1

Your topic: HR/Business, the advantages and disadvantages of employee empowerment

Your topic's description: the dissertation MUST be MASTERS level ! 1st class with 100% free
plagiarismreport. Referencing style HARVARD, as I explained to you I have the Annotated Outline (pls
see attached ) the writer must go along these points as well as I will complete my research findings by the
end of the week so this will need to be put against the literature review too should you have any questions
pls let me know, see attachments
Your desired style of citation: NON SPECIFIC
Your educational level: Guaranteed First Class
Referencing Style: NON SPECIFIC
Number of page: 63
Words 15750

Advantages & Disadvantages of Employee Empowerment

[Writer Name]
[Institute Name]

Contents
1 Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 6
2 Chapter One Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Definition of empowerment ................................................................................................................ 7
2.2 Theories, models ................................................................................................................................. 8
2.3 Aims of the dissertation .................................................................................................................... 10
2.4 Research questions ............................................................................................................................ 11
2.5 Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 12
2.6 Scope and limitations ........................................................................................................................ 14
3 Chapter Two Literature review ............................................................................................................. 15
3.1 Employee involvement ..................................................................................................................... 15
3.2 Participative management ................................................................................................................. 20
3.3 Benefits of empowerment ................................................................................................................. 21
3.4 Employee involvement programs ..................................................................................................... 22
3.5 Individual differences ....................................................................................................................... 25
3.6 Processes, theories and seizing competitive advantage .................................................................... 25
3.7 Cultural relativity of empowerment (UK & Hungary) - Critical issues and challenges ................... 29
3.8 Musings of the past - Organisational structure & need of hierarchy ................................................ 31
3.9 Carrying out todays tasks with yesterdays tools and polices.......................................................... 33
3.10 Old habits die hard Traditional reasons ..................................................................................... 33
3.11Comfortably numb organisations The role of the management .................................................... 34
3.12 The real value of vision................................................................................................................... 35
3.13 The importance of clear communication......................................................................................... 35
3.14 Involvement vs. satisfaction ............................................................................................................ 36
3.15 Sharing of information .................................................................................................................... 37
3.16 Leadership & delegation (Servant leadership vs. trust) .................................................................. 39
3.17 Setting of boundaries ...................................................................................................................... 40
3.18 Relative perspective of power (Power vs. TQM)............................................................................ 40
3.19 Team performance .......................................................................................................................... 42
3.20 Rewards........................................................................................................................................... 42
3.21 Agency theory ethical implications.............................................................................................. 44

4
3.22 Meaningfulness sustainability education knowledge satisfaction ....................................... 45
3.23 Competence..................................................................................................................................... 46
3.24 Employee retention - productivity efficiency .............................................................................. 47
3.25 Effects of the economy on employee empowerment ...................................................................... 48
3.26 Overcoming doubt (author) ............................................................................................................. 49
3.27 Can true democracy exist in a workplace? ...................................................................................... 50
3.28 Perception gaps ............................................................................................................................... 50
4 Chapter Three Methodology ................................................................................................................. 53
4.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 53
4.2 Source of data ................................................................................................................................... 54
4.3 Data collection .................................................................................................................................. 54
4.4 Ethics & confidentiality .................................................................................................................... 57
4.5 Quantitative / Qualitative Data ......................................................................................................... 57
5 Chapter Four Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 63
5.1 Study participants.............................................................................................................................. 63
5.2 Findings & analysis of data ............................................................................................................... 63
5.3 Summary An assessment of what really matters............................................................................ 68
6 Chapter Five Conclusion....................................................................................................................... 69
6.1 Limitations of the study .................................................................................................................... 69
6.2 Practical implications ........................................................................................................................ 70
6.3 Pearls and perils of employee empowerment: Summary .................................................................. 71
6.4 A new agenda for the future .............................................................................................................. 73
7 References ................................................................................................................................................ 75
8 Appendices............................................................................................................................................... 87
8.1 Questionnaire 1 for Employees ......................................................................................................... 87
8.2 Questionnaire 2 for leaders & managers ........................................................................................... 88
8.3 Questionnaire 3 Interview Questionnaire.......................................................................................... 89
8.4 List of Figures & Tables ................................................................................................................... 90
9 References ................................................................................................................................................ 91
9.1 Presentational Requirements ............................................................................................................. 91

1 Abstract
This research observes the issue of employee empowerment and looks to present a model for its
implementation which focusesrequirements known in the study but inadequatelyfocused
before.Empowerment is described as a procedure whereby:a culture of empowerment is
improved, experience is shared, ability is expanded, and support and resources are
presented.Each of the elements of empowerment information sharing, culture, development of
ability, provision of resource, and supportis assessed in detail as concentrated in the
research.Theoretical sources of employee empowerment are observed in an important and wide
literature review.

1.1 Acknowledgements
Writing this thesis has been very demanding, challenging and time-consuming, but also
remarkable, informative and above all fun. Nevertheless, it feels great to have finally completed
my masters thesis and I am now looking forward to a nice relaxing period for recovering. It has
been both advantages and drawbacks with the limited amount of earlier research conducted
within this area, even though I faced serious troubles but sometimes the advantages of this
research luckily were in my favour and have made this research both challenging and interesting.
I would like to thank my supervisor -------, professor at -------University, who has been great in
guiding my through this thesis, helping me through the difficulties I faced during the entire
process and motivated me to work hard. Furthermore, I would like to thank all my friends, for
their contributions by sharing their perceptions and opinions with me. Above all I would like to
thank my family and teachers that provided me with valuable and constructive criticism.

Advantages & Disadvantages of Employee Empowerment

2 Chapter One Introduction

2.1 Definition of empowerment
Conger and Kanungo (1988, 471-480) defined empowerment as the motivational concept
of self-efficacy. Brossoit (2000, 26-28) defined empowerment as a motivational construct based
on specific cognitions employees make about their work environments. Thomas and Velthouse
(1990) argued that empowerment is composed of several facets unable to be captured solely by
the concept of self-efficacy. They believed that broadly defined, empowerment is increased
intrinsic task motivation manifested in a set of four cognitions (or task assessments) reflecting an
individuals orientation to his or her work role (Huntington, 1993, 43-45). The four components
identified by Thomas and Velthouse are: (a) impact, which represents performance-outcome
expectancy; (b) competence, an effort-performance expectancy, which is synonymous with selfefficacy in Conger and Kanungo (1988, 83-86); (c) meaningfulness, an anticipated outcome
attraction or aversion; and (d) choice, the perceived opportunity for a decision based on these
variables. These four components or cognitions will be discussed later in detail. It has also been
argued that the construct of empowerment synthesizes several definitions. These include
increased involvement of employee goal setting, decision-making, motivation techniques, and
enabling employees to work in a participative environment (Osborne, 2002; Spreitzer, 1995,
1996).
There are two views of empowerment. The first one is proposed by Robbins defining the
concept of empowerment as a participative management, delegation, and the granting power to
lower-level employees to make and enforce decisions (2005). This definition is consistent with
a functional view of empowerment. According to this view, a manager intervenes to delegate

more of his or her power to employees, to reduce direct supervision and to provide overall
vision. The employees enjoy more flexible job descriptions. This framework presupposes that the
amount of power in the organization is fixed; hence the management can simply distribute its
power throughout the hierarchy to empower the employees. This way, an organization could
achieve the goals of the employee empowerment creating better business outcomes, happier and
motivated workforce. The second view of empowerment is proposed by Thomas and Velthouse
(1990). They define it in term of cognitive motivational concept. It is mainly based on the
following five tasks related cognitions: (1) choice fullness, i.e., the employees feelings of
choosing what work activity they ought to put their effort on, (2) meaning, i.e., the employees
determination of the intrinsic value of a particular work role, (3) competence, i.e., self-belief in
the employees ability to fully perform specific tasks, (4) self-determination, i.e., the employees
belief that he or she has control over decisions about work-related activities and behaviours, (5)
impact, i.e., the employees belief that his or her actions can make a difference in the
organization strategies, tactics, and outcomes.

2.2 Theories, models

The plan of employee empowerment is an idea that is reasonably unused when equated
alongwith the size of the worker populace. As well, empowerment may simply be
misapprehended, focusing on a companysutilisation of the principle. Employee empowerment is
intimatelyassociated to employee participation, anidea that is simply realized and more uniform
all the way throughcompanies. Employee involvement has been described as a participative
process to use the entire capacity of workers, designated to encourage employee commitment to

organizational success (Lawler & Mohram, 1992, 232-234). The process comes about by giving
employees a combination of information, influence, and/or incentives.
Employee involvement models primarily deal with decision making. Decision making
can either be of a participative nature or of a delegate nature. Employee participation can be
defined as joint decision making between superior and subordinates. Delegation is the process
whereby the manager transfers decision making autonomy to a subordinate. Employees can
either have partial control (participation) or complete control (delegation)
Lowin (1968) describedtake part decision making as a condition in which decisions as to
actions are reachedthrough the extremely individuals who are to accomplish those
determinations. His models effectuality was dependent onvarious features, comprising of the
attitudes and personalities of those needed; the amount, significance, and visibility of the cases;
and the measure of the participation procedure. Locke and Schweiger focused their model on the
involvement procedure. The outcome of the model was a gain of productivity ensuingas of
cognitive impressions of participation, which comprise of a improverealization of the work and
extra direct statement and motivational consequences of participation, which includes increased
faith, peer pressure, and arrogance in ones work (Locke & Schweiger, 1979, 48-49).
Saskins model focused on the psychological objective of the employee involvement.
There are four broadkinds of participation, comprising of goal setting, deciding, trouble solving,
and alteration. The several kinds of participation may generate psychological and cognitive
effects for example psychological ownership, expansion of shared values and norms, and data
flow.

10

2.3 Aims of the dissertation

Today every aspect of competitiveness, which could mean a successful business strategy,
is imitable: product technology production - costs, sales marketing. The only thing that has
remained un-replicable to a large degree is the human capital and an organizations culture.
Maintaining the balance between the expectations of the human capital with that of the
organisations culture allows companies to remain competitive in an ever changing market place.
In the early 1980s the term empowerment referred to a form of employee involvement
therefore the management concept was put forward that suggested that by increasing an
employees decision making powers it could lead to an increase in organizational performance.
Wilkinson (1998, p.40-56) explains that this concept was termed employee empowerment
which appeared to be able to provide organisations that were stifled with bureaucracy a new
solution, reinvigorating employees and organisations alike.The aims of the Dissertation are to
investigate the depth of empowerment of individuals within three organizations operating within
the same market through different levels of each organization and will consider in respect to each
organization the following:
1.

How are human resources developed in each company and whether this compares with

todays best practices?

2.

How do they manage both the explicit and tacit knowledge of their employees?

3.

How receptive are employees in both local and international markets towards employee

empowerment?
4.

What are the recruitment and retention strategies of each organization and how do they

compare with current best practice?

11

5.

Are the employees in each of the organization responsive to knowledge transfer?

6.

Do these organizations truly benefit from employee empowerment as acknowledged in

contemporary business literature?

7.

Identify the possible associations between employee empowerment and organizational

success.
8.

Identify the benefits (pearls) and dangers (perils) of employee empowerment.

2.4 Research questions

Within the framework of research conducted in the literature review, several issues are
grounded in theoretical and practical analyses. Certain relationships have been identified in
earlier research in service industries and small manufacturing environments; however, few
studies have examined the employee interactions in a large manufacturing setting and across
various job-types.
1. How does the level of employee involvement affect the level of employee empowerment?
2. How does the level of employee empowerment affect the level of employee satisfaction?
3. How does job-typehourly, salary non-management, engineers, and managersaffect the
respective components or employee involvement, employee empowerment, and employee
satisfaction?
4. How does the level of meaning in an employees job affect the level of employee
empowerment?

