مدلی منسجم کننده از فرآیند توانمندسازی

Employee empowerment theory and research lacks a single, unifying model capable of integrating the multiple levels of activity and complex relationships that characterize the empowerment process. The model proposed in this paper describes the empowerment process from intervention design to subsequent employee behavior. The dynamics of the empowerment process are presented as reflecting the interaction between the localized work environment and the individual employee, within the broader organization context. We argue that the definitions presented in this paper can serve to integrate and unify the literature and research on empowerment. Links between the organization context, the local work environment, intervening perceptions and attitudes, and specific components of psychological empowerment are suggested. The role of individual differences within these relationships is also described. Finally, we discuss implications for researchers and managers.

The empowerment literature lacks a set of well-accepted and consistently applied definitions of the important elements in the empowerment process. For example, the definitions of empowerment itself vary widely across scholars. Many studies define empowerment as intrinsic task motivation (e.g., Conger & Kanungo, 1988 and Thomas & Velthouse, 1990) or motivation reflective of the person–environment fit (Zimmerman, 1990). In other literature, empowerment has been defined as perceptions (Parker & Price, 1994) and as commitment-based designs (Spreitzer, 1996). Researchers have also defined empowerment in terms of job structure—the transfer of power or authority (e.g., Burke, 1986 and Kanter, 1977) and/or job support structures such as the sharing of resources and information (e.g., Blau & Alba, 1982 and Hardy & Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998). Empowerment has also been described as dependent on management or leadership actions (e.g., Bennis & Nanus, 1985 and Block, 1987) and human resource practices such as training programs or reward systems (e.g., Conger & Kanungo, 1988 and Lawler, 1986). And, finally, empowerment has been used with reference to behavioral or performance-related outcomes (e.g., Zimmerman, 1990). These varied definitions and approaches have made it difficult to compare and integrate empirical findings across empowerment studies. A model that integrates all of these definitions of empowerment would bring much needed organization to this literature. Fundamental to this lack of common definitions is a belief that empowerment is a single, easily defined construct, when, in fact, empowerment is an on-going process, taking place in a dynamic environment, involving many elements that operate at different levels of analysis. Much of the work in this field has focused on only portions of the overall empowerment process, viewing each in isolation and consequently providing an incomplete picture of the dynamics of the process. For example, much of the empowerment literature has been criticized for considering psychological or motivational issues at the expense of actual job structure changes in the environment that might provide employees with more power (e.g., Hardy & Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998). It has been suggested that future research must determine the local work unit elements that affect the individual cognitions in order to extend our knowledge of the macro–micro links (Spreitzer, 1996). The broader organization context will also have important influences on the success of the empowerment process (e.g., Heller, 1973). Historical and cultural elements within their specific organization context must be taken into consideration when predicting or attempting to explain employee responses to empowerment interventions (Marchington, Wilkinson, Ackers, & Goodman, 1994). Although past research in empowerment has somewhat inconsistently alluded to the roles of various attitudes and perceptions, we believe these elements define a critical set of intervening variables that link contextual components to psychological empowerment. This purpose of this paper is to present a framework that will integrate and extend the current literature by clarifying the role of important contextual, environmental, cognitive, and behavioral variables in the empowerment process, thus, fulfilling the suggested need (Zimmerman, 1990) for the integration of all relevant levels of analysis. We propose that the empowerment process is best represented by an expanded focus that incorporates both environmental and individual-level elements. In the model proposed in Fig. 1, we have sought to represent the most important of these elements as they act and interact to influence employee behaviors on the job. The specific relationships proposed throughout the paper have been enumerated on the figure and in the discussion below for clarity. We propose that the most critical step in the empowerment process is the creation of a local work environment within a broader organizational context that will provide both an opportunity to exercise one's full range of authority and power (i.e., empowered behaviors), as well as the intrinsic motivation within employees to engage in that type of behavior (i.e., psychological empowerment). Relationship #2 in Fig. 1 reflects the proposed link between the broader organization context and elements in the local work environment (i.e., job structure, human resource practices, and local management actions). Important employee perceptions (i.e., perceived “opportunity” to influence workplace outcomes and perceived level and nature of “organizational support”) and attitudes (i.e., “trust” and “commitment”) are proposed to be influenced by the both the broad organization context (i.e., relationship #3 in Fig. 1) and local work environment (relationships 4–9 in Fig. 1). We propose that these intervening perceptions and attitudes are key links in the process by which both the organization context and the local work environment influence psychological empowerment (i.e., relationship #1 in Fig. 1). We believe that the study of psychological empowerment in the absence of these intervening variables will result in a less than a complete understanding of the empowerment process. We also believe that the individual differences that employees bring with them to the workplace will moderate the influences of both the organization context and the local work environment (i.e., links #11 in Fig. 1) and directly influence the intervening perceptions and attitudes (i.e., relationship #10 in Fig. 1), as well as the level of psychological empowerment experienced (relationship #12 in Fig. 1). As shown in Fig. 1, the relationship between psychological empowerment and empowered behaviors is proposed to be moderated by the organization context and elements of the local work environment (links #14 in Fig. 1) that directly define the range of authority granted. We believe that the definitions and processes proposed in Fig. 1 can provide a useful framework for understanding and integrating prior research on employee empowerment and help to reduce the confusion surrounding the various conceptualizations. The wealth of organizational experiences and the academic literature on empowerment should be placed into a common framework. The goal of empowerment theory is to explain how environmental elements interact with personal cognitions, perceptions, and attitudes (Zimmerman, 1990), and ultimately predict how these elements influence employee behaviors on the job. Fig. 1 provides a model of the process by which perceptions, attitudes, and consequent psychological empowerment are linked with elements of the organization context and local work environment to the demonstration of empowered behaviors. In the following sections, we will discuss the specific links proposed between psychological empowerment and the perceptions of opportunity and support, as well as the attitudes of organizational commitment and trust. We will then link these intervening perceptions and attitudes to the organization context and to components in the local work environment (and also discuss the inherent links between these two). Thus, the proposed relationships will begin with what we propose are key antecedents of psychological empowerment and end with how these antecedent attitudes and perceptions are affected by environmental influences. Finally, the role of individual differences within these relationships is explored.

