentioned in the article title are: "1. What do we mean when we say we want to
empower people? 2. What are the characteristics of an empowered person? 3. Do we really
need empowered people? 4. Do we really want empowered people? 5. How do people develop
a sense of empowerment? 6. What organizational characteristics facilitate employee
empowerment? 7. What can leaders do to facilitate employee empowerment?" The authors
make it clear that neither the mechanistic nor the organic approach alone is sufficient to ensure
success, rather both together are needed.
This article provides a description of in-place empowerment efforts. The research conducted
was in the form of observation. An analysis of the observed behaviors was then conducted in an
attempt to find and define the process which must take place for employee empowerment
implementation to be effective. While the researchers are careful to tie their model back to their
observations, they rely on the weight of their logical reasoning to stand up to critical scrutiny.
No replicable tests have been conducted on this model, and so it is best used as a tool toward
understanding rather than as an accurate description of employee empowerment and how best to
implement it.

Randolph, W.A. (1995). Navigating the journey to empowerment. Organizational Dynamics,

23-4, p.19.
Type: Journal article. High usefulness.
Audience: managers, CEOs.
Randolph is one of the authors of Empowerment Takes More Than a Minute. This article
provides a short overview of the concepts presented in that book and provides additional
supporting evidence of the effectiveness of employee empowerment in the form of case studies
from ten companies with which the author has worked; this documentation is far superior to that
which is presented in the book. Compelling logical analysis is also used as support for the
author's thesis.

Shipper, F. & Manz, C.C. (1992). Employee self-management without formally designated
teams: An
alternative road to empowerment. Organizational Dynamics, 21-3, p. 48.
Type: Journal article. Medium usefulness.
Audience: Managers, change agents.
The authors provide a broad review of how employee self-management works at W.L. Gore
and Associates. The organizational culture of Gore is discussed in depth. Gore has taken
employee empowerment to an extreme degree. The authors try to organize Gore's philosophy
into themes which can be applied elsewhere, however the article reads like a public relations
piece for the company. The article does provide a perspective of what can go right when
employee empowerment is effectively implemented. It is clear, however, that this system is not
for everyone.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,
measurement, and
validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38-5, p. 1442.
Type: Journal article. High usefulness.
Audience: researchers.
The author designed an instrument designed to measure psychological empowerment felt by
employees. A review of literature is provided which coincides with much of my own research.
Spreitzer offers this definition: "psychological empowerment is defined as a motivational
construct manifested in four cognitions: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact.
Together these four cognitions reflect an active, rather than a passive, orientation toward a work
role. . . .The four dimensions are argued to combine additively to create an overall construct of
psychological empowerment. In other words, the lack of any single dimension will deflate,
though not completely eliminate, the overall degree of felt empowerment." This additive
construct is distinct from Bowen & Lawler 's (1995) construct which is multiplicative, indicating
that the absence of any one of their four elements (power, information, knowledge, and rewards)
will completely eliminate empowerment.
Spreitzer makes several assumptions in her research which are very useful, these include:
"First, empowerment is not an enduring personality trait generalizable across situations, but
rather, a set of cognitions shaped by a work environment. . . . Second, empowerment is a
continuous variable; people can be viewed as more or less empowered, rather than empowered or
not empowered. Third, empowerment is not a global construct generalizable across different life
situations and roles but rather, specific to the work domain." I am completely in agreement with
these assumptions. I believe it is a lack of understanding of the second one which causes many
so called "empowerment programs" in organizations to fail.
Spreitzer goes on to check the validity of the instrument she created through combining and
refining previous instruments which measured the dimensions noted above. She reports, "both
internal consistency and the test-retest reliability are established for the empowerment scale
items." There were some results which did not confirm what was expected, yet support for
several hypothesises was provided at the significant level. The author notes, "A more powerful
test of the full empowerment model would be to tie empowerment to certain organizational
manipulations in order to better explain the degree to which situational changes can produce
motivational changes in employees."
The article presents the results of measurements in near ideal format. The author uses
standard statistical analysis and points out the shortcomings in the research method. The article
is doubly useful because it presents results from replicable research and because it identifies the
sources of potential error.

Spreitzer, G.M. & Quinn, R.E. (1996). Empowering middle managers to be transformational
leaders. Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 32- 3, p.237.
Type: Journal article. High usefulness.
Audience: Researchers, CEOs and managers.
Report of a field study conducted with middle managers at Ford who attended a Leadership
Education and Development training session which sought to develop middle managers into
transformational leaders. While the findings are not generalizable due to the homogeneity of the
sample (80% white men, aged 40 to 50, who work for Ford), there were some findings which
were not expected and are of interest.
The most transformational middle managers (as measured by the type of change process they
initiated in a six month interval) were not the ones on the promotion fast track. Rather, they
tended to be the plateaued managers. "The study indicates that both individual characteristics and
the organizational context influence the propensity of middle managers to embrace
transformational change", through empowerment. The individual characteristics cited include
self-esteem and affect about work. Those with highest self-esteem and most positive affect
about work were most likely to feel empowered to effect transformational change.
The article is written such that the research could be replicated, although the likelihood of
achieving the same results is doubtful because of the homogeneity of the sample. This potential
source of error was well reported in the article. The authors do not attempt to apply the
information beyond the organization from which it was gathered, however, as noted above, there
may be some generalizable results from this study.