12

5. How does the level of choice in an employees job affect the level of employee
empowerment?
6. How does the level of impact in an employees job affect the level of employee
empowerment?
2.5 Methodology
The author plans to build the Dissertation as a case study, therefore the research will
primarily focus on literature review, a substantial part will be a combination of both
documentary and empirical research investigating and studying the depth of employee
empowerment through the three organizations selected. The author will not only have access to
data, information, statistics, and subsequent figures at her disposal but will also be provided with
available records from the organisations that will enable and enhance the research process.
Besides the narrative approach the author intends to carry out telephone based and
personal interviews, as well as supplying questionnaires to the organisations. Questionnaires are
currently in draft stage, and are being prepared for both employees and leaders of the three
organisations in question that operate within the same steel fabrication industry. Through the
process of triangulation the method of using both qualitative and quantitative research methods
the author believes that will be able to gain a better insight and will be able to answer the
research questions in more depth. The integration of different methods makes it possible to
weave back and forth between different levels of meaning (Fitzpatrick et al, 1998, p.28)
Approximately 150 employees will be asked to fill out the questionnaires across the three
organisations; the top management will be interviewed personally by the author (Wanberg, &
Banas, 2000, 142-145). It is envisaged that through the questionnaires and interviews the author

13

will be able to acquire accurate information on the employee employer relationship as well as
having the different aspects of both blue collar and white collar employees viewpoints. Robson
(1993) suggests that a case study has a significant ability to generate answers to the question
why, what, how... (Robson, 1993 cited by Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2000, p.94)
The author believes that a well-structured case study will give the work a reality feeling
and will enable her to explore the various levels of the diverse research questions, however extra
care will be taken for the objectivity of the research as this is one of the greatest pitfalls of case
studies. White (2002) notes that the analysis and interpretation need to be handled carefully and
in a very logical, systematically way (White, 2002) however, when carried out effectively, this
also extensively strengthens the presented academic argument. In order to ensure ethical
standards the author will obtain approval from the appropriate officials within each organisation.
An initial universal access was already received from the leaders of the organisations. Wells
(1994) warns that the closer the research is to actual individuals in real-world settings, the more
likely are ethical questions to be raised.(Wells, 1994 cited by Saunders et al 2000, p.131) The
authors research is aware of sensitive issues, will handle them confidentially and objectively,
during face to- face interviews minutes will be taken that will be signed off by the participants
in order to assure credibility, personal telephone interviews will be recorded and participants will
be requested to give verbal consent. A formal written advice will be issued to those employees
who have been selected for the questionnaire advising them on the purpose and intent of the
questionnaire to cover any arising ethical issues.

14

2.6 Scope and limitations

The study was conducted using secondary data from 3 companies. The companies are
involved in the manufacture of technical products (Marchington, 1993, 88-95). Job-types were
input by employees during the exercise of the survey instrument, and these categories of jobtypes were used to compare and contrast various opinions regarding employee involvement,
employee empowerment, and employee satisfaction. The survey was conducted over a relatively
short period of time in mid-2003 and used two different media: (a) company intranet and (b)
paperand- pencil. From this, several limitations exist. Any research utilizing statistical methods
has inherent limitations: random sampling errors, systematic error, non-response error, and
response bias (Cooper & Schindler, 2003, 320-325). While every employee was encouraged to
complete the survey, there was not a full participation rate. This survey is one point in time and
was not compared in a longitudinal manner. Effects on employee perceptions could be more
pronounced in a single survey time period.
The companies selected for this analysis resides in a business environment which is not
as diversified as many other companies; economic conditions would have a more predominant
affecteither positive or negativedue to the nature of the business. The research performed
using these data in the primary analysis made by Company is shared and compared to other
companies. Despite these limitations, through the research of other studies conducted on these
topics it appears there may be portability in the information to be gained from this study,
although that association is not within the scope of this analysis.

15

3 Chapter Two Literature review

3.1 Employee involvement
Employee empowerment is not a newly management ideaas it has been carried for in
excess of a period. Employee empowerment which needs employee engagement is a composite
management object that over 50 years of research has demonstrated, when applied the right
order, may be effectual in mendingexecution, job satisfaction and productivity. Several studies
have described empowerment as inherentwork motivation (e.g., Conger & Kanungo, 1988;
Thomas & Velthouse, 1990) or motivation pondering the person-atmosphere fit,
conversely,described empowerment as the procedure of decentralizing deciding in a company,
by means of which managers provide extraprudence and autonomy to the vanguard employees.
Even though empowerment has been described in several ways, various authors correspond that
the core factor of empowerment needsproviding employee discretion (or latitude)
throughoutconfidentwork associated activities devoid of failing the duties that come jointly with
it (Bowen and Lawler, 1992; Conger and Kanungo, 1988). Starting utilisation of the conception
of empowerment attended revolve regarding cases of ability and management where
empowerment was believed a management profanely employed to prompt employees,
throughassigning or sharing authority with them. Research of the utilisation of empowerment in
service sector companiesconverselyexposes an amount of various shapes of empowerment being
utilised in practice (for example, Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1992, 1995).
Empowerment is an idea that has been regarding as the dawn of human race. Conversely,
the role it brings incompanies and it does pursueagreement and American business execution has
just been developing for the previous 50 years (R. Ripley & M. Ripley, 1992).

16

In the starting 1950s, Dr. Joseph M. Juran and Dr. W. Edwards Deming of the
U.S.travelled Japan to mentor and coach leaders, stressingcharacter and working on the brains of
every worker, not only those individual at the top of the company. Effectual teamwork
empowerment and permanent improvement were raised by Quality Circles. Creating the
character in, sooner thanvisit the products afterwards, was a core value alteration. The call for
Juran and Deming to assist the Japanese was started as of the power the American economy held.
So as for Japan to be militant, either the ordinary American business practice of mass
construction and contest focused on pricing might be carried out or further
aggressivebenefitshould be detected. The Japanese reply was to discover some other way to
contend, compete on excellence (Womack, Jones & Roos, 1991).
In the American self-propelled manufacturing plants, fabrication workers forced
themselves to finish as several products as probable (Zimmerman, 1985, 117-120). Character
was of no issue, asevery trouble would be amended when the automobile rattled down of the
assembly line. The assembly line justceased when the supervisor discovered a sufficient reason,
which was extremely rare. No employee on the production line had the confidence to break the
line, and severalvenerated that they would lose their employment if they did (Womack et al.,
1991).
The Japanese automotive producersemployedsame techniques to manufacture cars. One
of the important differences, conversely, was the capability for some worker on the floor to stop
the production line at some time with no concern of punishment (Herrenkohl, Judson, & Heffner,
1999, 373-375). The plan was that when a trouble was founded in the product being assembled,
the rebelliouspart of the production would be studied and determined at the source so
consecutive automobiles would not have the similar trouble. This meant that when the car

17

spieled off the production line, it was prepare to go into the marketplace. No retread would be
needed. The employees on the floor were authorised to make sure that the completed product met
the measures of character (Womack et al., 1991 123-139).
Through the 1960s, some other differentiationclassifiedJapanese and U.S. businesses.
Japan prompted an extra careful use of human capital and a more belligerentbase on studying at
school and on the employment (Backeberg, 1995, 10-12). Japanese employees turned out to be a
part of the company. They were regarded fixed assets, and investments in aiming were written
down on the workers. The Japanese might not compete along with the United States in the
expansion of important innovations. Rather, excellent trust was provided to the employees for
the development of freshplans. Sooner thanuse their restricted resources on freshconceptions,
they viedthrough their power to rapidlyexpandfresh applications to others inventions (R.
Ripley & M. Ripley, 1992)
Through the 1970s the United States was missing marketplace share in several industries
and assembly lines in spite of victor productivity (Shay, 2004 42-45). Through at present the
Japanese had turned their failings into intensities. Through engaging quality, worker
empowerment, kind, customization, gadget, and speed in acquiring to the marketplace, they not
just expanded the terms of competitor beyond efficiencyexcept as welldiscovered newly routes to
productions as they were created (Bandura, 1989, 191-215). Mounting proofstarted to propose
that productivity, conversely, and superiority, employee empowerment, customisation, variety,
speedy change and convenience, on the other, were not justfriendlyexcept as
wellactuallyrewarding competitive banners (R. Ripley & M. Ripley, 1992).

18

On the issue of quality in the American business world, the 1980s inaugurated a sense of
a newlyresurgence and awakening. Juran and Deming were brought back the vanguard to
instructfew organisations in the U.S. what they had instructed Japanese organisationsperiods
before. The training included of making every management employee qualified and aware of
individuals and procedures that made quality occur (R. Ripley & M. Ripley, 1992).
The 1990s started to demonstrate a marriage of every new and old economy. Newly
companiescaught the advantagesas of mass production (United States) and lean product (Japan).
Companiesattempted for productivity and volume also as variety, quality, convenience,
customization, and timeliness. The most detectable difference in these newly innovative
companies was that artisans and mass product workers were substituted through empowered
interdependent work teams. This newly, more pliablecompanyappropriated the businesses in the
U.S. to carry out benefit of the inherent possible of innovative compounding of machines and
humans. To sum up, the U.S. set the standards in the old economy. The U.S. now labours on
towards the new economy, however, dragging the dead weight of the past industrial command
and control successes along behind (R. Ripley & M. Ripley, 1992 78-84)
Understanding the processes of employee involvement, the perceptions of employee
empowerment, the perception of employee satisfaction, employee productivity, and the intent of
an employee to remain at the company has gained the attention of a great number of researchers
and employers (Bacharach, & Lawler, 1980, 5-6). Further, the relationships between these
concepts are worth examining as a means to provide causal effect or antecedents to behaviours
which drive either positive or negative conditions in the workplace (Gill, & Johnson, 1997, 6465). Since these topics involve emotional and behavioural conditions, the research is not exact in
its definition or conclusion but similar trends do become visible. Involvement entails the

19

employee perception of his importance or identity within his organization (Bandura, 1982, 1986;
Stryker, 1986). Non-executive and non-management employees have expertise that through
involvement processes can be exploited. Employee involvement is a combination of several
initiatives, and is considered in many analyses a precursor to empowerment (Lashley, 1999;
Lawler, 1986). Total Quality Management is one such initiative that spans across several
employee involvement processes (Bowen & Lawler, 1992, 31-39). A linear, causal relationship
has also been examined between employee involvement processes and employee empowerment
cognitions (Daily & Bishop, 2003, Spreitzer, 1996). Empowered employees are typically
described as self-motivated and committed individuals who feel responsible to perform at high
levels of effort. Through analyses it is also concluded that empowered employees are viewed by
their leaders as valuable assets (Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997 69-78). Empowerment has also been
associated with an emphasis on quality in the work performed by employees (Howard & Foster,
1999). Empowerment has been identified as a sense of intrinsic motivation, and goes beyond
merely self-efficacy (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995). When distinctions are made,
empowerment is considered to be distinct from employee involvement; as in the difference
between a cognitive result and a process (Corrigan, 1998, 98-102).
Over the past several years, companies in every market, including manufacturing, have
made serious attempts to implement employee involvement initiatives (Katzell, & Yankelovich,
1975). Bluestein and Bluestein (1992, 29-30) indicated that this process is even becoming
prevalent in unionized environments, involving the collaboration of company management and
union representatives. This unionmanagement cooperation was also described by CohenRosenthal and Burton (1994, 643-645). The perception of how the employee views his
importance or identity within the organization has also been investigated (Bandura, 1982, 1986;

20

Beach & Mitchell, 1990; Schlenker, 1985; Stryker, 1986). The concept of the four motivation
inducement systems reward, task, managerial, and socialis another view of the processes by
with employees gain involvement and satisfaction in the work environment (Leonard, Beauvais,
& Scholl, 1995, as cited by OConnell, 1999).
Essentially, the premise by which employee involvement programs are incorporated
involves the concept that non-executive, non-management employees possess invaluable
understanding and knowledge important to the company (Dierkes, Berthoin & Nonaka, 2003,
359-381). Through employee involvement, these resources are released through the process of
incorporating practices that both require and reward employee involvement. Employee
involvement is an amalgam of many concepts and has developed out of many predecessors.
Employee involvement processes do not always share the same methods, and can include
indirect and relatively modest scope techniques such as employee suggestion boxes and
employee opinion surveys (Applebaum, & Batt, 1992, 7-8). Other techniques or processes are
more direct and larger in scope.

3.2 Participative management

One such concept is participative management. Scarselletta (1999) identified several
facets of participatory management and employee involvement programs. In an attempt to
synthesize the programs, Scarselletta found several processes that share similarities in their
involvement techniques. The results of this analysis are described in Table 1. The concepts and
practices involved in the synthesis of Scarselletta (1999) are consistent with the analyses
performed by several researchers (Applebaum & Batt, 1992; Lawler & Mohrman, 1992;
Pasmore, Francis, Haldeman, & Shani, 1982). Further, while Scarselletta provides additional

21

categories for comparison, they remain consistent with the processes identified by Lawler
(1986): information, power, knowledge, and rewards.
When comparing with participative management, employee involvement appears to be a
broader concept. Coye and Belohlav (1995) credit Lawler (1986) with identifying the positive
nature of attributes within participative management approach and augmenting them into an
employee involvement organizational process. Coye and Belohlav indicated that the greatest
differentiator between traditional participative management and employee involvement is the
way in which participation is viewed. They also cited employee involvement as a function of the
four organizational processesinformation, knowledge, power, and rewardscompared to a
specific program segregated from other processes, as is the case of participative management
(Ashforth, 1989, 207-242).

3.3 Benefits of empowerment

Kim (2002) concluded that the participative management practices have a positive effect
on employees job satisfaction. It seems this fact encourages Kim to recommend that the
essential implication is that executive leaders and managers should become aware of the
importance of managers use of participative management, employees participation in strategic
planning processes, and the role of effective avenues of communication with supervisors. When
agencies implement leadership development programs or other training for managers and
supervisors, they should consider including participative management and employee
empowerment techniques as key components of the programs(Mashari, & Zairi, 2000, 10-12).

