Academy of Management
http://www.jstor.org/stable/258093 .
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy
of Management Review.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:20:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
0 Academy of Management Review, 1988,Vol. 13, No. 3, 471-482.
Empowerment Process:
The
Theory
and
Practice
Integrating
JAYA. CONGER
RABINDRAN. KANUNGO
McGill University
Despite increasing attention on the topic of empowerment, our understanding of the construct and its underlying processes remains limited.
This article addresses these shortcomings by providing an analytical
treatment of the construct and by integrating the diverse approaches
to empowerment found in both the management and psychology
literatures. In addition, the authors identify certain antecedent conditions of powerlessness and practices that have been hypothesized to
empower subordinates.
There has been a growing interest in the concept of empowerment and related management
practices among both management researchers
and practitioners (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Block,
1987; Burke, 1986; House, in press; Kanter, 1979;
McClelland, 1975; Neilsen, 1986). This interest is
due to several reasons. First, studies on leadership and management skills (Bennis & Nanus,
1985; House, in press; Kanter, 1979, 1983; McClelland, 1975) suggest that the practice of empowering subordinates is a principal component of
managerial and organizational effectiveness.
Second, analysis of power and control within
organizations (Kanter, 1979; Tannenbaum, 1968)
reveals that the total productive forms of organizational power and effectiveness grow with
superiors' sharing of power and control with
subordinates. Finally, experiences in team building within organizations (Beckhard, 1969; Neilsen, 1986) suggest that empowerment techniques
play a crucial role in group development and
maintenance.
A review of the literature cited above clearly
attests that empowerment is an emerging construct used by theorists to explain organizational
effectiveness. The construct also has been widely
used by other social scientists who have dealt
with issues of the powerlessness
of minority
groups (e.g., women, blacks, and the handicapped). Because of the widespread popularity
of empowerment as a construct, we believe it
requires critical examination.
Despite the recognized role of empowerment
in management theory and practice, our understanding of the construct is limited and often
confusing. For example, most management theorists have dealt with empowerment as a set of
managerial techniques and have not paid sufficient attention to its nature or the processes underlying the construct. This may reflect the pragmatic or practice orientation of theorists, and the
result may be an inadequate understanding of
the notion of empowerment and its theoretical
rationale for related practices. As a construct,
empowerment has not received the same analytical treatment from management scholars as the
construct of power (or control). In many cases,
scholars have assumed that empowerment is the
same as delegating or sharing power with subordinates and, hence, that the construct requires
no further conceptual analysis beyond the power
concept. We believe that this approach has seri-
471
This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:20:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ous flaws, as we will discuss in our article. In
addition, the contexts most appropriate for empowerment and the actual management practices that foster empowerment are poorly understood and catalogued. Our objective is to address
these shortcomings by providing an analytical
treatment of the empowerment construct. We
have made an attempt to integrate the diverse
approaches to empowerment found in both the
management and psychology literatures. In
doing so, this article provides a framework for
studying empowerment and demonstrates its
relevance to management theory and practice.
The Constructs of
Power and Empowerment
In order to critically analyze the notion of empowerment in management practice, the root
constructs of power and control from which the
empowerment construct is derived must be considered. Essentially, control and power are used
in the literature in two different ways and, consequently, empowerment can be viewed in two
different ways.
Empowerment as a Relational Construct. In
the management and social influence literature,
power is primarily a relational concept used to
describe the perceived power or control that an
individual actor or organizational subunit has
over others (Bacharach & Lawler, 1980; Crozier,
1964; Dahl, 1957; Hinings, Hickson, Pennings, &
Schneck, 1974; Kotter, 1979; Parsons & Smelser,
1956; Pfeffer, 1981). Taking its emphasis from social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Emerson, 1962;
Homans, 1974;Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), this literature interprets power as a function of the dependence and/or interdependence of actors. Power
arises when an individual's or a subunit's performance outcomes are contingent not simply on
their own behavior but on what others do and/or
in how others respond (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959).
The relative power of one actor over another is a
product of the net dependence of the one on the
other (Pfeffer, 1981). Therefore, if Actor A depends
more on Actor B than B depends on A, then B
has power over A.