Thorlakson, A.J.H. & Murray, R.P. (1996). An empirical study of empowerment in the
workplace. Group &
Organization Management, 21-1, p.67.
Type: Journal article. High usefulness.
Audience: researchers, OD consultants.
A study which "evaluates the effect of a controlled introduction of empowerment, with
reference to power, managerial functions, leadership styles, and employee motivation." An
excellent study design which used a study group who was being empowered and a control group
who was not. However, apparently due to an organizational downsizing effort in the middle of
the study, "Results provided minimal support for the positive influence of empowerment." The
null hypothesis that empowered workers would have no difference in how they viewed their
situation than non-empowered workers was not rejected.
The article provides a good review of literature related to power, management and leadership,
and employee motivation. A balanced view of the concept of empowerment is provided, that is,
while it is clear that the researchers wanted to demonstrate positive effects of employee
empowerment they did relate references to prior writings critical of empowerment, and they did
decide to publish a study where the expected results were not achieved. The authors state, "The
outcome of this study may also serve as a case example of an ineffective way to implement
empowerment."

Thomas, K.W. & Velthouse, B.A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An

"interpretive" model of
intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15-4, p. 666.
Type: Journal article. High usefulness.
Audience: Researchers.
Thomas and Velthouse provide a great deal of useful information, including a definition of
empowerment. Some definitions which will help to understand the authors' perspective include,
"intrinsic task motivation involves positively valued experiences that individuals derive directly
from a task. . . .Task assessments are presumed to be the proximal cause of intrinsic task
motivation and satisfaction. . . .task refers to a set of activities directed toward a purpose." (p.
668) So, when a person does a set of activities (read work) he or she assesses the task at hand
and decides if it is motivating and satisfactory. Over the course of time the individual
generalizes these individual task assessments into an overall perspective of this type of work. If
the intrinsic task motivation is present and is supported by management, that person becomes
empowered.
This comprehensive theoretical article seeks to provide a description of the cognitive elements
which comprise intrinsic motivation. An excellent literature review on topics ranging from
leadership style to individual choice to globalization of understanding is provided. Not only do
the authors extrapolate from past writings of a number of theorists, but they also provide
empirical support. The authors note the benefits of their new model, and implications for
implementation of employee empowerment are noted. That is, management can change the
environment to make completion of the tasks rewarding intrinsically, or management can work
to help the employee perceive his or her contribution as valuable.
What Thomas and Velthouse have provided is a theoretical framework within which
empowerment and its proximate causes can be understood. They provide too few examples to
make the work accessible to most people. However, they provide theoretical foundations for
some of the reasoning within the apprenticeship model. In the apprenticeship system,
inexperienced workers are expected to make errors—this is viewed as part of the learning
process rather than an indication of future performance. The empowering manager will explain
the value of the error in terms of the learning experience it provided and in terms of the value of
breaking habits and taking risks.

Ward, B. (1996). How to empower. Canadian Manager, 21-4, p. 20.

Type: magazine article. High usefulness.
Audience: managers.
The author uses simplified tenets of situational leadership to describe the stages an employee
must go through while becoming empowered and the appropriate managerial style to address
employee needs at each stage. Ward also uses Stephen Covey's "idea of an 'agreement' between
manager and employee which clarifies the 'terms' under which the employee is empowered. The
author uses logical analysis and the weight of what another author has proposed to support his
thesis. Few writers provide any perspective that empowerment is a process and that workers
should not be given authority before they are ready to properly exercise it. Because Ward does, I
tend to overlook his lack of references beyond Covey and have used some of the information he
has provided.
Ward notes the importance of training and the changes to the manager's role, "The objective is
to keep giving employees responsibilities which move them along the capability continuum,
eventually reaching 'fully capable of the task'. Naturally, the manager must be careful to keep
adjusting his or her leadership style as the employee becomes more capable." The assignment of
responsibilities which move the employee on the continuum is a form of training not usually
thought of as such. Resource availability is also noted as important, "Resources include items
such as funding, access to support staff, or experts who have knowledge on which the employee
can draw." Ward also makes note of an important tenet of situational leadership, "The leadership
style does not have to be the same throughout—it can change on each component of the task."
That is, if the employee is skilled in one aspect of a project that aspect can be delegated to him or
her, however if the employee lacks skill in another component a different, more directive,
leadership style is called for. The author goes on to provide an example of this.
Zimmerman, M.A. (1990). Taking aim on empowerment research: On the distinction between
individual and
psychological conceptions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18-1, p. 169.
Type: Journal article. Medium usefulness.
Audience: Researchers, social scientists.
While this article is from outside the management field, it does provide some useful
conceptions which help in understanding empowerment. The author argues that the individual
perspective of empowerment is too limited. The article, which introduces a series of articles on
this topic, favors a psychological perspective of empowerment. This perspective includes the
context within which the individual makes decisions and acts out his or her empowerment.
This article is primarily a literature review and seeks to synthesize the articles which follow
into a coherent whole using logical analysis. Because the perspective is outside the field of my
thesis, I have taken only that which seems applicable. Namely, the definition of empowerment
and the perspective that empowerment must pervade the organization's culture in order to be
effective.