22

Sumukadas & Sawhney (2004) reported that employee involvement programs have
resulted in workforce agility specially the power sharing practices. Base on the literature reviews
and empiric studies; there are two kinds of benefits of empowerment. The first kind is the
tangible benefits such as: 1) it is much easier to find the best solution to a business problem, 2)
the diverse ideas are shared and implemented, 3) the decisions are made at lowest level of the
organization, 4) the workgroup is recognized for its efforts and performance, 5) the individual
have the opportunity to influence the goals of the workgroup, 6) the acquisition of new skills and
knowledge are encouraged and facilitated, 7) the organization structure becomes flattened and
less hierarchical, 8) the managers have more time to lead and not to micro-manage employees
activities, 9) this provides meaningful, measurable positive business impact (Bandura, 1977 191215).
The second kind is the intangible benefits of empowerment such as: 1) it allows
leveraging the collective strengths of all group members; 2) the group takes the ownership of the
statement of work and results, 3) it helps to create a culture of trust and collaboration, 4) it
enhances the individual self-esteem, 5) it improves the communication among the mangers and
the employees, 6) it provides a more enjoyable working environment (Bandura, 1986 69-78).

3.4 Employee involvement programs

Lawler and Mohrman (1992) performed an analysis to understand the incorporation of
employee involvement initiatives within three companies. Significant levels of participation were
found, with over 60 percent of employee surveyed indicating they were engaged in some process

23

of employee involvement. Of the four specific facets described by Lawler (1986), information
appeared to have the highest level of integration, with 76 percent indicating the company shared
information regarding its overall operating results (Belasco, & Stayer, 1994, 29-42). The figures
were reduced when sharing information about specific work units (54 percent), business plans
and goals (47 percent), and only 20 percent of the employees surveyed said they received
information about the performance of their competitors in relation to their company (Abbott,
2002, 333-339). Interestingly, only 6 percent indicated their companies were using quality
circles, and only 11 responded that their companies offered other forms of participation groups.
There was relatively low participation in training in group decision-making and problem solving
skills, leadership skills, and business acumen training, with only 6 percent of respondents
indicating these resources were available (Tabdora, 2000, 41-44).
Dimensions of participatory management and employee involvement programs
Organizational Structure
Lean Structures
Training
Group decision making/problem solving
Business skills and job skills
Quality/statistical techniques
Team building
Performance-based rewards

24

Profit sharing, Gain sharing, and ESOP

Skill-based pay and flexible benefits
All-salaried workforce
Participative structures and systems
Opinion/climate surveys
Quality circles and other participation groups
Union-management committees
Information sharing practices
Company and unit operating results
Open book management
Business plans
Competitor intelligence
Work redesign
Job enlargement and job enrichment
Semi-autonomous work teams
Employee security
Job security agreement

25

Lean Production systems

Just-in-time inventory management
Total quality philosophy

3.5 Individual differences

Employees are unique in their needs and concerns. Certain differences may exist due to
the length of years in the workforce, age and how age relates to needs for benefits (e.g.
retirement funding versus time off for vacation)(Ren, 2001, 210-215). Other needs are based
more on individual differences and preferences; one employee may enjoy being involved in
decisions and working within a team while another may prefer to work independently and
receive praise privately. To be successful in motivating employees to feel empowered and to
achieve effectiveness in their jobs, managers need to be attuned to these individual preferences.
Taking the time to understand individual employee needs can be an important first step in
creating a motivated and empowered workforce (Eskildsen, & Dahlgaard, 2000, 1081-1085).

3.6 Processes, theories and seizing competitive advantage

The main idea of employee empowerment handles with creating a business environment
within a company, where people are allowed to participate in the decision making process related
to topics that affect their jobs. It would be false to regard it as a temporary programme or
business tool (Bluedorn, 1982, 135-153). A leadership philosophy about how a company enables
their employees to interact with continuous improvement and the ongoing success of their work
organization (Senthil, Devadasan, Selladurai, and Balahandayutham, 2001, 680-685).

26

To put employee empowerment successfully into practice it is useful to follow the

process circle which is shown in figure.Every one of the company should take the time to
understand the full scope of this six sub-goals containing process, before developing and
deploying competent employee influences.

(1) (Bowen, & Lawler, 1992, 31-39)

As already mentioned the process of employee empowerment expresses six rudimentary goals
that should be passed successfully, during the planning, initiating and evaluating phase when a
company wants to expand and strengthen the workers empowerment (Shay, 2004). As the figure
demonstrates, all sub goals generate a closed circle with the additional output of continuous
improvement.

27

Define & Communicate: It is necessary that every member of the companyunderstands the
meaning of employee empowerment. A given definition to themshould help by understanding.
Set Goals & Strategies: An organizing framework at every level of the company,containing
requirement goals and strategies, helps employees to undertake anddefine their own efforts
Training: The employees should be trained to accomplish the new given tasks tomeet the
previous given requirement goals (Bowen, & Lawler, 1992, 31-39).
Adjust the Organization's Structure: The structure should be lean and with littlebureaucracy.
An environment for greater autonomy and freedom should bedeveloped.
Adjust the Organization's Systems: Items like planning; rewarding, promotingand training
should be adjusted to support the peoples empowerment (Bowen, & Lawler, 1995, 73-84).
Evaluate & Improve: The employees perceptions should be evaluated and theprocess of
empowerment should be improved.
As seen in the chapter before, the six sub-goals of the empowerment process are
linkedtogether to a closed circle. Around this circle there are additionally some input factors
withcritical information. To implement and evaluate the process of empowerment
successfullytheses input factors also have to be considered (Brief, & Aldag, 1981, 75-88).
Meaning of Empowerment: The employees shouldn't feel overcharged bydeveloping and
extending empowerment. Therefore they have to realize the goalsof continuous improvement and
advanced performance of the business company.
Payoffs: The benefits of empowerment have to be defined and clear. This gives the employees
an anchor for their own orientation.

28

Targets for Empowerment: everyone within the company can use these targets to aim specific
opportunities for empowering themselves and others (Burger, & Cooper, 1979, 381-385).
Strategies for Empowerment: There are always different alternatives for reaching the targets
for empowerment which individuals and organizations identify (Cappelli, & Sherer, 1988, 5670).
Controls of Empowerment: How they differ from traditional forms of controlling.
Roles and Functions: Everyone has to become competent with their new tasks and the meaning
and purpose of empowerment.

29

(2) (Bowen, & Lawler, 1992, 31-39)

They key to achieve empowerment for improved performance is, that every member of the
organization has a clear understanding of what they are trying to achieve and what they must do
to achieve this purpose (Conger, 1989, 470-480). This will be fulfilled when the six sub-goals of
the process are passed successfully and the input factors are considered carefully.

3.7 Cultural relativity of empowerment (UK & Hungary) - Critical issues and challenges
In social anthropology it is about agreed that the core of culture is organisedthrough
deeply implanted values, which are shared through the associates of broad (sub-) populaces
(Drenth and Groenendijk, 1998). The way computers are programmed in an analogy, values are
engrained in peopleunreservedly and insentience in starting childhood, similarly that software is
established on computers (Hofstede, 1991). Covering this analogy along with the scheduling of
computers, Hofstede (1991: 5) describes culture as the collective programming of the mind
which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another(Ellickson,
2002, 343-345). The theory of Hofstede on national cultures ensuedas of an international survey
carried on among 1967 and 1973 between the workers in the subsidiaries of IBM in 72 nations
(Hofstede, 1998). The investigation resulted in the recognition of four dimensions of national
cultures, which point to four basic problems every society has to solve in its own way:
inequality, togetherness, gender roles, and dealing with the unknown (Eisenberger, Rhoades, &
Cameron, 1999, 1026-1030). These were appointedseverally power distance, individualismcollectivism, masculinity-femininity and uncertainty avoidance(Cooper, & Schindler,
2001).

30

The middlesuggestion in the notion of empowerment in United Kingdom is that deciding

authority must be assigned to frontline employees, so as to facilitate them to replyinstantly to
customer calls for, troubles and requirements (Kaplan, & Norton, 2000,161-176). The business
assemble in Hungary is hierarchical and formal. Cross cultural management requirements to
adopt a stately approach and pay close care to status and hierarchy. Hungarians are extremely
individualistic and pleased their own achievements. They work extremely hard and will work
additional hours to finish a job to the better their capability. They like socializing along with
individuals as of work and do not distinguish their business and own lives as is performed in
several other societies (Cordery, Mueller, & Smith, 1991, 464-476).
The empowerment theory in Englandas wellsuggests radical modificationsassociating
organisational structure and the centralisation of authority and formalisation of procedures
(Kaplan, & Norton, 2000, 161-176). Especially, empowerment demands a planate or delivered
hierarchical structure along with some intermediate management and managerial layers so as to
permitassociations to turn out to be adaptive and flexible to speedyaltering atmospheric
situations. Newcomers to the Hungary management style mustcautiouslyanalyse the corporate
culture of particular organisationsas they possibly vary as of being hierarchical to rather
classless. Accordingly, employees will array as of feeling empowered to speak up in the
management procedure, to those who conceive it is mainly significant to merelyaccomplish the
instructions through their leadership (Wanberg, & Banas, 2000, 142-145).
The suggestion of the empowerment theory to substitute rigorous management of
employee behaviour by instructions, orders and policies with trust (Goldsmith et al., 1997) is as
welldoubtful to be occupied universally. In strong doubt avoiding nations similar to Hungary and
UK, the existence of several informal and formal policies and lawsmanaging the work

31

proceduremeets an emotional requirement of individual for order and structure (Hofstede,

1991).The abstractsuggestions of the empowerment policyhappen to fit extra in the cultural
circumstances of nations, like Hungary and England.

3.8 Musings of the past - Organisational structure & need of hierarchy

To accomplish its mission effectually, a business requirements to manageinside a
structure best fitted to its intentions (Collins, 1994, 26-30). Usually large businesses separate the
company up into functional regions. Organizational functions comprise of research and growth,
global supply (comprising of manufacturing), human resources (HR), finance, sales and
marketing and Information Systems (IS).
Inside some company there are probably to be various layers of authority. The amount of
levels depends on whether the business has a flat structure or hierarchical. A hierarchical
structure has several layers of management, all with a narrow span of management. Instructions
feed downwardlyas of one level of management to those underneath. Feedback approaches from
the lower levels uphill (Rosenthal, & Burton, 1993). The reporting methodas of the top of the
hierarchy to the backdrop is recognized as the chain of control. A hierarchical structure allows
tight management. It providesobvious choices for advancement and possibly diminishes stress
levels in each employee and manager (Kaplan, & Norton, 2001, 161-176). Everyone recognizes
their layer in the hierarchy. Conversely, communication may be a trouble in hierarchical
companies. Devoid of effectual management, it may carry out a long time for detail to refuse and
down the chain of authority. Staffs possibly not arecompletely empowered. Sooner than being
capable to utilize their first step, employees possibly requirelooking for approval for each work

32

as of higher levels of managements. This not just may cause delay except as well be defective for
employee spirit, cutting down their needs to work (Cohen, Ledford, & Spreitzer, 1996, 643-645).
A straight line structure is one where there are some layers of management. Every
manager has a broad span of management. This means a manager has duty for several
individuals or works. Relegation is important for works to be takeneffectually (Smeyers, 2001,
475-495). This structure provides employees extra duty for their work. Communication is also
quicker up and down the layers. This enables troubles to be solved more rapidly. The company
chart below demonstrates a typical hierarchical structure in anindustrialcompany. There are four
functional regions. The department of accounts has three layers of hierarchy: a manager, a
director and three assistants. The manager of accounts thus has a span of management of three,
as he or she immediatelycontrols three assistants (Fryer, 2001).

(3) (Smeyers, 2001, 475-495)

33

3.9 Carrying out todays tasks with yesterdays tools and polices
One of the most researched and studied regions of current management technique
comprises staff or employee empowerment which responsibility permits the employees to carry
on sovereignworks and adhere their choices, although the similar may call for a sure set of
guidelines, as well the subject of the subsequent paper. Severalinvestigations and studies have
discovered that employee empowerment leads to a completely nurturing atmosphere where the
employees maygrow, learn, enhance and improve their performance capabilities or
functioning.Employee empowerment as welloffers for producing an atmosphere of trust,
significance in the eyes of the workers, and as it raises the ability of the respective worker; the
similar as well leads to the production of a positive work atmosphericinside the organizational
establishment (Smeyers, 2001, 475-495).
In the diversestudies and researches of employee empowerment, for example one
accomplishedthrough Erickson et al, exposed that employee empowerment is said to happen
when the workers and management pursue aims of each own also as professional expansion for
their workers. For instance the senior leaders and managers inside the companiesmay help their
workers in enhancing their abilities, in turn raising their possible to completelyuse their abilities
(Freeman, 1978, 141-145).