At the organizational level, the principal
sources of an actor's power over an organization
have been argued to be the actor's ability to
provide some performance or resource that is
valued by the organization or the actor's ability
to cope with important organizational contingencies or problems (Pfeffer, 1982). For example, Crozier (1964) demonstrated that maintenance workers in a French factory had control over a critical
organizational contingency-the
breakdown of
machinery-which
was their source of power.
Salancik and Pfeffer (1974) found that in universities the degree of department power was related
to the number of contracts and grants obtained.
At the interpersonal level, the principal sources
of actor power over others are argued to be
(a) the office or structural position of the actor,
(b) the personal characteristics of the actor (e.g.,
referent power, French & Raven, 1959), (c) the
expertise of the actor, and (d) the opportunity for
the actor to access specialized knowledge/information (Bacharach & Lawler, 1980). Depending
on what resources actors control, their bases of
power have been identified as legal (control of
office), coercive (control of punishment), remunerative (control of material rewards), normative (control of symbolic rewards), and knowledge/expertise (control of information) (Bacharach & Lawler, 1980; Etzioni, 1961; French &
Raven, 1959).
Implied in these theories are the assumptions
that organizational actors who have power are
more likely to achieve their desired outcomes
and actors who lack power are more likely to
have their desired outcomes thwarted or redirected by those with power. This orientation has
led theorists to focus on the source or bases of
actor power and on the conditions that promote
such dependence (Hills & Mahoney, 1978; Kotter,
1977, 1979; Lodahl & Gordon, 1972; Pfeffer, 1981;
Salancik & Pfeffer, 1974, 1977). This focus also
has led to the development of strategies and tactics of resource allocation for increasing the
power of less powerful parties and reducing the
power of more powerful ones (Bucher, 1970;
Kotter, 1977, 1979;Mowday, 1978;Pettigrew, 1972;
472
This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:20:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Pfeffer, 1981; Plott & Levine, 1978; Salancik &
Pfeffer, 1974; Selznick, 1949).
If we consider empowerment in terms of this
relational dynamic, it becomes the process by
which a leader or manager shares his or her
power with subordinates. Power, in this context,
is interpreted as the possession of formal authority or control over organizational resources. The
emphasis is primarily on the notion of sharing
authority. Burke's (1986)position is representative:
"To empower, implies the granting of powerdelegation of authority" (p. 51). The Merriam
Webster's Dictionary similarly describes the verb
to empower as "to authorize or delegate or give
legal power to someone." In the management
literature, this idea of delegation and the decentralization of decision-making power is central
to the empowerment notion (Burke, 1986; House,
in press; Kanter, 1983). As a result, we find that
most of the management literature on empowerment deals with participative management techniques such as management
by objectives,
quality circles, and goal setting by subordinates
as the means of sharing power or delegating
authority.
This manner of treating the notion of empowerment from a management practice perspective
is so common that often employee participation
is simply equated with empowerment (Likert,
1961, 1967; McGregor, 1960). However, because
this line of reasoning does not adequately address
the nature of empowerment as experienced by
subordinates, it raises important questions. For
example, does the sharing of authority and resources with subordinates automatically empower them? Through what psychological mechanisms do participative and resource-sharing
techniques foster an empowering experience
among subordinates? Are participation and the
sharing of organizational resources the only
techniques for empowerment? Are the effects of
an empowering experience the same as the
effects of delegation, participation, and resource
sharing?
Empowerment as a Motivational Construct. In
the psychology literature, power and control are
used as motivational and/or expectancy beliefstates that are internal to individuals. For instance, individuals are assumed to have a need
for power (McClelland, 1975) where power connotes an internal urge to influence and control
other people. A related but more inclusive disposition to control and cope with life events also
has been proposed by several psychologists who
have dealt with the issues of primary/secondary
control (Rothbaum, Weisz, & Snyder, 1982),
internal/external locus of control (Rotter, 1966),
and learned helplessness (Abramson, Garber,
& Seligman, 1980). Individuals' power needs are
met when they perceive that they have power or
when they believe they can adequately cope
with events, situations, and/or the people they
confront. On the other hand, individuals' power
needs are frustrated when they feel powerless
or when they believe that they are unable to
cope with the physical and social demands of
environment.
Power in this motivational sense refers to an
intrinsic need for self-determination (Deci, 1975)
or a belief in personal self-efficacy (Bandura,
1986). Under this conceptualization, power has
its base within an actor's motivational disposition.