Appendix
A. A Retail Example of the Apprenticeship Model
An empowered organization will recognize the contribution of all employees and
will work to develop each to his or her full capability. An empowered organization
will recognize that competency in one area does not indicate competence in
another area; the effort of every employee has an impact on the success of the
entire organization and all work is valued. That is, the effectiveness of the store
depends upon properly displayed merchandise, appropriate acceptance of returned
goods, and clean toilets.
However, the customer service desk manager may not know how to properly
clean toilets or how to display merchandise, the janitor may not know how to accept
returns or display merchandise, and the department manager may not know how to
accept returns or clean toilets. It is conceivable that an apprentice in one area of
competence will be a journeyperson in another, and that as a journeyperson he or
she will mentor an apprentice in that area. It is conceivable that a pair of
employees will mentor each other across several competencies.
An example will make these concepts clearer. This example is provided not as a
case study, but rather to more clearly articulate the concepts under consideration.
Imagine a department store where employee skill levels are ranked either as
apprentice, journeyperson, or master. Please refer to the chart below for each of
five employee's position, and skill level in each of four competency areas:

COMPETENCY AREAS
 employee merchandise merchandis employee
position title registers
name display e codes scheduling

customer service
Smith master journey master journey
desk manager

assistant store
Jones journey master journey master
manager

apprentic
Samson hardware clerk apprentice journey apprentice
e

Kirkwood ladies wear clerk journey journey apprentice apprentice

Bhatia crafts manager master apprentice apprentice journey

In the above example it would be expected that Smith would mentor Jones in the operation of
the registers and in the codes associated with merchandise, Jones would mentor Smith in
merchandise display techniques and employee scheduling. This is clear because each is a master
in some areas and a journeyperson in others. If we carry this concept of more experienced
people providing training and mentoring to less experienced people within a competency area,
we would assume Smith and Kirkwood share responsibility for training Samson and Bhatia on
merchandise display. That Jones and Kirkwood mentor Samson on the registers, and are in turn
mentored by Smith and Bhatia, and so forth.

B. Other Models of Apprenticeship

The apprenticeship system is paralleled in the field of education and in the
management theory of situational leadership. Just as there is a hierarchy in the
levels of the trades (apprentice, journeyperson, master) the field of higher
education has its own hierarchy:

• Associates--have an introduction to the field of study and are expected to be

competent assistants or workers in that field.
• Bachelors--have a deeper and broader understanding of the field of study;
are able to work independently in that field.
• Masters--have a greater theoretical understanding of the subject; have
developed expertise in a specific area; are able to teach the subject.
• Doctorate--have a broad theoretical understanding of the entire subject; have
developed original research or thought in one or more areas; are considered
to be experts in the subject.
Situational Leadership (Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Zigarmi, 1985) seeks to identify
the employee's knowledge, skills, and motivation level for each set of tasks he or
she performs on the job. The manager/leader then provides the correct
combination of direction and motivation to respond to the employee's needs:
• Directing (or telling)--is the leader's response to an employee who has little or
no skills or knowledge of the task and is highly motivated. The employee's
motivation will not be significantly impacted by the lack of input they have
because they are still learning the ropes.
• Coaching (or selling)--is the leader's response to an employee who still lacks
skills or knowledge and yet has lost some motivation. This technique seeks
input from the employee as a motivator, yet still provides the opportunity for
the manager/leader to provide needed direction and to increase the
employee's knowledge.
• Supporting--is the appropriate leader response to an employee who has
developed knowledge and skills, yet is still experiencing motivation
problems. The manager/leader seeks opportunities to praise the good work
effort of the employee and provide positive feedback as a motivator.
• Delegating--is the highest step in this hierarchy, the highly skilled employee
who provides their own motivation is appropriately supervised through
delegation. It becomes the employee's responsibility to seek out the
manager/leader when problems are encountered.