3.10 Old habits die hard Traditional reasons

The traditional employee empowerment access is focused through two dimensions; the
empowerment climate producedthrough the time and employer (Clark, & Oswald, 1996, 5253).Traditional employee empowerment accessesbase on workers producing an empowerment
mood that indicates to workers that it is okay to act in an extra empowered method.Eventually,

34

an empowerment climate helps empowering employees to higher levels of performance through

discarding the disincentives to employee empowerment behaviour (Foy, 1994, 256-260).
This is how conventional two dimensional employee empowerment acts. Effectively, it is
a pull plan where workersproduce an empowerment climate through implementing various
organizational exercises (Armstrong, 2007, 56-59).
3.11Comfortably numb organisations The role of the management
Although empowerment is an excellent management practices except not everybody opt
for it. The primary role of management in an empowered company is to encourage and support
employees. Conversely, several supervisors protest employee empowerment. Initially, on the
managers corner, they fear of losing the authority, manage, and authority over their workers.
They concern it will lead to their losing management and, at last, their jobs. Most opposition to
empowerment approaches as of middle management (Church, & Waclawski, 1996, 20-25).
Managers indicate that not every workerisspecified to decides, also unable to receive the big
image of the company. Trust is another issue because most of the time they do not trust the
employee because they of fear that sharing information might result in leaking ideas, plans, and
knowledge to competitors. Secondly, on employees side, they are reluctant to make responsible
decision as they dont want to be blame for any mistakes that arise from the decision (Carsten, &
Spector, 1987, 374-375).
Some other scepticalpoint of view is that these schemes, commonly resulting as of few
retarding of the companys management social system, add another burden of duty on
employersdevoid of raising their salary or position. Empowerment turns out to be a euphemism
for work strengthening. Growths in 1980s and 1990s indicates that the procedure
(empowerment) just happens to provide workersexcellent management and, in

35

actualitystaysrestricted and dominated through management and Empowerment is yet generally

an illusion .Taking research out in anexample of five star hotels bears this feelingas well when
they state :The overcoming impression to be achievedas of the literature is that empowerment
means few additional worker choice at the margins of their employments, sooner than some
significant increase in worker voice(Campbell, 2000, 56-60).
3.12 The real value of vision
For a business to flourish, several awkward segments should mendjointly to shape a
focussed and cohesive company. The workers and management, and the service or product all
play a significant part. Empowerment offers the choice for management to place several choices
and duties in the hands of the workers. Empowered employees may offer streamlined service and
provide solutions to customer troubles that possibly, if not decided, cost the business a sale and a
consumer (Busing, & Bissels, 1998, 209-218).
Several organisationswish to raise sales and/or services throughholdingpresent consumers
and obtaining new ones. Research resolves that 68% of the clients performing business along
with any one productiveorganisation are referral and repeat customers (Burke, 1986, 42-45).
Research as wellproposes that the price of pulling newly business is five times better than
maintainingpresent customers. If an empowered company improves the excellence of a service
or product, the results on the business may be extremely positive.

3.13 The importance of clear communication

Communication is key(Wilkinson, 1998, 40-56). Make sure everyone understands the
big picture and knows the reason for specific needs and actions that affect the guests experience.
If someone only gets information on a need-to-know basis and does not understand the bigger

36

picture, you eliminate the possibility of creating new ideas and new solutions (Burger, 1992, 8485). If that feeling pervades the work environment, it prevents people from feeling included.

3.14 Involvement vs. satisfaction

Interaction between management and employees affects many facets within the business
environment. Categorizing of these relationships have been identified, with employee
involvement, employee empowerment and employee satisfaction being among the more
prominent. These categories do not stand alone; certain subsets can be considered antecedents or
enablers to other subsets (Brossoit, 2000, 26-28). For this reason, the interactions between the
categories are also important. These subjects involve human feelings, emotions and behaviors
that have no definite answers for all iterations.
Employee involvement appears to be a strong enabler of employee empowerment
(Bowen & Lawler, 1995; Spreitzer, 1995). During the analysis, however, there appears to be
differences of opinion in the definitions of these two facets, making the relationship more
difficult to understand. Some studies use the terms in an interchangeable fashion, which naturally
adds to the confusion of the discussion (Lawler & Mohrman, 1992). The greatest distinction and
most relevant to this study is that employee involvement is considered a process, while employee
empowerment is more cognitive and sentient. Further, when the distinction is made, employee
involvement is considered an antecedent to employee empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995).
Employee involvement describes the perception of an employee regarding his identity or
importance in the work group (Bandura, 1986 102-106). Involvement can be considered a
combination of several various initiatives, such as Total Quality Management (Bowen & Lawler,

37

1992, 31-39). Employee involvement is often considered process oriented, although it can be a
motivational system or participative management Lawler (1986) also argued that employee
involvement consists of four separate processes: knowledge, information, power, and rewards.
In the context of employee involvement, Eskildsen and Dahlgaard (2000, 1081-1085)
described the Hackman and Oldham (1980) Work Design Model, which develops many of the
work concepts of Herzberg (1966). This model was validated by Evans and Lindsay (1996, 1724). In the model, psychological states are influenced by job characteristics, which in turn affect
employee satisfaction and other outcomes. Eskildsen and Dahlgaard indicated that from the five
core job characteristics, both quality of work and employee satisfaction can be enhanced if the
design of the job involves involvement and information.
An emotional state resulting from experiences at work (Locke, 1976).Feeling derived
from three distinct facets:
(a) Emotional response to the work environment
(b) The relationship between expectations and outcomes
(c) Satisfaction with pay it has been determined to be directly related to psychological
empowerment (Spreitzer, 1997).

3.15 Sharing of information

Data regarding an employee doing their job well, being informed about what is expected
in their job, having the appropriate tools, and having the correct metrics to track the work group

38

of an employee with respect to the goals of the company (Brockner, 1988, 213-256). The concept
of receiving pertinent and relevant information is an important process within employee
involvement. Examples of information within this context include information regarding an
employee doing their job well, being informed about what is expected in their job, having the
appropriate toolssuch as those prepared by Information Systems (IS) within the company, and
having the correct metrics to track the work group of an employee with respect to the goals of the
company. Kouzes and Posner (1987) stated without information employees will not take
responsibility. They believed that with the proper information, employees can achieve
extraordinary results. Information strengthens the resolve of an employee and provides them
with the resources to become successful. Kouzes and Posner also believed that without
information employees would not be able to direct their creative energies (Meares, 1995, 5-7).
Information may be used within the context of employee involvement to provide teams
the objective data necessary to facilitate cost reductions and quality improvements. Lawler and
Mohrman (1992) described a condition called open book management, which is a philosophy by
which executives share relevant sensitive financial information with employees in an effort to
provide meaningful input for decision making. Kanter (1989) believed that organizations
choosing to involve employees should assure that more information is available to people at all
levels, using even more sources than previously conceived. Lawler (1992) suggested that
information regarding the mission and the performance of the organization are critical to success.
Kanter (1983) also argued that information concerning the organizational mission is essential if
employees are to understand the direction of the company and feel free to move their respective
work groups towards that direction. Additionally, organizations should use all resources
available to provide these data. Information regarding the mission of an organization is an

39

important antecedent of employee empowerment because (a) it assists the employee in creating a
sense of meaning and purpose (Conger & Kanungo, 1988); and (b) it augments the ability of an
employee to make and influence decisions that are congruent with the goals and mission of the
organization (Lawler, 1992).

3.16 Leadership & delegation (Servant leadership vs. trust)

As stated earlier, difficulty with power sharing can be symptomatic of larger leadership
issues (Stewart &Manz, 1995, as cited in Brossoit, 2000). Two main types of empowerment
surface in the literature: structural empowerment and psychological empowerment. Structural
empowerment is associated with the delegation of power by managers to employees, where
psychological empowerment is based largely on self-determination and intrinsic value.
Delegation is the process whereby the manager transfers decision making autonomy to a
subordinate. Employees can either have partial control (participation) or complete control
(delegation) (Arthur, 1994, 670-687).
Thorlakson and Murray (1996) also indicate that power sharing is similar to the
delegation of what is viewed as significant authority. In a leadership context the emphasis is
placed on the energizing aspect. Leaders attempt to energize their employees to act outside of
their typical scope through providing a vision or direction. Managers as leaders enable
employees to participate in the process of improving the organization (Yukl, 1989). Bennis and
Nanus (1985), Block (1987), Burke (1986), Conger (1989), and Nielsen (1986) are examples of
the leadership approach.

40

Power may also be associated with increased involvement, perceived transfer of

authority, or delegation. Kanter (1983) believed these facets can lead an employee to have a
sense of perceived control, or a transfer of power. Through this, it is thought employees become
more confident and in control of their work environment (House, 1988). Hackman and Oldham
(1980) argued this as way to enhance job satisfaction by vertically loading some aspects of
power. Another aspect is the augmentation of self-efficacy by attempting to reduce the feeling of
powerlessness (Conger & Kanungo, 1988), as well as increasing task motivation.

3.17 Setting of boundaries

Potterfiel (1997) stated that an organization exhibiting employee involvement is ideally
an open system where information is shared freely and where communication takes place in
every direction. This would include both vertical integration of information within an
organization as well as across organizational boundaries. One example of how power is shared
within an organization is the perception of the employee towards how his manager or supervisor
encourages him to work across organizational or functional boundaries. By fostering this
process, the manager is sharing power with the employee to access data and resources outside of
their perceived sphere of influence (Bell, &Staw, 1989, 30-35).

3.18 Relative perspective of power (Power vs. TQM)

The process of receiving and accepting authority and autonomy to make decisions in the
organization (Spreitzer, 1992).Often misconceived by management as a finite quantity and its
control is zero sum game. There has been significant research performed to examine the
relationship and interdependence of TQM, employee involvement, and employee empowerment

41

Mohrman, Lawler, & Ledford, (1996). Bowen and Lawler (1995) believed that there was a
distinct relationship between the TQM initiatives, employee involvement, and employee
empowerment. In their analysis, Bowen and Lawler determined that employee involvement
programs precede quality programs. Additionally, quality programs and employee involvement
programs can be separate or combined into an overarching program (Morgeson, 2006, 13211339).
When separate programs exist, however, the perception is that employee involvement is
part of TQM. Bowen and Lawler (1995, 73-84) argued this may be due to management
perception of TQM as a more acceptable initiative, one that emphasizes work process versus
power and management style. Additionally, it was concluded that TQM, involvement, and
empowerment can act as reinforcements and provide synergy (Bowen & Lawler, 1995; Lawler,
1992; Lawler, Mohrman & Ledford, 1995).
Several common concepts of TQM and other initiatives are listed in the high involvement
practices described by Bowen and Lawler (1995, 73-84). Many of these initiatives have found
their way in TQM initiatives, employee involvement processes, and employee empowerment.
These include: quality circle, job enrichment, and self-managed teams.
Mohrman, Lawler, and Ledford (1996) analyzed several aspects of organizational
performance, profitability, and employee satisfaction among companies with and without TQM
initiatives. Their research indicated there was a strong relationship to power and employee
satisfaction only among the companies with TQM initiatives. TQM relates to power in the sense
that it can be a motivational source and an enabler (Waterman, & Collard, 1994, 87-95).

42

3.19 Team performance

When workers are instructing how to work effectually in teams, they are prepared to
work in teams to empower themselves. Management provides the team an aim and a list of
targets, and the team determines the greatest ways to carry out its work. The team model depends
on leastwisesingle individual to offer leadership for the team and draws on the talents of every
person for maximum operation. All the way through teamwork, employees follow and find
empowered devoid of management's direct teaching. Gemuneden (1990), Schrader and Goefert
(1996), Gemuneden and Lechler (1997), have described team performance as the amount to
which a team is able to meet demonstrated quality, time objectives and cost. Other, the sensing
of projects victory depends, in section, on position of evaluator, and the
operationalisedideasemployed to measure were: Efficiency, Effectiveness, Work Satisfaction,
Learning, Effort, Team Conflict, Mutual support, Balance of Member Contribution,
Coordination, Cohesion, and Cooperation.

