Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1994
Employee Empowerment
Nick Nykodym, Jack L. Simonetti, Warren R. Nielsen and Barbara Welling
45
ORGANIZATIONS:
AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
to rebuild their organizations. For example, practitioners, and workshops and courses on
the origin of quality circles can also be traced these management techniques began to
to the United States. In 1951, W. Edwards appear[3].
Deming spent several weeks in Japan As we moved into the 1980s, it became
lecturing and demonstrating methods of clear that we were no longer competing
quality control. The Japanese, well aware of effectively with the Japanese. Japanese
their reputation for poor quality products, management style placed a high emphasis on
eagerly accepted Deming’s suggestions[2]. human relations, and as a result, by the mid-
About the same time the Europeans and 1980s arguments for participation became
Japanese were invading the United States to even stronger[3]. Today, it is likely that
gain managerial knowledge, Sears instituted a participative management will increase in the
survey program designed to measure 1990s because of the complexity of decisions
workers’ and supervisors’ reaction to human
that will need to be made in a changing
relations in the company and various aspects
environment and the increasing pressure of
of their jobs. Sears also developed a way to
world competition[3].
report the results back to the managers. Soon
more and more companies began developing History has shown that organizations have
their own internal survey programs and began taken these management ideas and adapted
exchanging ideas with each other[2]. them to their own culture. As a result four
broad areas of employee participation and
three methods of application have been
n developed. Any combination of these
Japanese management style determines the form of participation used.
placed a high emphasis on
human relations Areas, Methods and Forms of
n Participation
One of the four areas of participation is goal
setting. Employees can take part in
By the 1960s and 1970s worker participation establishing a goal for a task, designing a job
programs were on the rise in the United
or even the speed at which the work should
States. Quality circles used in the United
take place. Next, employees can take part in
States had been readapted to our culture from
making choices among alternative courses of
that of the Japanese. Rather than having the
management in control, as in Japan, the action presented to them such as working
United States programs were administered hours, placement of equipment or simply
jointly by leaders of management and choices between set alternatives to complete a
labor[2]. In the United States, participative routine task. Third, employees can take part
management was often confined to a task or in solving problems, which involves defining
special project and as soon as the problem the issues and setting the alternative courses
was solved or the goal achieved, participation of action. Finally, participation may involve
ceased instead of being supported as a making organizational changes, such as
continuous management practice[2]. During setting company policies that might involve
this time, participative management ideas hiring, layoffs, profit sharing or investments.
began to create a considerable amount of Employees may participate in any or all of
interest among management theorists and these four areas at any one time[1,4].
46
VOLUME 2 NUMBER 3
1994
47
ORGANIZATIONS:
AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
48
VOLUME 2 NUMBER 3
1994
the conditions under which each of the five Kanter[6] provides the following list of
options are effective. The five options are: situations when participation works best:
(1) make the decision yourself using ● to gain new sources of expertise and
available information; experience;
(2) obtain the necessary information from ● to get collaboration that multiplies a
subordinates, but make the decision person’s effort by providing assistance,
yourself; backup, or stimulation of better
(3) get ideas and suggestions from performance;
individuals separately, then make the ● to allow all of those who feel they know
decision which may or may not reflect the something about the subject to get
subordinate’s input; involved;
(4) share the decision with the group, and ● to build consensus on a controversial
make a decision that may or may not issue;
reflect their input; and ● to allow representatives of those affected
(5) share the decision with the group and by an issue to influence decisions and
together make the decision. build commitment to them;
Next, the best option is then chosen based on ● to tackle a problem that no one “owns” by
the use of seven decision rules. These are: virtue of organizational assignment;
● to allow more wide-ranging or creative
(1) whether the decision has a high-quality
discussions/solutions than are available by
requirement;
normal means (for example, getting an
(2) whether the leader has sufficient unusual group together);
information to make a high quality
● to balance or confront vested interests in
decision;
the face of the need to change;
(3) whether the problem is structured;
● to address conflicting approaches or
(4) whether acceptance of the decision is views;
essential for effective implementation;
● to avoid precipitous action and explore a
(5) whether an authoritative decision would variety of effects;
be accepted if made; ● to create an opportunity and enough time
(6) whether conflict among subordinates is to study the problem in depth;
likely in the decision; and ● to develop and educate people through
(7) whether subordinates share organizational their participation: creating new skills,
goals to be attained in making a decision. new information, and new contacts.
Vroom’s own research supports that decisions In summary, the psychological attitudes of
made following these guidelines are of higher employees and managers, the climate of the
quality than those made when not following organization, the environmental conditions,
these rules[5]. the issues, the situation, and the kind of
Although participation cannot always be problem to be addressed determine first if
the preferred decision making method, there participation is the method to use, and if so,
are certain situations when participation these factors will have an effect on its
seems the most advantageous. Rosabeth Moss success. Even when participation is the
49
ORGANIZATIONS:
AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
chosen mode of decision making, it does not dilemmas surrounding the structure and
come without ramifications. management. A clear structure is important
for making an empowering process like
participation work. From the beginning,
Dilemmas of Participation ground rules and boundary conditions need to
Managing participation does not come be established. Too many choices can be
without potential problems in the areas of frustrating, and the fewer constraints placed
initiation, structure and management, choice on a team, the more time they will spend
of issues, teamwork, and evaluation. defining their structure than accomplishing
Frequently, when organizations decide to the task. In short, the existence of people who
begin a program of participation, someone at can mobilize others and set constraints is an
a higher level directs others to get involved in essential part of making participation work.