Any managerial strategy or technique that
strengthens this self-determination need or selfefficacy belief of employees will make them feel
more powerful. Conversely, any strategy that
weakens the self-determination need or selfefficacy belief of employees will increase their
feelings of powerlessness.
In fact, the Oxford English dictionary defines
the verb empower as "to enable." In contrast
to the earlier definition of empowerment as delegation (of authority and resource sharing), enabling implies motivating through enhancing personal efficacy. In the management literature on
power and empowerment, often both meanings
are fused together, and their relationships to each
other are not clear. For instance, Whetten and
Cameron (1984) alluded to power as both gaining control over limited resources and as a sign
of personal efficacy. Likewise, Neilsen (1986) considered empowerment both as giving subordi-
473
This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:20:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
nates resources and as increasing their sense of
self-worth. However, Burke (1986) recognized the
distinctiveness of the two meanings, but like most
management researchers preferred to use empowerment in the sense of delegation rather than
in the sense of enabling.
We propose that empowerment be viewed as
to enable
a motivational construct-meaning
rather than simply to delegate. In McClelland's
(1975) research, empowerment also is viewed as
an enabling, rather than a delegating, process.
Enabling implies creating conditions for heightening motivation for task accomplishment through
the development of a strong sense of personal
efficacy. We argue that delegating or resource
sharing is only one set of conditions that may
(but not necessarily) enable or empower subordinates. The process of delegation is too constrictive
in scope to accommodate the complex nature of
empowerment. Thus, there are various other
conditions of empowering besides delegation or
participation. Therefore, empowerment is defined here as a process of enhancing feelings
of self-efficacy among organizational members
through the identification of conditions that foster
powerlessness and through their removal by both
formal organizational practices and informal
techniques of providing efficacy information.
viewed in five stages that include the psychological state of empowering experience, its antecedent conditions, and its behavioral consequences.
The five stages are shown in Figure 1.
The first stage is the diagnosis of conditions
within the organization that are responsible for
feelings of powerlessness among subordinates.
This leads to the use of empowerment strategies
by managers in Stage 2. The employment of
these strategies is aimed not only at removing
some of the external conditions responsible for
powerlessness, but also (and more important) at
providing subordinates with self-efficacy information in Stage 3. As a result of receiving such
information, subordinates feel empowered in
Stage 4, and the behavioral effects of empowerment are noticed in Stage 5.
The Empowering Experience
To conceptualize empowerment in motivational terms, we prefer to use Bandura's selfefficacy notion (1986). Translated in terms of
Bandura's model, empowerment refers to a process whereby an individual's belief in his or her
self-efficacy is enhanced. To empower means
either to strengthen this belief or to weaken one's
belief in personal powerlessness. Personal efficacy is sometimes postulated to stem from internal need-states such as the intrinsic need for selfdetermination (Deci, 1975), the competence motive (White, 1959), the need for power (McClelland, 1975), and the need for self-actualization
(Maslow, 1954). However, we prefer not to adopt
the content or need theory approach to explain
the phenomenon of empowerment. We assume
that everyone has an internal need for selfdetermination and a need to control and cope
with environmental demands. Differences in the
strength of this need among individuals can be
explained by analyzing the underlying motivational process. We therefore follow the process
theory approach to empowerment as a motivational phenomena by relating it to expectancy
(Lawler, 1973)and self-efficacy theories (Bandura,
1977, 1986).
According to expectancy theory, an individual's motivation to increase his or her effort in
The Empowerment Process
The need to empower subordinates becomes
critical when subordinates feel powerless. Thus
it is important to identify conditions within organizations that foster a sense of powerlessness
among subordinates. Once these conditions are
identified, empowerment strategies and tactics
can then be used to remove them. However, removing external conditions is not always possible, and it may not be sufficient for subordinates to become empowered unless the strategies and tactics directly provide personal efficacy information to them. Bandura (1986) suggested several sources from which individuals
directly receive information about their personal
efficacy, and these sources should be used in
developing empowerment strategies. Conceived
this way, the process of empowerment can be
474
This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:20:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
U)
~~~~~~~9U
10
~~~~~~~
0
-
U
0
a~
E-'
~~~
U
0
co,
U
U-'
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ _
0
C4
~
~
~
0~~~~~~~
~~~~4
n
_ _ _
_ _
~
_ _
_ _
_
_ _
_
_ _
0)
~ ~ ~
n
0
_
I
0)-
0)
11.1
i0
0 10-d
-0()
-- 0
0
0
-
u
QC:
47)5
V
'
p
0)
0
This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:20:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
a given task will depend on two types of expectations: (a) that their effort will result in a desired
level of performance and (b) that their performance will produce desired outcomes. Bandura
(1986) referred to the former as the self-efficacy
expectation and the latter as the outcome expectation. When individuals are empowered, their
personal efficacy expectations are strengthened.
