Empowerment in the Workplace: In search of a shared mental model

There is a lack of academic consensus on a shared definition for the concept of empowerment.[i] Instead, there are two schools of thought. The first is known as structural empowerment and is concerned with organizational design and the transfer of responsibility from management to employees. The second is psychological empowerment which focuses on the individual employee’s or team’s perception of control over their work.[ii] In recent years, studies have attempted to explain a concept of empowerment integrating the two schools of thought.[iii] This brief outline will attempt the same by framing the concept as a system. Key players in the system include senior leaders of the organization/company, supervisors, and employees, with both structural and psychological inputs to the system. This is obviously very rudimentary and risks oversimplifying an incredibly complex subject; however, the goal is to synthesize the concept into a potentially useful mental model.

The concept of empowerment is multi-faceted. Members at all levels of an organization play crucial roles to ensuring successful employee empowerment. As stated above, empowerment involves the organization’s structural support, supervisor investment, and employee participation, in addition to a nested psychological component that impacts the entirety of the organization. The expected output of empowerment is having more engaged employees with increased job satisfaction who can solve problems, thereby helping the organization gain and maintain a competitive advantage.

First, organizations should shape expectations for empowerment to fit their purpose and culture. For example, the US Marine Corps has a warfighting culture that places a premium on aggressiveness in taking initiative and making decisions. This is important for the Marine Corps because its warfighting philosophy of maneuver warfare requires decentralized actions to achieve success in battle. However, the Marine Corps understands this style of warfare is inherently disorderly.[iv] Therefore, a civilian company’s expectations for empowerment may differ from those of the Marine Corps.

?

Next, an organization should establish a framework for empowerment. A product of the organization’s culture is its structural support; specifically, the programs and policies in place to cultivate employee empowerment.[v] This is obviously wide-ranging. Of note, senior leaders are responsible for continually evaluating company policies and practices to ensure they do not become barriers to empowerment. A few examples of programs/policies supportive of employee empowerment may include:

• Open door-style programs allowing employees an avenue to submit good ideas or address grievances directly to senior leaders.
• Comprehensive leadership development programs (education benefits, etc.).
• Flexible Human Resources policies that allow the employee to make more decisions.
• Organizational structure that supports cross-functional team engagement and offers greater opportunities for shared leadership.
• Adopting systems that aid teams and employees in their job functions, supporting ease of collaboration.
• Continuous updates to company policies to keep pace with advances in technology.

Down in the trenches are the managers and supervisors who translate company policy into practice. Back to the Marine Corps example above, simply being aggressive in taking initiative and making decisions does not equate to being empowered. Instead, the leadership skills of young Marines are honed over time through a variety of means, to include professional education, but more importantly, through multiple training events where they learn the leader's intent and decision-making style. Trust builds over time. Marines are empowered with more responsibility, with the requisite authority to make decisions. The young Marines are accountable for the decisions they make and the judgement they exercise.

?

Supervisor investment ensures employees are properly trained, equipped, and resourced for the job.[vi] Supervisors shoulder a heavy burden and are responsible for creating a climate grounded in trust and mutual respect. The process of empowering is continuous and can take time to build relationships and develop skill-sets. A few examples of supervisory actions to support empowerment might include:

• Communicate clear expectations and provide consistent feedback.
• Foster an environment of shared leadership.
• Establish individual learning goals and a career path to ensure team members are constantly learning and developing.
• Recognize employees for great work, linking their successes to the company mission/purpose; provide recommendations for improvement in private.
• Give tasks and be available for some observation and to answer questions. Don’t interfere for small mistakes.
• Be flexible.

?

The employee will have her own thoughts of company policy. Will there be an avenue for her voice to be heard? The employee will either feel like a respected, valued member of the team, or not. Will the supervisor recognize disrespectful behavior and address it? Will the supervisor understand her perceptions and feelings? If not, she will likely disengage, job satisfaction will plummet, and she’ll probably soon quit.

In the end, each employee is an integral part of the team and company. Therefore, employees need to feel their contributions to the team are worthwhile and meaningful. An employee who senses she is being empowered will develop self-efficacy, which will lead to increased motivation, and ultimately enhanced job satisfaction. The organization establishes the framework and drives the company culture; the supervisor sets conditions by providing all the necessary tools for success and nurtures a healthy climate; and the employee is an active member of the team, providing input, developing skills, and learning until properly trained and equipped to lead the next project or team. ??

?

[i] Azize Ergenali, Guler Saglam Ari, and Selin Metin. “Psychological empowerment and its relationship to trust in immediate managers.” Journal of Business Research 60 (2007), 42.

[ii] Maynard M. Travis, Gilson Lucy L., Mathieu John E. “Empowerment – Fad or fab? A multilevel review of the past two decades of research.” Journal of Management 38, no. 4 (2012), 1231–1281.

[iii] Laschinger, Heather K. Spence, Joan Finegan, Judith Shamian, and Piotr Wilk. “Impact of Structural and Psychological Empowerment on Job Strain in Nursing Work Settings: Expanding Kanter’s Model.” The Journal of Nursing Administration 31, no. 5 (2001): 260–72.

[iv] Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication 1: Warfighting (Washington, D.C., 1997).

[v] This is my interpretation of one component of ‘structural empowerment.’

[vi] Jay Conger and Rabindra Kanungo. “The Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory and Practice.” The Academy of Management Review Vol 13, 3 (July 1988), 472. Salas et al., say that development of future leaders should consist of formal institutional education, operational assignments, and self-development. These are important aspects that leaders must ensure they provide to enable others. Salas, E., Burke, C. S., & Stagl, K. C., “Developing teams and team leaders: strategies and principles.” In D. V. Day, S. J. Zaccaro, & S. M. Halpin (Eds.), Leader development for transforming organizations: Growing leaders for tomorrow (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2004), 325?355.