Another issue related to structure and
setting up task forces and teams. Additionally,
management is that the manager not only sets
the managers who are directed to carry out
the constraints, but also remains involved
this activity will be evaluated on the success
enough to coordinate activities, support
of their teams. These middle managers have
employees and review the results. He/she
very little to say about the start-up of these
does not simply delegate the task to a team
programs, and top level managers are
and walk away without monitoring the
certainly not modeling the behavior they wish
progress. Last, it is important to find and
to see in their organization. Another problem
manage the time needed for participation.
in the beginning stages of participation is the Workers must feel that attending the group
manner in which the organization presents the meetings is worth their time and effort so
program to the employees. Leaders worker apathy does not develop[6].
sometimes present participation as a gift Next, is the issue of choice, or which issues
rather than a results-oriented tool. Presenting are to be involved in participative decision
participation as a luxury is insulting to making. Studies have shown that workers
employees. However, introducing prefer to be involved in issues most closely
participation along with clear explanations of related to their primary job function.
what management hopes to gain from this Participation in local issues that are daily
concept is more readily accepted by annoyances is more enthusiastically received
employees. Finally, the last dilemma in the by workers. However, it is very important not
start-up stages is which employees to get to make assumptions about which issues are
involved. If participation relies on volunteers, most important to workers; they should be
it is not representative, if it does not, it is asked. Visible results are most likely to be
coercive. It is important to have people with seen when teams approach local issues, and
appropriate skills and enthusiasm on teams, employees will feel that their time was well
but it is also equally important not to assign spent if they can see tangible results.
people to teams without letting them have any Participatory mechanisms that simply set
say in the decision. Also, it is important not to agendas rather than produce action are
have peer and management pressure that regarded as a part of the organization’s
would make an employee afraid to say no control system and not an empowering
even if they are asked formally to device. Visible results eventually evolve into
participate[6]. some type of reward system. Once
In addition to potential problems in participation has passed the experimental
initiating participation, there may be stage, employees may want compensation or
50
VOLUME 2 NUMBER 3
1994
recognition for their time and ideas. People individuals as to the nature of the problem,
need to feel they can benefit from and steps to solve the problem, but do not
contributing to the effectiveness of the communicate their opinions to the rest of the
organization[6]. group. Thus they lead one another to
misperceive collective reality. With
misperceived information, which is
n
inaccurate, members make collective
Lower status decisions contrary to what they really wanted
people may to do, and that may be destructive to the
feel intimidated organization. As a result of these actions,
members feel frustrated and angry. They
n begin forming subgroups, and blaming each
other. If corrective steps are not taken, the
cycle will repeat itself with greater
Furthermore, once the team is established,
intensity[7].
members need to feel that they are a
Also, all members of a group vary in
necessary part of the whole group. Teams
personality and personal resources. Some
formed with individuals at different levels of
have personalities that seem to “fit right in”,
the hierarchy of an organization sometimes
fall into a pattern of duplicating the and some are better communicators than
organizational hierarchy in miniature. others. Each member brings different skills,
Comments from those who come from higher needs and interests to the group. From this
status positions are treated most attentively. team politics can arise[6]. Sometimes this
Lower status people may feel intimidated and progresses to the point that the group staying
be afraid to contribute to group discussions, together as a united team becomes the most
particularly if they do not agree with the important concern and the real reason or
higher status person. Moreover, if they feel mission of the team becomes secondary.
too dominated, lower status people may drop These groups become victims of
out of the group. Another factor may be that “groupthink” which results in seven major
the member with the most knowledge of the defects of problem solving. They are:
subject under discussion may be the most (1) There is an incomplete survey of
effective participant. Often organizational alternative courses of action.
position can create this difference on the
(2) There is an incomplete survey of
team. Those less well informed members will
objectives to be fulfilled.
have little to contribute and may respond by
dropping out, or they may be forced to (3) There is failure to re-examine the
support a decision of the group that they had preferred choice for non-obvious risks
little part in making[6]. and drawbacks.
For whatever reason, whether it be lack of (4) There is failure to reconsider any
knowledge, intimidation, or fear of separation previously rejected alternatives.
from the group, some groups frequently take
actions in contradiction to what they really (5) There is little or no attempt to consult
want to do, and therefore, defeat the very experts.
purpose they are trying to achieve. This is (6) Members only show interest in facts or
more popularly known as the “Abilene opinions that support their preferred
Paradox”. Members agree privately as choice.