However, their outcome expectations are not necessarily affected. They develop a sense of personal mastery or a "can do" attitude regardless
of hopes for favorable performance outcomes.
Empowering means enabling, and it implies raising subordinates' convictions in their own effectiveness (successfully executing desired behavior) rather than raising subordinates' hopes
for favorable performance outcomes. Even under conditions of failure to gain desired outcomes,
individuals may feel empowered if their efficacy
belief is reinforced by their leader's recognition
of their performance (i.e., "We may have lost to
competition, but I'm proud of your performance.
We will do better next time.").
Behavioral Effects
The strength of peoples' conviction in their own
effectiveness is likely to affect whether they
would even try to cope with given situations. ...
They get involved in activities and behave assuredly when they judge themselves capable of
handling situations that would otherwise be
. ..
Efficacy expectations
Context Factors Leading to Powerlessness
Management theorists have argued that specific contextual factors contribute to the lowering
of self-efficacy or personal power among organizational members (Block, 1987; Conger, 1986;
Kanter, 1979, 1983). Block (1987) described how
bureaucratic contexts and authoritarian management styles encouraged powerlessness by fostering dependency, the denial of self-expression,
negative forms of manipulation, and less meaningful organizational goals. According to Conger (1986), conditions that lowered self-efficacy
were found during major reorganizations, in
start-up ventures, and in firms that had authoritarian managers and demanding organizational
goals. Kanter (1977, 1983) argued that organizational communication systems, network forming
arrangements, access to resources, and job design could contribute to employee powerlessness.
She noted primarily that
people held accountable forthe resultsproduced
by others, whose formalrole gives them the right
to command but who lack informal political
influence, access to resources, outside status,
sponsorship, or mobilityprospects, are rendered
powerless in the organizations.
They lack
control over their own fate and are dependent
on others above them. (p. 186)
Empowerment as an enabling process affects
both initiation and persistence of subordinates'
task behavior. As Bandura (1977) pointed out:
intimidating.
tices also may be useful in motivating subordinates to persist despite difficult organizational/
environmental obstacles.
Examples of first-line supervisors, certain staff
positions, women, and minorities were cited.
In Table 1, we identify the principal contextual
factors that contribute to the lowering of selfefficacy beliefs in organizational members. These
are organized into four categories: (a) organizational, (b) supervisory style, (c) reward systems,
and (d) job design.
In terms of organizational factors, we hypothesize that organizations that experience major
changes or transitions have an increased likelihood of their employees experiehcing powerlessness. These transitions may be spurred on by
financial emergencies, loss of key personnel, labor problems, significant technological changes,
deter-
mine how much effort people will expend and
how long they will persist in the face of obstacles
and aversive experiences. (pp. 193-194)
The behavioral outcomes are of special significance to organizational leaders. Empowerment
processes may allow leaders to lessen the emotional impact of demoralizing organizational
changes or to mobilize organizational members
in the face of difficult competitive challenges.
These processes may enable leaders to set higher
performance goals, and they may help employees to accept these goals. Empowerment prac476
This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:20:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
and rules may no longer be clearly defined. Responsibilities and power may shift dramatically.
Uncertainty may be experienced by a large part
of the organization. Certain functional areas,
divisions, or acquired companies may experience disenfranchisement because they perceive
their responsibilities as being diminished or subordinated to others. Therefore, transitions produce a period of disorientation (Tichy & Devanna,
1986). As a result, major organizational changes
may seriously challenge employees' sense of control and competence as they deal with the uncertainty of change and accept new responsibilities,
skills, and guidelines for action and behavior.