3.20 Rewards
A process of enumerating employees believed to have a strong relationship with the
success of employee involvement initiatives (Lawler, 1986). Designed to reinforce the behaviors
of individuals, teams, and business units (Bowen & Lawler, 1992, 31-39).May be based on either
individual or group performance. Rewards may be based on both individual and group
performance. Through rewarding for group performance, leaders attempt to match employee
involvement and commitment to the success of the organization and the company (Lawler &
Mohrman, 1992). Lawler (1986) indicated this is accomplished by aligning the objectives and
interests of the employee with the goals of the organization. Within this context, rewards can

43

include both intrinsic and extrinsic motivators (Blau, 1964, 13-14). Examples include satisfaction
with the recognition received and satisfaction with the amount of pay.
Cappelli and Sherer (1988) indicated that pay systems, or extrinsic motivators, are based
on market analyses. Others (Dunlop, 1957, as cited in Cappelli & Sherer, 1988; Livernash, 1957,
as cited in Cappelli & Sherer, 1988) emphasized that pay comparisons and satisfaction with pay
may follow wage contours, which can effect employee satisfaction. These contours are not only
affected by market conditions, but economic conditions as well. In an analyses performed in
United States during the 1930s, Hoppock (1935) found high levels of employee satisfaction,
which was concluded to be affected by the general economic conditions and their satisfaction to
be employed when many others were not. Intrinsic rewards focus more on beliefs and feelings of
fairness in addition to other noncompensatory reward systems (Block, 1987, 15-16).
Employees have a sense of accomplishment when performing a task that is recognized by
others to be a contribution to the goals or mission of the organization (Lawler, 1986). The
perception of fairness has significant weight in this type of reward (Eisenberger, Rhoades, &
Cameron, 1999; Hackman &Suttle, 1977).When employee involvement programs are
incorporated and reward systems are utilized, decisions have to be made about the nature of
rewards.
Incentive systems that reward performance have been identified as an integral part of the
success of employee involvement initiatives (Bowen & Lawler, 1992, 31-39). One of these
decisions, although by no means a mutually exclusive one, is whether to reward based on
individual or group performance. Lawler (1986) stated that in order to be effective a reward
system should recognize the contribution of the individual employee. While reward systems for

44

groups or organizational performance was acknowledged to be beneficial, Lawler argued by

rewarding for group performance often does not provide the individual employee with a clear
understanding of how their specific actions affect the performance or success of the organization.
For this reason, Lawler believed that basing rewards on individual performance was important to
the success of employee involvement through (a) recognizing and rewarding personal
competencies and (b) providing incentives for the individual employee for participation in
decisions and efforts that directly affect his processes (Nyham, 2000, 1-18).

3.21 Agency theory ethical implications

Agency theory is based on the relationship of shareholders and the managers of the
company. Its main emphasis is on the differences in the objectives of the managers and the
shareholders. The managers have to take strategic decisions for providing effective incentives to
the shareholders because shareholders expect to earn benefits from their investment in the
company (Brief, & Nord, 1990, 65-68). The theory has the direct relationship with the decisions
based on portfolio investment. The ethical issues that can arise due to the agency theory are of
two types (Nyham, 2000, 1-18). Firstly, the ethical issues arise due to the differences in the
objectives of the principal and agent conflict. Secondly, the ethical issues arise due to the plans
of the agent, which are not known to the principal (Ancona, Kochan, &Westney, 1999, 9-10). It
arises due to the differences of the principal and agent's perception towards the assessment of
risk. We can consider the example as follows: If the strategy of the manager proves to be
effective, then the shareholders will enjoy higher returns on their investment. If the risk
evaluation of the manager goes wrong, then the shareholders will not face more loss due to the

45

limited liability, but the manager will have to face losses. Such a situation can be avoided by
utilizing hedging process for the activities of the shareholders (Zwerdling, 1980, 232-234).

3.22 Meaningfulness sustainability education knowledge satisfaction

As the speech of services through service employees needs interacting along with
customers, the proportion of self-determination catches the degree to which workers are capable
to manage the customers receives of service. Thus, Fulford and Enz (1995) indicated the three
dimensional conception of psychological empowerment to be more desirable in the service
industry circumstance. They are;Sustainable, Meaningfulness, Knowledge, education, satisfaction.
The four factors identified by Velthouse and Thomas are:
(a) Impact, which shows performance-outcome anticipation;
(b) Competence, an attempt-performance anticipation, which is synonymous along with
self-efficacy in Kanungo and Conger (1988)
(c) Significance, an expectedresultaversion or attraction;
(d) Selection, the perceived choice for a decision focused on these variables.
Spreitzer (1992) based on the psychological empowerment built and establishment of
empowerment. In accordance to Spreitzer (1995) empowerment is anunremitting variable;
individuals may be deemedabout empowered, sooner than empowered or not empowered.
Resultsas of the execution of empowerment at work will outcome in a company reaching its
wanted aims and hopes (Hartman, 2000, 45-50). Thus, victorious execution of these worksideais

46

proposed to have an important positive consequence on the organizational and worker result
variables for example job satisfaction and motivation.
The empowerment of employees allows them more control and responsibility over their
work. While the role of managers shifts from control to facilitation and coordination of work
processes. There is less focus on decision making and more focus on good communications,
education, training, and leadership (Hechler, & Wiener, 1974, 9-10).The relationship between
the education level of an employee and employee satisfaction has also been a subject
investigated in scholarly research. According to Bluedorn (1982, 135-153) Education levels were
not significant to job satisfaction, but they did influence the decision to leave a company by an
employee. Interestingly, the higher the education level, the more likely an employee indicated
intent to leave the company. Mohrman, Lawler, and Ledford (1996) also did not find a
significant relationship between employee education levels and employee satisfaction.

3.23 Competence
Competence refers to self-efficacy specific to one's work, or a belief in one's capability to
perform work activities with skill (Bandura, 1989, cited in Spreitzer, 2007). Comments on
employee empowerment would suggest the concern in the competence cognition has an
important negative impact on satisfaction, whereas quantitative data do not support this. Further,
the trust issues and feelings of hopelessness among some hourly employee comments in the
employee satisfaction area would suggest less overall satisfaction than engineers (Fried, 1991,
690-697). This does not suggest one is more correct than the other; rather, it indicates there are
important concerns that may not be able to be expressed as well in either words or Likert scales.

47

Information about performance is essential for employees. All individuals within the
organization should be aware of the respective performance of their organization, and through
this information, assist in the decision making process for future direction. Information on
performance is fundamental to reinforcing a sense of competence and value within the
organization (Harter, & Schmidt, 2002, 268-270).

3.24 Employee retention - productivity efficiency

In these modification times every employee & employer are beneathwonderful pressure
to execute. There is fierce competitor not just in the industry except as well across categories.
This new opened cutting corner techniques driven atmosphere has createdworkermemory mindboggling. The speedy pacing modificationall over the world has produced the newly employee &
employer connection irreversible (French, 1974, 48-50). An effectual Employee Retention
Program is a systematic attempt to produce and foster an atmosphere that encourages workers to
stay employed through having practices and policies in place that address their diverse
requirements. Memory is so significant. It only to diminish the turnover costs. Its not just the
priceobtained through an organisation that stresses the requirements of retaining workers except
as well the requirement to retain gifted workers as of getting boiled (Beer, 1991, 62-70).
Companies have now realized the importance of retaining their quality workforce.
Retaining quality performers contributes to productivity of the organization and increases morale
among employees. Four basic factors that play an important role in increasing employee
retention include salary and remuneration, providing recognition, benefits and opportunities for
individual growth (Freedman, & Phillips, 1985, 397-400). Mounting evidence began to suggest
that productivity, on the one hand, and quality, worker empowerment, variety, customization,

48

convenience, and rapid change, on the other, were not only compatible but also mutually
reinforcing competitive standards (R. Ripley & M. Ripley, 1992).
Empowerment applications play a significant role in increasing employees productivity
and providing organizational efficiency. Interest in employee empowerment within the
hospitality industry has been associated with some of the key themes identified in the
development of HRM generally, namely, gaining competitive advantage through improved
service quality.

3.25 Effects of the economy on employee empowerment

The 1990s began to show a marriage of both the old and new economy. Innovative
organizations captured the benefits from mass production (United States) and lean production
(Japan). Organizations sought for volume and productivity as well as quality, variety,
customization, convenience, and timeliness. The most noticeable difference in these new
innovative organizations was that artisans and mass production workers were replaced by
empowered interdependent work teams. This new, more flexible organization allowed the
businesses in the United States to take advantage of the inherent potential of innovative
combinations of humans and machines. To summarize, the U.S. set the standards in the old
economy. The U.S. now labours on towards the new economy, however, dragging the dead
weight of the past industrial command and control successes along behind (R. Ripley & M.
Ripley, 1992)
An employee who is dissatisfied with his job will seek employment elsewhere in these
conditions, making the correlation between employee satisfaction and turnover greater. Hulin,

49

Roznowski, &Hachiya (1985) believed that the economy acts as a releasing agent; periods of
high alternative opportunity will allow dissatisfied employees to seek employment elsewhere.
They concluded that employee satisfaction would be a better indicator of intent to leave in
periods of low unemployment. Relationship could have a secondary effect on intent to leave;
especially when companies are experiencing poor economic conditions either specific to their
business sector or the economy in general. Many companies, especially those with union
contracts, are seniority biased; therefore, in slower economic times employees involuntarily
displaced will affect the age distribution by shifting it to a greater mean age (Bluestein, &
Bluestein, 1992, 29-30).

3.26 Overcoming doubt (author)

In a changing world, organizations must change just as surely and individuals must
change. In response to environmental influences, recent years have seen an increase in
organizational flattening, the tendency to shrink the organizational structure through the
removing of layers in the hierarchy. (McConnell, 1998). While there is no doubt that
organizations must change, there is growing disparity as to how they should go about the process
of change. One aspect that most experts agree on is that change efforts originate from and are
dependent on people's commitment and willingness to embrace new business processes and
approaches, and view them as opportunities for personal involvement and assess (Arora, 2003,
10-11).

50

3.27 Can true democracy exist in a workplace?

Workplace democracy is the fruit of the empowerment tree. When the people in an
organization are empowered, and the support systems maintain the state of empowerment, then
workplace democracy gradually emerges (Swetnam, 2008, 43-45). Unlike democracy in local
government, workplace democracy is not a system of majority rule. Instead, it is a system of
consensus decision making. In workplace democracy, people have given their consent to
participate and abide by the decisions that are made (Bandura, 1982, 197-215). In this sense, a
workplace democracy is a consentaneous organization, not a majority rule organization.
There are at least five different models for implementing democracy in the workplace.
Each has different historical perspectives and strengths and weaknesses. The first model consists
of situations where enlightened senior management attempts to introduce democratic elements
into the workplace. The second model comes from situations where people start and expand an
organization based on democratic principles. The third model occurs when employees buy an
existing business. A fourth model comes about as a result of a redesign of a workplace, using the
methods of the Tavistock Institute. The fifth model might be called "low-intensity democracy,"
where democratic practices are slowly introduced into an autocratic setting (Beach, & Mitchell,
1990, 38-41).

3.28 Perception gaps

In the context of the perception gap analysis, building on Olivers (1980) expectationdisconfirmation paradigm, Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988) propose the gap-based service quality
model in which service quality perceptions are conceptualized as the difference between quality
expectations and perceived performance of the service. The conceptual model of service quality

51

developed by Paraasuraman et al. (1985) defines customer-perceived service quality as the

magnitude and direction of the discrepancy between service expectations and perceptions and
depicts this discrepancy as a function of four organizational gaps associated with the design,
marketing, and delivery of services. The gaps are: (Gap 1) differences between customer
expectations and management perceptions of customer expectations; (Gap 2) differences
between management perceptions of customer expectations and service quality specifications;
(Gap 3) differences between service quality specifications and the service actually delivered; and
(Gap 4) differences between service delivery and what is communicated about the service to
consumers. Later, Zeithamal et al. (1990) and Zeithamal et al. (2002) argue that when customers
perceptions of the service received fall short of their expectations, which is called as Gap 5, the
fault can ultimately be linked to one of the previously mentioned four gaps.
Through the analysis of the literature, distinct relationships have been found when
relating employee involvement, employee empowerment, and employee satisfaction to each
other. Employee involvement practices have been established by many organizations and have
evolved in several forms, whether it is TQM or other initiatives. While empowerment
especially when considering psychological versus structuralis more of a sense or feeling
among employees, employee involvement initiatives can enable these cognitions and positively
affect their success. Strong association between these has been identified in several analyses
(Bowen & Lawler, 1995; Corrigan, 1998; Daily & Bishop, 2003; Spreitzer, 1995). From
empowerment there is a prominent positive relationship to employee satisfaction, and this
relationship is also well documented. Employee involvement can be described in more discrete
terms to better understand the relationships between processes and the overall effect. The four
processes described by Lawler (1986): knowledge, information, power, and rewards provide a

52

strong foundation to conduct additional research. The four cognitions identified by Thomas and
Velthouse (1990) also are adequate descriptors of separate facets within employee
empowerment. Employee satisfaction, like empowerment, is an emotional state from relations an
employee has at work. As such, there is a relationship between empowerment and satisfaction
observed in studies performed by researchers (Cohen, Ledford, & Spreitzer, 1996; Locke &
Schweiger, 1979; Scott, Bishop, & Chen, 2003; Sefton, 1999). Other factors outside of
empowerment have an effect on employee satisfaction, but there is sufficient evidence that this
relationship is relatively strong and worth further examination, especially when considering
various job-types.