51
ORGANIZATIONS:
AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
(7) Members fail to work out contingency goal-setting interventions[10]. Wagner and
plans to deal with unforeseeable Gooding[10], in studies that contrasted
setbacks[8]. directive versus participative processes, found
Finally, there are dilemmas involved in the a correlation between participation and
evaluation of participation. Regardless of how satisfaction when participants were asked to
well participation works, it will not solve all perform simple tasks. This is important
of an organization’s problems. It is merely a because it helps support the suggestion that
technique to seek more involvement and input participation helps enrich simplified
in a changing environment with a more work[10]. Smith and Brannick also speculate
sophisticated workforce. Disappointments for that participation causes greater job
leaders and employees are likely to be satisfaction because the employee feels more
proportional to the amount initially promised. valued and trusted by management, and
Management clearly needs to communicate in because the worker gains a better
the beginning what will and will not come out understanding of management difficulties by
of the participatory process, and how the dealing with some of the same problems[11].
results will be measured along with how
employees will benefit. Employees will then
set their goals accordingly. Last, the final n
point to consider is the question of whether It is not participation
participation is appetite stimulating or per se that increases
appetite satisfying. Depending on the
employee and the outcome of the experience,
job satisfaction
the answer could be either[6]. n
Effectiveness of Participation
Several studies have been done over the years Some researchers suggest that it is not
that produced mixed results as to the participation per se that increases job
effectiveness of participation on job satisfaction and performance, but rather an
satisfaction and performance. There are improvement in employee expectancies,
several variables to consider: role conflict and effort-performance expectancy and
ambiguity; expectancy perception; stress; performance-reward expectancy, that
goal setting; job level; personality; and task influences satisfaction and performance[12].
characteristics. Schuler[12] suggests that participation is
Researchers have concluded that related to the employee role perceptions of
participation has at least a moderately conflict and ambiguity, and therefore, the
positive affect on job satisfaction and more participation in decision making, the
productivity. Miller and Monge[9] reported a lower the levels of role conflict and
positive correlation between participation and ambiguity. Role and expectancy perceptions
job satisfaction in studies conducted in may be influenced by psychological,
organizational settings that incorporated organizational and environmental contingent
measures of multiple-issue participation. A factors. Most participation research of this
correlation between participation and type has dealt with issues directly relating to
productivity was revealed when they the employee. Participation in decision
averaged the results of field studies lacking making is related to the employee’s
52
VOLUME 2 NUMBER 3
1994
perception of the performance-reward Studies have shown that hard goals lead to
expectancy because it allows a chance for the higher performance than easy goals,
employee to verify the actual performance regardless of the method by which they were
contingencies in the organization with his or set[15]. A series of studies provides strong
her supervisor and fellow employees. Also, support for Locke’s theory that specific goals
the more participation an employee has with lead to higher performance than generalized
his or her supervisor, the more chances there goals. Also, there is a linear relationship
are for role clarification and conflict between goal difficulty and performance.
awareness and resolution[12]. Participation in task strategy from a
Also, both role conflict and ambiguity have motivational standpoint affects performance
been predicted to affect emotional strain. One only to the extent that it includes the setting
frequently suggested method of reducing job of specific goals that are more difficult than
strain has been participation in decision those assigned by the supervisor. In short,
making. Some theorists have argued that the motivational effects of participation on
mere belief in one’s ability to influence the performance appear to be minimal[15].
environment will help reduce frustration and Next, early studies on the effects of
strain. Therefore, participation in decision participation focussed on the subordinate’s
making gives workers a vehicle to overcome personality characteristics, primarily the need
obstacles to effective performance[13]. for independence. Participative decision
Past research has indicated that attitudes making was hypothesized to have a more
toward participative decision making can positive effect on subordinates with a high
vary across different levels of job degree of independence. However, the path-
involvement or to the extent of how closely goal theory suggests that both task and
one identifies with his or her work. personality characteristics interact to
Participation is considered less effective determine effects of participation on job
among uninvolved workers since such satisfaction and performance. Schuler
workers are assumed to be less receptive to discovered in 1976 that participation in
participative practices. However, with these decision making was satisfying to low
employees, such programs have proved to be authoritarian subordinates regardless of the
most successful. In addition, participative degree of task repetitiveness, but was
practices are often a natural part of higher satisfying to high authoritarian subordinates
level managerial positions. Employees in only if the degree of task repetitiveness was
lower level routine jobs, who traditionally low[16]. The-high-need-for-independence
have had little input in the decision-making subordinate shows significant differential
process, are often the most receptive to responses in terms of job satisfaction and
participative programs; thus the greatest performance to participation under different
impact is often at the lower level[11]. degrees of task repetitiveness. The path-goal
Another factor to consider in evaluating theory predicts that low-need-for-
participation is the motivational effect of independence subordinates are the ones that
participation versus goal setting on should exhibit such a response. The path-goal
performance. Meyer et al. in 1965[14] found theory suggests that when the task is highly
that to improve performance – how a goal repetitive, and subordinates are not allowed to
was set, participative or directive – was not as make their own work decisions, participation
important as the fact that a goal was set. would be of little value because it would not
53
ORGANIZATIONS:
AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
54
VOLUME 2 NUMBER 3
1994
55