Start-up ventures can present similar conditions of uncertainty that lead to lowered feelings
of self-efficacy for employees. During the initial
start-up phase, there may be uncertainty surrounding the market potential for the company's
products and services. This can translate into
lowered efficacy feelings among organizational
members regarding their competence in directing and managing the organization. With a
company's success and accompanying growth,
other conditions of powerlessness
may be
fostered. As Greiner (1972) pointed out, employees who are accustomed to informal organizational systems and relations may find the organization and its systems becoming increasingly
formalized and impersonal. As control systems
grow in importance, they may diminish employees' sense of autonomy and responsibility.
As the company grows, managers' responsibilities may increase, requiring them to attain skill
levels beyond their existing competencies. Problems may arise with role clarity and adequate
training for employees. Furthermore, as the firm
grows, entrepreneurial executives may be reluctant to relinquish control to subordinates.
Bureaucratic organizations are characterized
by patriarchal management/employee
contracts
(Block, 1987)and direct member behavior through
established rules and routines. These factors inhibit self-expression and limit autonomy. As
noted earlier, Block (1987) and Kanter (1983) argued that bureaucracy and "segmentalism" create serious inequities in the distribution of organi-
Table 1
Context Factors Leading to Potential
Lowering of Self-Efficacy Belief
Organizational Factors
Significant organizational changes/transitions
Start-up ventures
Competitive pressures
Impersonal bureaucratic climate
Poor communications/network-forming systems
Highly centralized organizational resources
Supervisory Style
Authoritarian (high control)
Negativism (emphasis on failures)
Lack of reason for actions/consequences
Reward Systems
Noncontingency (arbitrary reward allocations)
Low incentive value of rewards
Lack of competence-based rewards
Lack of innovation-based rewards
Job Design
Lack of role clarity
Lack of training and technical support
Unrealistic goals
Lack of appropriate authority/discretion
Low task variety
Limited participation in programs, meetings, decisions
that have a direct impact on job performance
Lack of appropriate/necessary resources
Lack of network-forming opportunities
Highly established work routines
High rule structure
Low advancement opportunities
Lack of meaningful goals/tasks
Limited contact with senior management
acquisition or merger activity, major changes in
organizational strategy, rapid growth, and/or the
introduction of significant new products or new
management teams. In any case, these events
induce significant alterations in organizational
structures, communication links, power and authority relations, and the organization's goals,
strategies, and tactics. In these cases, existing
organizational norms and patterns of action are
likely to change (Nadler, 1980). As the organization seeks new guidelines for action, its goals
477
This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:20:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
devices are more likely to be empowering
(Kanter, 1983).
Leadership and/or supervision practices that
are identified as empowering include (a) expressing confidence in subordinates accompanied by high performance expectations (Burke,
1986; Conger, 1986; House, 1977, in press; Neilsen, 1986), (b) fostering opportunities for subordinates to participate in decision making (Block,
1987; Burke, 1986; Conger, 1986; House 1977, in
press; Kanter, 1979; Neilsen, 1986; Strauss, 1977),
(c) providing autonomy from bureaucratic constraint (Block, 1987;Kanter, 1979;House, in press),
and (d) setting inspirational and/or meaningful
goals (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Block, 1987; Burke,
1986; McClelland, 1975; Tichy & Devanna, 1986).
It also has been suggested by House (in press)
that leaders/managers should be selected on the
basis of their inclination to use power in a positive manner.
It is argued that reward systems that emphasize innovative/unusual performance and high
incentive values foster a greater sense of selfefficacy (Kanter, 1979). Jobs that provide task
variety, personal relevance, appropriate autonomy and control, low levels of established routines and rules, and high advancement prospects are more likely to empower subordinates
(Block, 1987;Kanter, 1979;Oldham, 1976;Strauss,
1977).
These practices can be viewed from the different perspectives of formal/organizational mechanisms or individual/informal techniques. For
example, when organizations engage in participation programs, they establish formal systems
that empower organizational members through
the sharing of formal power and authority. But
in order for this sharing of power to be effective
at the individual level, employees must perceive
it as increasing their sense of self-efficacysomething a manager can accomplish through
more informal practices.
zational power and lead to a diminished sense
of self-efficacy for employees.
Authoritarian management styles can strip
control and discretion from subordinates, thereby
heightening the sense of powerlessness for employees (Block, 1987; Conger, 1986). As Kanter
(1979) suggested, a satisfactory degree of discretion is important for fostering empowerment on
the job, and this discretion is something autocratic managers often remove.