53

4 Chapter Three Methodology

4.1 Overview
While there are contributions in the areas of employee involvement and its relationship to
employee empowerment (Daily & Bishop, 2003) and employee empowerment and its
relationship to employee satisfaction and intent to leave (Bowen & Lawler, 1995; Brossiot, 2000;
Lashley, 1999; Osborne, 2002), relatively few studies attempt to combine the two relationships
into a larger relational flow between employee involvement, employee empowerment, and
employee satisfaction. Corrigan (1998) studied the relationship between these three elements;
however, the sample population involved a small manufacturing facility and did not make
distinction between job-types in the analysis. Thus, the relationship between employee
involvement, employee empowerment, and employee satisfaction in a large manufacturing
environment involving complex production processes has not been thoroughly investigated. The
examination of both relationships independently in a large manufacturing environment appears
to be relevant and can have applicability to other businesses (Ren, 2001, 210-215).
The purpose of this study was to determine the effects if any, between employee
involvement, employee empowerment, and employee satisfaction. Further, the relationship
between employee satisfaction and the intention to leave was examined. Previous research has
been conducted that indicates a relationship between these facets; however, the majority of the
work has been performed in either service industries or smaller manufacturing environments
(Bowen & Lawler, 1995; Corrigan, 1998; Daily & Bishop, 2003; Scott, Bishop, & Chen, 2003;
Spreitzer, 1995). This study tested 3 companies with a population in excess of 5000 employees
across several facilities.

54

4.2 Source of data

The data for this study were collected from one international business unit of 3
companies. The data were received directly from the company administrator for the employee
surveys. The researcher approached a vice-president of the company and asked permission for
the data. The vice-president gave permission and forwarded the request to the survey
administration group. A non-disclosure agreement was signed by the researcher to prevent
anything specific to the name of the company from being published. A meeting was then set up
with the survey administrator. The research topic and questions were discussed, and specific
formats and analysis tools were described so the data could be transferred in an acceptable
format. Since its collection, the results of the company employee opinion survey have been
analyzed by the survey administration group; however, no analyses performed by the survey
administration group were provided with the data (Ren, 2001, 210-215).

4.3 Data collection

The company employee survey being used for this analysis was administered between
May 12, 2011 and June 6, 2011. Employees were invited to participate through various methods,
including interoffice correspondence and management coaching. The survey being used by the
specific business unit examined in this analysis consists of fifty questions. Some sections within
the survey instrument require nomenclature changes. These changes, along with the designated
value for the response, are illustrated in Table. Further, one open-ended question was provided at
the end of the survey and was designed to gather written comments. The open-ended comment
used in this survey was: In your view, what are the two or three most important issues that need
to be addressed in your operating group?(Argyris, 1998, 98-105) In 2003, fifty-five percent of
the respondents filling out the quantitative portion of the survey also included written comments.

55

Employees who complete the survey are also asked to identify their job-type by a code given to
them by the company, years of service, program/business unit, function, and location.

56

(4) (Smeyers, 2001, 475-495)

(5) (Smeyers, 2001, 475-495)

The media for the employee survey was both electronic and traditional paper-and-pencil.
Sixty-seven percent of the surveys were administered to employees via the company intranet.
Employees were asked to complete the survey on a voluntary basis and were made aware that
their individual responsesincluding commentswould be held confidential. The employees
were provided time to complete the survey during their regular work schedule. The response rate
for the company was very good at sixty-nine percent.

57

4.4 Ethics & confidentiality

It can be argued that the examination of employee empowerment not only has positive
benefits to the employee and the organization, but can have detrimental effect as well (Cross,
Martin, & Weiss, 2006, 29-30). It is possible that organizations may turn their attention on
empowerment metrics and not address the actual conditions that foster a more empowered work
group. Several studies, including Gandz and Bird (1996), Kanungo (1992), and Kanungo and
Mendonca (1996) discussed these thoughts and the ethical implications of employee
empowerment. From an ethical perspective, the initiation of employee empowerment should be
made for the right reasons. Additionally, the disagreement regarding definitions may further
reduce the impact of employee empowerment. St. Clair and Quinn (1997) believed that
overemphasis on determining precise definitions could have a negative effect on the
development of empowerment. Bartunek (1995, as cited in Menon, 2001, 153-155) stated it was
not appropriate to treat empowerment as a mutually inclusive, singularly defined concept.
Empowerment will most likely not mean the same toeveryone. Liden and Arad (1996) indicated
that employee empowerment can be defined within the process of employee involvement,
especially power.

4.5 Quantitative / Qualitative Data

Once the data from the survey instrument are tested, specific relationships between
survey questions identified through the factor analysis were compared to better understand the
affects illustrated earlier (Fairholm, 1998, 31-35). Additionally, the raw data was segregated by
job-type and a comparison was performed between these relationships by job-type as earlier
illustrated in Figure. Analyses were performed to determine if there are statistically significant
differences in the attitudes about these relationships between the four identified job-types to be

58

tested. From the data, specific employee involvement processes and employee empowerment
cognitions were examined. These subsets were selected from previous studies conducted by
Lawler (1986) and Thomas and Velthouse (1990). A factor analysis was conducted to determine
the appropriate survey questions to combine in each category.
In addition to the quantitative data collected and the methods and statistical techniques
that will be used to increase the probability of validity, qualitative data are collected within the
survey instrument. These data are in the form of comments resulting from an open ended
question. All comments from the survey instrument were analyzed for two separate reasons: (a)
to potentially increase the richness in understanding of the differences in the quantitative data
and (b) to compare and contrast the ordinal relationship of quantitative mean data to the ordinal
value of categorized responses from the open-ended question. This relationship is illustrated in
Figure.

59

(6)
The method of determining the meaning of the qualitative data was to delineate the
employee comments by the four job-types: (a) hourly, (b) salary non-management, (c) engineers,
and (d) management. Once segregated by job-type, all comments made by employees were
reviewed and categorized by the following areas based on the scope of this research: (a)
employee involvement, (b) employee empowerment, (c) employee satisfaction, and (d) other
comments. Once categorized by job-type and comment type, specific comments were used
within the analysis to better understand the relationships between the relationships to be tested
(Bott, 1991). Additionally, descriptive statistics were used to analyze the importance of each
category and compare it to the quantitative data to determine if there are similarities between the
attitudes and perceptions of the employees from the two research methodology types (Evans, &
Lindsay, 1996, 17-24). Through these coding practices, it is believed that the problems described

60

by Huberman and Miles (1983) concerning data overload can be mitigated. Qualitative data
need to be reduced for analysis to occur, and the choice of a reduction strategy or heuristic will
determine what kind of analysis is possible and will thus foreclose other kinds (Huberman&
Miles, 1983, p. 285). Additionally, Reduction not only allows analysis, it is analysis, in that
clusters and partitions will necessarily follow the analysts evolving sense of how the data come
together and how they address the research questions s/he wishes to answer (Bandura, 1997,
197-215). For the purpose of this research, many of the techniques outlined by Huberman and
Miles (1983) were performed to provide better analysis of the qualitative data, including (a)
coding, (b) policing, or monitoring, (c) progressing focusing and funnelling, and (d) matrices.
These methods are consistent with the techniques described by Sadler (1981).

(7)
The relational condition of employee processes, cognitions, and characteristics and the
corresponding research questions.

61

Additionally, using the subsets described by Lawler (1986) and Thomas and Velthouse
(1990), additional research questions will be examined:
5. within employee involvement:
(a) How does the level of information received by an employee affect the level of
employee involvement?
(b) How does the level of knowledge of an employee affect the level of employee
involvement?
(c) How does the level of power of an employee affect the level of employee
involvement?
(d) How does the level of rewards received by an employee affect the level of employee
involvement?
This relationship is demonstrated in Figure using the figure previously introduced.

(8)
6. within employee empowerment:

62

(a) How does the level of meaning in an employees job affect the level of employee
empowerment?
(b) How does the level of choice in an employees job affect the level of employee
empowerment?
(c) How does the level of impact in an employees job affect the level of employee
empowerment?
(d) How does the level of competence in an employees job affect the level of employee
empowerment?

63

5Chapter Four Analysis

5.1 Study participants
The sample population was a group of people employed at three companies. In general
terms, the population of the company is eclectic by job-type, with facilities located in several
areas (Fosam, Grimsley, & Wisher, 1998, 235-248). From this population, 140 surveys were
returned constituting sixty-nine percent of the total population of the group. Further, over
nineteen thousand comments were received and coded by job-type. All employees were invited
to participate through various methods, including interoffice correspondence and management
coaching. The media for the employee survey was both electronic and traditional paper-andpencil. Employees were asked to complete the survey on a voluntary basis and were made aware
that their individual responsesincluding comments would be held confidential. The
employees were provided time to complete the survey during their regular work schedule.

5.2 Findings & analysis of data

The purpose of including qualitative data in the analysis of this topic was two-fold: (a) to
compare the quantity of comments within the researched categories with the quantitative data;
and, (b) to provide a richer understanding of the results generated from the quantitative analysis.
Comments submitted during the 2011 survey were read for content and for categorization within
the context of the analysis. The survey question was open-ended and attempted to generate an
interest in the employee to select issues that should be addressed in their work area. The survey
question was:In your view, what are the two or three most important issues that need to be
addressed in your operating group? This question was located at the end of the survey.

64

Somecomments were not included in the analysis because they were not coded by jobtype. Comments were then coded using an indexing procedure similar to the one described by
Ritchie and Spencer (1994). Many of the comments that were included were coded into more
than one category. For this reason, comments included in the analysis generated coded
comments. A description of the coded comments by category and by job-type listed in
percentages is included. Often, these multi-coded comments described a link between employee
involvement and employee empowerment, and employee empowerment and employee
satisfaction and were included in both categories (Eylon, & Bamberger, 2000, 354-372).
The total percentage of employee comments coded within the three categories selected
for analysis was 64.7 percent. This number is consistent with the percentage of variance
explained in the factor analysis, at 65.0 percent. The percentages vary by job-type; managers
having the highest percentage of employee involvement comments, engineers having the highest
employee empowerment percentage, and salary non-management having the highest percentage
in employee satisfaction.

65

(9)

(10)

The similarity between the quantitative and the qualitative percentages add to the validity
of the grouping. The difference in the percentages within the job-types adds to the interest in the
findings of the research question regarding if there is a difference in the perceptions of employee
involvement, employee empowerment, and employee satisfaction between the four job-types. It
should be noted, however, that percentages of comments in categories only give a person a
reference point; the actual comments of the employees, their emotion, and their passion provide
deep meaning to the analysis.
Employee involvement
The overall percentage of comments within the employee involvement category was 26.2
percent. Managers listed comments on employee involvement for 29.9 percent of their total

66

responses, the highest of all four job-types. Among the job-types other than management, there
was a large amount of comments involving the rewards process of employee involvement.
Specifically, many comments described the company employee incentive plan (CEIP), which is
paid to non-executive management and non-union represented salary workers (Leauby,
&Wentzel, 2002, 28-32). Engineering, hourly workers, and several of the salary nonmanagement workers are represented by a union.
Employee empowerment
The percentage of comments coded into the employee empowerment category was 17.3
percent, with engineers having the largest portion of their comments within this category at 19.2
percent. The number of employee empowerment comments was lower than the percentage of
comments coded into the employee involvement category. Some comments describe a need to
shift the company culture, and it is possible that the culture within the company is what makes
the employees perceive their issues in a process versus cognitive aspect (Leauby, &Wentzel,
2002, 28-32).
Within the context of employee empowerment, the perspectives of the comments by
engineers were more focused on the competence cognition of empowerment (Saunders, Lewis, &
Thornhill, 2000, 159-165). While engineers had the largest percent of comments within this
category among the four job-types, it did not necessarily relate to a more positive feeling about
empowerment. Their rationalization of their unique skills and amount of training in this
particular industry was a common theme, and their strong concern that through actions of the
company these skills would be lost (Palo, 2003, 321-325). While managers and salary nonmanagement employees also described these concerns, the comments by engineers were more

67

frequent and more compelling. Their concern that this loss would significantly affect the future
of the company was very different than hourly employee comments who also were concerned
about the loss of jobs, but for different reasons. The comments surrounding this topic among the
hourly workers centered more on a mistrust of management, and the overall loss of American
jobs. The comments of hourly workers on job security were typically so different that they were
not coded as competence components.
Employee Satisfaction
Overall, the percentage of comments made within this category by all four job-types was
21.2 percent, with engineers having the least comments at 17.4 percent. There were a number of
positive comments concerning employee satisfaction; however for the most part, the comments
offered suggestions based on situations they perceived as neutral or negative, perhaps most
notably in the engineering area. Typical comments within this category dealt with morale issues,
job satisfaction, perceived worth of the employee by the company, and employee diversity.
Further, in many of the comments there was a link between employee involvement, employee
empowerment, and employee satisfaction such that some comments were coded in more than one
category (Palo, 2003, 321-325).
Based on the content of the comments coded within the employee satisfaction category, it
would appear that hourly employees and engineering employees are the least satisfied. This is
especially true with hourly employee perception of the company and management being largely
responsible for job security and engineers relating their satisfaction to various empowerment
cognitions. Hourly comments were typically more negative and directed towards management,
not in an empowering or involving way, but on frequent occasion the comments indicated a

68

sense of resignation to the control managers were perceived to have over them. Salary
nonmanagement employees have some of the same concerns as both hourly and engineer
employees, but the content of their comments do not appear to be as negative.