Empowerment interventions have become very popular, so much so that the 1990s have been hailed as the “empowerment era” (Hardy & Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998). A recent international survey (Sparrow et al., 1994) suggests that representatives from firms all over the world (including the United States, United Kingdom, France, Japan, Korea, South America) perceive that the usefulness of empowering employees in order to gain a competitive advantage is increasing. While some of the interventions have been considered successful by companies, many others have not (e.g., see Hardy & Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998 and Thorlakson & Murray, 1996). Many uncertainties exist regarding the process by which empowerment might contribute to increased organizational performance and as a result, recommendations concerning the implementation of the empowerment process are limited. Some argue that implementing empowerment programs are decisions made on faith since there is no clear data supporting its effectiveness. We believe that integrative models incorporating multiple levels of analysis are needed in order to make theoretical, as well as empirical advances in the empowerment literature. As proposed earlier, we must be able to relate important antecedents (i.e., perceptions and attitudes) of psychological empowerment (individual levels of analysis) to changes in the local work environment (work unit level of analysis) and historical and cultural influences that make up the organizational context (organizational level of analysis). In this paper, we have proposed specific links between the organization context, the local work environment, employee perceptions and attitudes, and specific components of psychological empowerment. We suggest that the links proposed in this paper can serve as a guide for directing research in this area. We suggest that the framework presented in this paper can provide an improved practical understanding of the obstacles and likely paths to a successful empowerment process. In fact, the model proposed here may help to identify points where the process typically fails and consequently focus future research and managerial attention on these issues. For example, if employees are not psychologically empowered as a result of interventions designed to do so, the failure may be attributable to any one or more of a number of links in the process. Pertinent questions may include the following. Have historical and cultural influences in the organization context and practices in the local work environment produced the positive perceptions and attitudes that are antecedent to psychological empowerment? More specifically, have communication efforts, training, and local management actions produced perceptions of support that are consistent with the authority being transferred? Are performance evaluation, reward, and discipline systems perceived as fair and do they contribute to an atmosphere of trust? Has employee commitment been positively affected by information sharing and informal management practices? Are positive local elements being offset by negative influences of the broader organization context? If, even in the presence of sufficient degrees of psychological empowerment, empowered behaviors are not being exercised, might the failure be attributable to constraints within the organization context or local work environment? In sum, the framework presented in the paper can be used by both managers and researchers as an empowerment process blueprint and diagnostic framework and, in turn, provides important links between theory and practice.