The literature on reward systems (e.g., Kanter,
1979; Kanungo, 1987; Lawler, 1971, 1977; Vroom,
1964)and job design (e.g., Hackman, 1978; Hackman & Lawler, 1971;Hackman, Oldham, Janson,
& Purdy, 1975) also describes conditions that
lower the self-efficacy of organizational members. When organizations do not provide rewards
that are valued by employees and when rewards
are not offered for employee competence, initiative, and persistence in innovative job behavior,
employees' sense of powerlessness increases
(Sims, 1977; Szilagyi, 1980). Furthermore, when
jobs provide very little challenge and meaning
and when they involve role ambiguity, role
conflict, and role overload, employees' beliefs in
personal efficacy suffer. We argue that these contextual factors should be the focal points for diagnosis and the interventions aimed at rectifying
sources of powerlessness among employees.
Empowerment Management Practices
Organizational theorists have proposed or
identified a number of management practices
that heighten a sense of self-efficacy. At the organizational level, it has been suggested that
organizations design selection and training procedures to ensure requisite technical, linguistic,
and social influence skills (House, in press; McClelland, 1975) and that company policies and
cultures emphasize self-determination, collaboration over conflict/competition,
high performance standards, nondiscrimination, and meritocracy (House, in press). In addition, organizations that provide multiple sources of loosely
committed resources at decentralized or local
levels, that structure open communications systems, and that create extensive network-forming
Sources of Self-Efficacy Information
In order to be effective, the empowerment practices outlined above must directly provide information to employees about their personal effi478
This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:20:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
cacy. Bandura (1977, 1986) identified four sources
of such information: enactive attainment, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal state. Examples of empowerment
techniques under each efficacy information category are presented below.
Information in personal efficacy through enactive attainment refers to an individual's authentic mastery experience directly related to the job.
When subordinates perform complex tasks or are
given more responsibility in their jobs, they have
the opportunity to test their efficacy. Initial success experiences (through successively moderate increments in task complexity and responsibility along with training to acquire new skills)
make one feel more capable and, therefore,
empowered. For example, managers can structure organizational change programs in such a
way that initial objectives are sufficiently attainable and subordinates are able to execute them
successfully (Beer, 1980).
The feeling of being empowered also can come
from the vicarious experiences of observing similar others (i.e., co-workers) who perform successfully on the job. During job training, modeling techniques often are used to empower employees. Very often, a supervisor's exemplary
behaviors empower subordinates to believe that
they can behave in a like manner or that they
can at least achieve some improvement in their
performance. For example, Bennis and Nanus
(1985), in their study of leaders, described how
William Kieschnick, president of ARCO, leamed
to be an innovative risk taker through the modeling of leaders he served under (p. 204). Vicarious efficacy information, however, is not as effective in empowering subordinates as enactive
attainment experience. But as Bandura (1986)
suggested, modeling effects can have a significant impact on efficacy expectation:
People convinced vicariously of their inefficacy
are inclined to behave in ineffectual ways that,
in fact, generate confirmatory behavioral evi-
Words of encouragement, verbal feedback,
and other forms of social persuasion often are
used by leaders, managers, and group members to empower subordinates and co-workers
(Conger, 1986). According to Bandura (1986),
"People who are persuaded verbally that they
possess the capabilities to master given tasks are
likely to mobilize greater sustained effort than if
they harbor self-doubts and dwell on personal
deficiencies when difficulties arise" (p. 400). Deal
and Kennedy (1982) described how Mary Kay
Ash, president of Mary Kay Cosmetics, used annual sales meetings as forums for praising and
encouraging the exceptional performance of organizational members. However, the effect that
persuasion has on strengthening personal efficacy expectations is likely to be weaker than effects developed from one's own accomplishments.