5.3 Summary An assessment of what really matters

A qualitative and quantitative approach to survey data collected at a division of three
companies in 2011 was taken to understand the relationships between employee involvement,
employee empowerment, employee satisfaction, and the intent to remain at the job. Further,
involvement, empowerment, and satisfaction were examined among four specific jobtypes within
the organization: (a) managers, (b) salary non-management, (c) engineers, and (d) hourly
employees. Significant relationships were found between employee involvement to employee
empowerment, employee empowerment to employee satisfaction, and employee satisfaction to
the intent to remain with the company. Differences were found between the levels of satisfaction
among the four job-types when considering employee empowerment and employee satisfaction;
however, the results regarding employee involvement were mixed. The four processes described
by Lawler (1986) of employee involvement were found to be significantly related to employee
involvement. Only three of the four cognitions defined by Thomas and Velthouse (1990) were
able to be tested within the constraints of this analysis; however, all three of the cognitions tested
were found to significantly relate to employee empowerment. One a job-type was established,
the comments were segregated by major category within the scope of this analysis: (a) employee
involvement, (b) employee empowerment, (c) employee satisfaction, and two other categories
job security/exogenous and management/other. Sixty-five percent of the comments from the
survey were coded into the three relevant categories (Menon, 2001, 153-155).

69

6 Chapter Five Conclusion

6.1 Limitations of the study
As with any research, there are limitations that should be considered. First, this study was
based on information collected at one point in time. A more representative view of the company
culture and the attitudes surrounding the subject areas perhaps could have been better explained
with a longitudinal approach. These data are available, as the company conducts the survey on an
annual basis and many organizations within the company conduct internal pulse surveys on a
more frequent basis, often quarterly. A portion of the questions may not be available from year to
year as the company survey committee makes changes to the questions to examine specific
topics.
Second, the results are based on data collected from a single business group of a single
company. Third, while employees were informed the results of their surveys would be
confidential and could not be traced back to the individual; several employees commented in the
open-ended question that they believed there was not anonymity in the results of the survey. It is
possible that other employees had the same perception and chose to alter their submittals. This
could have falsely increased the levels of satisfaction among employees.
Fourth, the companies indicated that participation in the survey was voluntary; however,
there were a few comments in the open-ended question that stated that they were being forced by
their manager to complete the survey in a work-group meeting (Blanchard, John, & Alan, 1996,
65-68). This potentially could have biased the results either negatively because of the feeling of
not having free-will over participation, or positively if the manager was observing the employee
complete the survey (Sharp, & Howard, 1996, 86-90). Based on the small number of comments
on this subject, it is not assumed that this practice is prevalent in the company.

70

Fifth, the effect of events in September 2001 had a significant impact to the industry in
which company operates. A large percentage of layoffs occurred between 2011, and the
economic outlook was not optimistic at the time of this survey. Because of the relative condition
of this business compared to other businesses, the survey results could be more negative than
other companies, reducing the potential for portability for these results. Sixth, the survey
questions used in this study are similar yet different than most studies focusing on employee
involvement, employee empowerment, or employee satisfaction. The reliability and validity of
the questions were determined to be acceptable within the context of this population.
Nonetheless, the results could be less portable to other companies or other populations because
of this difference(Adams, 1963, 422-436).

6.2 Practical implications

This study addressed several issues in the work environment as they relate to an
international business unit of three companies. Previous studies involved analysis on components
of this research and in different business settings (Bennett, 1991, 67-77). In reviewing other
studies for this analysis, there appeared to be an absence of discussion when describing the
relationships between employee involvement, employee empowerment, employee satisfaction,
and the intent to remain with the company in a large company with several specific job-types.
Specifically, the purpose of this study was to determine the affects of employee involvement on
employee empowerment, employee empowerment on employee satisfaction, and employee
satisfaction on the intent to remain at the company. Furtherand perhaps more importantlythe
study also determined the difference between the opinions four separate job types had on
employee involvement, employee empowerment, and employee satisfaction. The four job-types

71

tested in this study were: (a) managers, (b) salary non-management, (c) engineers, and (d) hourly
employees. An examination of the four processes of involvement identified by Lawler (1986)
was tested against overall employee involvement.
Finally, the cognitions of empowerment described by Thomas and Velthouse (1990) were
tested against overall empowerment. One of the four cognitions, choice, was not available to be
examined because the questions from the company employee opinion survey did not represent
this facet. For this reason, one sub-hypothesis was not tested in the study by an international
division of three companies. Employee participation was on company time and voluntary;
employees were invited to participate through various methods, including interoffice
correspondence and management coaching. The survey being used by the specific business unit
examined in this analysis different questions, although only twenty-seven were determined to be
within the scope of this analysis. 140 participants responded to the employee survey, accounting
for approximately sixty-nine percent of the business unit population. In addition to the
quantitative portion of the survey, an open-ended question was asked at the end of the survey.

6.3 Pearls and perils of employee empowerment: Summary

The concepts of employee involvement, employee empowerment, and employee
satisfaction have been of interest to corporations throughout the world in an effort to discover
relationships for exploitation. This study provides further evidence that employee involvement is
related to employee empowerment, which is related to employee satisfaction and sequentially to
the intent to remain with the company. It documents the importance including in the discussion
the processes of employee involvement as well as the cognitions of employee empowerment,
specifying which processes and cognitions have the most importance. Different processes and

72

cognitions have more relevance depending on the job-type, especially when reviewing the
qualitative data.
Employee involvement is dependent on the perception of all four processes. Previous
research indicated the strongest relationship is with power, but this study concluded that
information and rewards are equally as important. Employees felt the lack of clear
communication and inaccurate data were inhibitors to employee involvement. Additionally,
incentive plans and pay for performance were strongly related to the potential success of
involvement. For a company to be successful, a harmony between the four processes must exist.
The present study also provides support for the strong relationship between employee
involvement and employee empowerment. Further, empowerment should be decomposed into its
cognitions for better definition and implementation. The data also revealed through the
comments from the open-ended questions that psychological empowerment can produce
betterresults than structural empowerment, as the actual passion and emotion of the employees
isessential in the success of this component. Many employees, including managers, still perceive
empowerment from a structural perspective, and until a transition is made to psychological
empowerment the full benefits cannot be achieved. Employee involvement may be a more
powerful enabler than through the integration with employee empowerment in some cases. This
could be especially true in businesses that are process and procedural oriented. The power of
employee involvement in relation to employee satisfaction and the intent to remain at the
company should therefore not be discounted. Empowerment and satisfaction are related and
companies can realize benefits through implementing procedures that augment this linkage. This
is especially true if retention of employees is important to the company. The root of employee
satisfaction and the intent to remain with the company is the first stage of the process: employee

73

involvement. Organizations who manage their efforts with respect to the four processes of
employee involvement, perhaps through a balanced scorecard approach, should achieve more
favourable results in employee satisfaction.

6.4 A new agenda for the future

There are several directions for future research indicated in the present study. One
important direction would be to explore the attitudes surrounding pay for performance among
union employees to understand their willingness to trade guarantees for the potential rewards by
sharing risk. Examining the difference in employee involvement and perception of employee
involvement associated between employees that have pay for performance policies and those
who do not would be interesting. This could help answer the puzzling relationship between pay
and employee satisfaction at company. Another possible direction would be to further analyze
the relationship between management structure and the perception of employee empowerment.
Since all job-types commented on this issue, it would be interesting to test this by job-type as a
variable. Additionally, analysis on the impact of management layers to empowerment and the
subsequent change in the relationship between empowerment to overall employee satisfaction
would be an intriguing path. Concentrating on difference between job-types with special
consideration for technical workers would be a further focus of this type of analysis, especially
given the comments from engineers regarding empowerment in this study. Comparing the same
population over a series of years in a longitudinal study would be another direction for further
research (Ford, &Fottler, 1995, 1-8). Questions regarding attitudes that could be strongly
influenced by exogenous conditions such as the economy could be investigated. Cause and effect

74

comparisons between initiatives put in place by company and employee satisfaction could be
made to better understand their benefit.
The relationship between employee involvement and employee satisfaction in the large
manufacturing environment could be another direction for further research. In businessessuch
as the one examined in the present studyfocused on processes and procedures, the
psychological empowerment component may act as a filter versus an enabler to the conduit
between these two facets. The correlation between employee involvement without the
intermediate step of employee empowerment and employee satisfaction is worth investigation.
Additionally, with the problematic distinction between structural empowerment and
psychological empowerment, there may be conditions where the cognitions of employee
empowerment may reduce the benefits of employee involvement with respect to employee
satisfaction as opposed to enhancing the effect. This direct relationship is worth investigating,
especially in cultures that are more systematic and procedurally oriented. Finally, future research
could be conducted on the groups of questions established within this study for employee
involvement could be used outside company. Studies with other organizations in various
business settings could be analyzed to determine if the relationships are similar to those found
within the company. Further, testing the significance of difference between job-types would be
appealing.

75

7References

Abbott, J. (2002). Does employee satisfaction matter? A study to determine whether low
employee morale affects customer satisfaction and profits in the business-to-business
sector. Journal of Communication Management, 4, 333-339.
Adams, J. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 68, 422-436.
Allen-Meares, P. (1995). Applications of qualitative research: let the work begin. Social Work
Research, 1, 5-7.
Al-Mashari, M. & Zairi, M. (2000).Revisiting BPR: a holistic review of practice and
development. Business Process Management Journal, 6, 10-12.
Ancona, D., Kochan, T., Scully, M., Van Maanen, J., &Westney, D. E. (1999) Managing for the
future: Organizational behavior and processes.Cincinatti, Ohio: South-Western College
Publishing, pp. 9-10
Applebaum, E. & Batt, R. (1992).The new American workplace. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.pp. 7-8
Argyris, C. (1998) Empowerment: The emperors new clothes, Harvard Business Review, May
June, pp. 98-105
Armstrong, M. (2007) Employee Reward Management and Practice. 2nd ed. London: Kogan
Page 56-59

76

Arora, R. (2003). Integrating KM to create a learning organization as Tata Steel. KM Review, 4,

10-11.
Arthur, J.B. (1994) Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and
turnover, Academy of Management Journal, 37, pp. 670-687
Ashforth, B. (1989) the experience of powerlessness in organizations. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 43, 207-242.
Atchison, T. &Lefferts, E. (1972).The prediction of turnover using Herzbergs job satisfaction
technique. Personnel Psychology, 25, 53-64.
Bacharach, S. & Lawler, E. (1980).Power and politics in organizations. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Pp. 5-6
Backeberg, P. (1995). The effects of level of training on employee perceived empowerment,
commitment, and job performance. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas.UMI ProQuest
Digital Dissertations No.AAT 1403062. Pp. 10-12
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

77

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 11751184.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Barbee, C.
&Bott, V. (1991).Customer treatment as a mirror of employee treatment.Advanced
Management Journal, 1, 27.
Bass, B. (1960). Leadership, psychology, and organizational behavior. New York: HarperRow.
37-40
Bayfield, H. & Crockett, W. (1955).Employee attitudes and employee performance.
Psychological Bulletin, September, 415-422.
Beach, L.& Mitchell, T. (1990). Image theory: A behavioral theory of decision making in
organizations. In B. Staw& L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior.
JAI Press, Inc.Pp. 38-41
Beer, V. (1991).Guerrilla tactics for employee empowerment. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 4, 62-70.
Belasco, J. & Stayer, R. (1994). Why empowerment doesnt empower: The bankruptcy of
current paradigms. Business Horizons, 2, 29-42.
Bell, N. &Staw, B. (1989).People as sculptors versus sculpture.In Arthur, M., Hall, D., &
Lawrence B. (Eds.) Handbook of career theory: 232-251. New York: Cambridge
University Press. 30-35
Bennett, R.(1991) What is management research?. In: Smith, N.C. & Dainty, P. (eds.) The
Management Research Handbook. London: Routledge, pp. 67-77

78

Bennis, W. &Nanus, B. (1985) Leaders: The strategies of taking charge. New York: Harper &
Row. 70-72
Bennis, W. (1989). Why leaders cant lead. San Francisco: Harper & Row. Pp. 75-78
Blanchard, K.H., John, P.C. & Alan, R. (1996) Empowerment Takes More than a Minute. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Pp. 65-68
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. 13-14
Block, P. (1987). The empowered manager. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pp. 15-16
Bluedorn, A. (1982). A unified model of turnover from organizations. Human Relations, 2, 135153.
Bluestein, B. & Bluestein, I. (1992).Negotiating the future: A labour perspective on American
business. New York: Basic books. 29-30
Bowen, D. & Lawler, E. (1992). The empowerment of service workers: What, why, how and
when. Sloan Management Review, spring, 31-39.
Bowen, D. & Lawler, E. (1995).Empowering service employees.Sloan Management Review,
summer, 73-84.
Brief, A. & Aldag, R. (1981). The self in work organizations: A conceptual review. Academy
of Management Review, 1, 75-88.
Brief, A. & Nord, W. (1990).Meanings of occupational work. Lexington, KY: Lexington Books.
Pp. 65-68

79

Brockner, J. (1988). The effects of work layoffs on survivors: Research, theory, and practice.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 213-256.
Brossoit, K. (2000). Understanding employee empowerment in the workplace: Exploring the
relationships between transformational leadership, employee perceptions of
empowerment, and key work outcomes. Claremont Graduate University.UMI ProQuest
Digital Dissertations No.AAT 9984244. 26-28
Burger, J. (1992). Desire for control: Personality, social and clinical perspectives. New York:
Plenum Press. 84-85
Burger, J. M. & Cooper, H. M. (1979).The desirability of control. Motivation and Emotion, 3,
381-393.
Burke, W. (1986).Leadership as empowering others. In Srivastva, S. (Ed.) Executive Power, 5177. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.42-45
Busing, A. & Bissels, T. (1998). Different forms of work satisfaction: Concept and qualitative
approach. European Psychologist, 3, 209-218.
Campbell, D. (2000). The proactive employee: Managing workplace initiative. The Academy of
Management Executive, 3, 52-66.
Cappelli, P. & Sherer, P. (1988). Satisfaction, market wages, &labour relations: An airline study.
Industrial Relations, 1, 56-73.
Carsten, J. & Spector, P. (1987). Unemployment, job satisfaction, and employee turnover: A
meta-analytic test of the Muchinsky model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 3, 374-381.