Finally, one's personal competence expectations are affected by one's emotional arousal
state. Emotional arousal states that result from
stress, fear, anxiety, depression, and so forth,
both on and off the job, can lower self-efficacy
expectations. Individuals are more likely to feel
competent when they are not experiencing strong
aversive arousal. Empowerment techniques and
strategies that provide emotional support for subordinates and that create a supportive and trusting group atmosphere (Neilsen, 1986) can be
more effective in strengthening self-efficacy
beliefs. An example of such behavior is found in
Kidder's Soul of a New Machine (1981) in which a
Data General manager, Tom West, provided effective emotional and group support that ensured
the completion of an extremely difficult computer
project. On many occasions, employees' stress,
anxiety, and tension on the job can be reduced
by managers clearly defining employees' roles,
reducing information overload, and offering them
technical assistance to accomplish job tasks. The
impact that depression and self-doubt have on
subordinates as a result of their failure on the
job could be lessened by their attributing this
failure to external and unstable factors such as
task difficulty, inadequate support systems, and
so forth, rather than attributing it to their efforts
dence of inability. Conversely, modeling influences that enhance perceived self-efficacy can
weaken the impact of direct experiences of failure by sustaining performance in the face of
repeated failures. (p. 400)
479
This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:20:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
or abilities (Weiner, 1985). These techniques assist in the empowering process by reducing the
negative effects of aversive emotional arousal
on the development of self-efficacy beliefs.
appropriate intervention strategies. In addition,
they should investigate and test the effect empowerment has on specific behaviors, such as
initiation and persistence.
Finally, a more direct link between empowerment practices and leadership should be studied.
Empowerment may prove to be a vital form of
influence for leaders attempting to induce and
manage organizational change. Field research
directed at this aim could contribute significantly
to our understanding of effective leadership.
Although we have focused on the positive effects of empowerment, it is conceivable that such
management practices may have negative effects. Specifically, empowerment might lead to
overconfidence and, in turn, misjudgments on
the part of subordinates. Because of this sense of
false confidence in positive outcomes, organizations might persist in efforts that are, in actuality,
tactical or strategic errors. It is important that
future researchers investigate the possibilities of
such effects and discern whether or not a system
of checks and balances could be developed.
Conclusions
Although empowerment has been discussed
by several management scholars, little empirical work has been performed. This may be because of an inadequate conceptualization of the
process. The process we have described may
provide a useful framework for researchers. Our
discussion suggests some important new directions for research on empowerment. First, the
effectiveness of the model should be tested.
Specifically, the concept of self-efficacy should
be further operationalized and tested. Because
Bandura's (1986) research was conducted mainly
in therapeutic settings, direct links to organizational contexts should be drawn. Researchers
also should investigate and validate the proposed
antecedent conditions of powerlessness and the
References
Abramson, L. Y., Garber, J., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1980)
Learned helplessness in humans: An attributional analysis. In J. Garber & M. E. P. Seligman (Eds.), Human
helplessness: Theory and applications (pp. 3-34). New York:
Academic Press.
Bacharach, S. B., &Lawler, E. J. (1980) Power and politics in
organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Burke, W. (1986) Leadership as empowering others. In S.
Srivastra (Ed.), Executive power (pp. 51-77). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J. (1986) Empowering leadership.
McGill University, Montreal.
Bandura, A. (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of
behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Working paper,
Crozier, M. (1964) The bureaucratic phenomenon.
University of Chicago Press.
Bandura, A. (1986) Social foundations of thought and action:
A social-cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
Beckhard, R. (1969) Organization development:
and models. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bucher, R. (1970) Social process and power in a medical
school. In M. Zald (Ed.), Power in organizations (pp. 3-48).
Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Chicago:
Dahl, R. A. (1957) The concept of power. Behavioral Science,
2, 201-215.
Strategies
Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1982) Corporate cultures. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Beer, M. (1980) Organizational change and development.
Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.
Deci, E. L. (1975) Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985) Leaders. New York: Harper &
Row.
Emerson, R. M. (1962)Power-dependence
Sociological Review, 27, 31-41.
Blau, P. M. (1964) Exchange and power in social life. New
York: Wiley.
Etzioni, A. (1961) A comparative analysis of complex organizations. New York: Fress Press.
Block, P. (1987) The empowered
Jossey-Bass.
French, J., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959) The basis of social power.
In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167).
manager.
San Francisco:
480
This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:20:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
relations. American
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social
Research.
Likert, R. (1961) New patterns of management.
New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Greiner, L. (1972)Evolutionand revolution as organizations
Likert, R. (1967) The human
organization.
New York:
McGraw-Hill.
grow. Harvard Business Review, 50(4), 37-46.
Hackman, J. R. (1978) The design of work in the 1980's.
Organizational Dynamics, 7(1), 3-17.
Lodahl,J., &Gordon,G. (1972)The structureof scientificfields
and the functioning of university graduate departments.