80

Church, A. & Waclawski, J. (1996).The effects of personality orientation and executive

behaviour on subordinate perceptions of workgroup enablement.The International. 20-25
Clark, A. & Oswald, A. (1996).Satisfaction and comparison income.Journal of Public. 52-53
Cohen, S., Ledford, G., & Spreitzer, G. (1996).A predictive model of self-managing work team
effectiveness. Human Relations, 5, 643-676.
Cohen-Rosenthal, E. & Burton, C. (1993). Mutual Gains: A guide to union-management
cooperation (2nd ed.). Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Collins, D. (1994). The disempowering logic of empowerment.26-30
Conger, J. & Kanungo, R. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice.
Academy of Management Review, 13, 471-482.
Conger, J. (1989). Leadership: The art of empowering others. Academy of Management. 248250
Cooper, D. & Schindler, P. (2001). Business Research Methods (7th ed.). New York: McGrawHill Irwin.320-325.
Cordery, J., Mueller, W., & Smith, L. (1991). Attitudinal and behavioral effects of autonomous
group working: A longitudinal field study. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 464476.
Cross, R.L., Martin, R.D., & Weiss, L.M. (2006), Mapping the Value of Employee
Collaboration, The McKinsey Quarterly, 2006 (3) pp.29-41 [Online]. Available from:
http://www.interknowledgetech.com/Collaboration.pdf (Accessed: July 10, 2011).

81

Dierkes, M., Berthoin Antal, A., Child, J., & Nonaka, I. (eds.). (2003) Handbook of
organizational learning & knowledge. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.Economics, 3, 359-381.
Eisenberger, R., Rhoades, L., & Cameron, J. (1999). Does pay for performance increase or
decrease perceived self-determination and intrinsic motivation? Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, 5, 1026-1040.
Ellickson, M. (2002).Determinants of job satisfaction of municipal government employees.
Public Personnel Management, 3, 343-358.
Eskildsen, J. & Dahlgaard, J. (2000).A causal model for employee satisfaction. Total Quality
Management, 8, 1081-1094.
Evans, J. & Lindsay, W. (1996).The management and control of quality. St. Paul:
WestExecutive, 1, 17-24.
Fairholm, G. (1998). Perspectives on leadership: From the science of management to its spiritual
heart. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.31-35
Fitzpatrick, J., Secrist, J., Wright, D. J. (1998) Secrets For A Successful Dissertation. London.
Sage Publications.28.
Ford, R. &Fottler, M. (1995). Empowerment: A matter of degree. Academy of Management
Executive, 3, 21-31.
Fosam, E., Grimsley, M., & Wisher, S. (1998).Exploring models for employee satisfaction with
particular reference to a police force. Total Quality Management, 9, 235-248.

82

Foy, N. (1994).Empowering people at work. London: Gower Publishing. 256-260

Freedman, S. & Phillips, J. (1985). The effects of situational performance constraints on intrinsic
motivation and satisfaction: The role of perceived competence and self determination.
Processes, 35, 397-416.
Freeman, R. (1978). Job satisfaction as an economic variable. American Economic Review, 2,
135-141.
French, W. (1974). The personnel management process: human resource administration (3rded.).
Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 48-50
Fried, Y. (1991). Meta-analytic comparison of the job diagnostic survey and job characteristics
inventory as correlates of work satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 76, 690-697.
Fryer, L. (n.d.) The definition of employee empowerment [Online], Available from:
http://www.ehow.com/about_5081891_definition-employeeempowerment.html#ixzz1Sej9mgzb. (Accessed on 2nd July 2011)
Gill, J. & Johnson, P. (1997) Research methods for managers. 2nd ed. London: Paul Chapman.
64-65
Harter, J. & Schmidt, F. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction,
employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 2, 268-279.

83

Hartman, M. (2000). The influence of practice organization form and payment sources on the job
stress and satisfaction of dentists. University of Sarasota.UMI ProQuest Digital
Dissertations No.AAT 9963932. 45-50
Hechler, P. & Wiener, Y. (1974).Chronic self-esteem as a moderator of performance
consequences of expected pay.Organizational Behavior& Human Performance, 1, 9- 10.
Herrenkohl, R., Judson, B., & Heffner, J. (1999). Defining and measuring employee
empowerment. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 3, 373-389.
Huntington, S. (1993) The clash of civilizations, Foreign Affairs, [Online] Available from:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/48950/samuel-p-huntington/the-clash-ofcivilizations.(Accessed on 2nd July 2011)
Journal of Organizational Analysis, 1, 20-51.
Journal of Training & Development, 3, 203-216
Kaplan, R. & Norton, D. (2000). Having trouble with your strategy? Then map it. Harvard
Business Review, 5, 167-176.
Kaplan, R. & Norton, D. (2001a).Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance
management to strategic management: Part I. Accounting Horizons, 1, 87-104.
Katzell, R.A. & Yankelovich, D. (1975) Work, Productivity, and Job Satisfaction: An
Evaluation of Policy-Related Research, Psychological Corporation, [Online] Available
from:
http://www.questia.com/read/93924906?title=Work%2c%20Productivity%2c%20and%2

84

0Job%20Satisfaction%3a%20An%20Evaluation%20of%20Policy-Related%20Research
(Accessed on 20th of July 2011)
Leauby, B. &Wentzel, K. (2002). Know the score: The balanced scorecard approach to
strategically assist clients. CPA Journal, 1, 28-32.
Marchington, M. (1993) Fairy tales and magic wands: new employment practices in
perspective, Employee Relations, 17 (1), pp. 88-95
Menon, S. (2001). Employee empowerment: An integrative psychological approach. Applied
Psychology, 1, 153-180.
Morgeson, F. P., (2006) the Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and Validating a
Comprehensive Measure for Assessing Job Design and the Nature of Work, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91 (6), pp. 1321-1339
Nyham, R. (2000). Changing the paradigm: Trust and its role in public sector organizations.
American Review of Public Administration, 1, 87-109.Organizations, 2, 1-18.
Palo, S. (2003).Measuring effectiveness of TQM training: An Indian study.
InternationalPublishing Company. 321-325
Eylon, D. & Bamberger, P (2000). Empowerment cognitions and empowerment acts:
Recognizing the importance of gender. Group & Organization Management, 4, 354-372.
Ren, Y. (2001). Employee satisfaction and firm performance: An analysis of commercial bank
branches. The University of Minnesota.UMI ProQuest Digital Dissertations No.AAT
3032002. 200-220

85

Saunders, M.; Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2000) Research Methods for Business Student. 2nd ed.
Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall. 159-170
Scandura, T. & Williams, E. (2000). Research methodology in management: Current practices,
trends, and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 6, 12481264.
Scott, D., Bishop, J., & Chen, X. (2003). An examination of the relationship of employee
involvement with job satisfaction, employee cooperation, and intention to quit in U.S.
invested enterprise in China. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 1, 3-19.
Senthil, V., Devadasan, S., Selladurai, V. and Balahandayutham, R. (2001). Integration of
BPRand TQM: past, present, and future trends. Production Planning & Control, 7, 680688.
Sharp, J. & Howard, K. (1996) the management of a student research project. 2nd ed. Aldershot:
Gower. 86-90
Shay, P. (2004).A psychometric analysis of an employee satisfaction index.Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, The University of Oklahoma. 42-45
Smeyers, P. (2001). Qualitative versus quantitative research design: a plea for paradigmatic
tolerance in educational research. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 2, 477-495.
Swetnam, D. (2008) Writing your Dissertation. 3rd ed. Oxford: Howtobooks. 42-45
Tabdora, C. (2000). Leadership, teamwork, and empowerment: Future management trends. Cost
Engineering, 10, 41-44.

86

Wanberg, C. & Banas, J. (2000).Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a

reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1, 142-145.
Waterman, R., Waterman, R., & Collard, B. (1994).Toward a career resilient workforce. Harvard
Business Review, Jul-Aug, 87-95
Wilkinson, A. (1998) Empowerment: theory and practice, Personnel Review, 27 (1) pp. 40-56
Zimmerman, B. (1985). The development of "intrinsic" motivation: A social learning analysis.
Child Development, 2, 117-160.
Zwerdling, D. (1980). Workplace democracy: A guide to workplace ownership, participation,
and self-management experiences in the United States and Europe. New York: Harper
and Row. 232-234

87

8 Appendices
8.1 Questionnaire 1 for Employees
1. Did you receive enough information and detail to do your job well?
2. Are you quite satisfied with the nature of the work you do at your job?
3. Do you feel motivated by the monetary and non monetary rewards given for good work?
4. Do you have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in your job?
5. Do you agree that people who are hardworking and result oriented are praised and
rewarded in the organization?
6. Did you get the required training which will provide you with the knowledge and skill to
better accomplish your job?
7. Did organizations senior executives clearly communicate the vision and mission of the
organization?
8. Are you satisfied with your supervisor or manager?
9. Are you allowed to take appropriate actions without waiting for approval from your boss?
10. Can you can only put forward your suggestions and proposals and cannot directly
participate in decisions?
11. Did you receive the needed coaching and feed back about your performance?
12. Do you like your job very much?
13. Dont you feel a sense of satisfaction at your job?
14. Do you feel scared to try something new on your job due to strict supervision?
15. Are you are provided with the necessary educational and training environment?

88

8.2 Questionnaire 2 for leaders & managers

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 mangers can do to facilitate employee empowerment?

89

8.3 Questionnaire 3 Interview Questionnaire

1. Describe the work environment or culture and its management style in which you have
experienced the most success.
2. What factors are crucial within an organization's work environment and must be present
for you to work most effectively?
3. Are you familiar with a concept called employee empowerment? Tell us what you think
of when you think of empowered employees.
4. How does employee empowerment impact a work culture or environment for employees?
5. Describe your preferred relationship with your supervisor or manager in terms of
direction, oversight, delegation, and monitoring.
6. Tell us about a time when you exhibited empowered behavior in your most recent job.
7. How does your current or a former boss encourage or discourage employee
empowerment?

90

8.4 List of Figures & Tables

(1)
(2)

Pp 25
Pp 27

(3) pp 31
(4)

Pp 54

(5)

Pp 55

(6)

Pp 58

(7)

Pp 59

(8)

Pp 60

(9)

Pp 63

(10)

Pp 64

91

9 References
9.1 Presentational Requirements
Ayers, K. E. (2008) Engagement is not enough: You need passionate employees to achieve your
dream. Charleston, South Carolina: Elevate
Chan, A. (2010) Inspire, Empower, Connect: Reaching across cultural differences to make a real
difference. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman
Stonebauer, J. & Lowman, D. (2008) Closing the engagement gap. How great companies unlock
employee potential for superior results. New York: Portfolio
Yeung, R. (2011) I am for influence: The new science of persuasion. London: Pan Macmillan
Huq, R. (2010) Employee Empowerment- the rhetoric and the reality. Devon: Triarchy Press.
Johnson, R. & Redmond, D. (1998) the art of empowerment the profit and pain of employee
involvement. London: Pitman Publishing
Potterfield, T.A. (1999) the Business of Employee Empowerment Democracy and Ideology in
the Workplace. Westport: Quorum Books
Johansson, C.R., Frevel, A., Geiler-Gruber, B. &Strina, G., (2004) Applied participation and
Empowerment at Work Methods, Tools and Case Studies. Lund: Student literature
Cartwright, R. (2002) Empowerment. Oxford: Capstone Publishing
Applegarth, M. (2006) Leading Empowerment. A practical guide to change. Oxford: Chandos
Publishing

92

Smith, J. (1996) Empowering people: How to bring out the best in your workforce. London:
Kogan Page Ltd.
Gebauer, J. & Lowman, D. (2008) Closing the engagement gap. How great companies unlock
employee potential for superior results. New York: Portfolio