American Sociological Review, 37, 57-72.
Hackman,J. R., &Lawler, E. E. (1971)Employee reactions to
job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology Mono-
Maslow, A. H. (1954) Motivation and personality. New York:
graph, 55, 259-286.
Harper.
Hackman,J. R., Oldham, G. R., Janson,R., &Purdy,K. (1975)
New strategy for job enrichment. CaliforniaManagement
Review, 17(4),57-71.
Hills, F. S., & Mahoney, T. A. (1978)Universitybudgets and
organizational decision making. Administrative Science
McGregor, D. (1960) The human side of enterprise. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Mowday, R. (1978) The exercise of upward influence in
Quarterly, 23, 454-465.
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 137-
Hinings, C. R., Hickson, D. J., Pennings, J. M., & Schneck,
R. E. (1974) Conditions of intra-organizational power.
156.
Nadler, D. (1980) Concepts for the management
Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 378-397.
of organiza-
tional change. New York: Organizational Research &
Consulting, Inc.
Homans, A. (1974) Social behavior: Its elementary forms.
New York:HarcourtBrace Jovanovich.
House, R. J.(1977)A 1976theory of charismaticleadership. In
J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting
edge (pp. 189-207).Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
House, R. J. (in press) Power and personality in complex
organizations. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior: An annual review of
critical essays and reviews. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Kanter, R. M. (1979)Power failure in management circuits.
Neilsen, E. (1986)Empowerment strategies: Balancing authorityand responsibility. In S. Srivastra (Ed.), Executive
power (pp. 78-110). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Oldham, G. R. (1976)The motivational strategies used by
supervisors' relationships to effectiveness indicators.
Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance,
15,
66-86.
Parsons, T., & Smelser, N. J. (1956)Economy and society.
New York:Free Press.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1972)Informationcontrol as a power resource. Sociology, 6, 187-204.
Harvard Business Review, 57(4), 65-75.
Kanter,R. M. (1983)The change masters. New York:Simon
& Schuster.
Kanungo, R. N. (1987)Reward management: A new look. In
S. L. Dolan & R. S. Schuler (Eds.), Canadian readings in
personnel and human resource managements
McClelland, D. C. (1975)Power: The inner experience. New
York:IrvingtonPress.
Pfeffer, J. (1981) Power in organizations.
Pitman.
Marshfield, MA:
Pfeffer, J. (1982) Organizations and organizational
theory.
Marshfield,MA:Pitman.
(pp. 261-
275). St. Paul: West.
Kidder,T. (1981)Soul of a new machine. Boston:Little,Brown.
Plott, C. R., & Levine, M. E. (1978)A model of agenda influence on committee decisions. American Economic Review,
68, 146-160.
Kotter,J. P. (1977)Power, dependence, and effective management. Harvard Business Review, 55(4), 125-136.
Kotter,J. P. (1979)Power in management. New York:Amacom.
Lawler, E. E., I (1971)Pay and organizational effectiveness:
A psychological view. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lawler, E. E., III (1973) Motivation in work organizations.
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Lawler, E. E., II (1977)Reward systems. In J. R. Hackman &
Rothbaum,F. M., Weisz, J. R., &Snyder, S. S. (1982)Changing the world and changing self: A two process model of
perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 5-37.
Rotter,J. B. (1966)Generalized expectancies for internal versus external controlof reinforcement.Psychological Monographs, 80 (1, Whole No. 609).
L. J. Suttle (Eds.), Improving life at work: Behavioral science approaches to organizational change (pp. 163-226).
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1974)The bases and use of
power in organizational decision making: The case of a
university.Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 453-473.
Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977)Who gets power-and
481
This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:20:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
how they hold on to it: A strategic-contingency model of
power. Organizational Dynamics, 5(3), 3-21.
Selznick, P. (1949) TVA and the grass roots. Berkeley: Univer-
Tannenbaum,A. S. (1968)Controlin organizations.New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Thibault,J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959)The social psychology
of groups. New York:Wiley.
sity of Califomia Press.
Sims, H. P. (1977)The leader as a manager of reinforcement
contingencies. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 121-137).Carbondale: Southern IllinoisUniversityPress.
Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986)The transformational
leader. New York:Wiley.
Strauss, G. (1977)Managerial practices. In I. R. Hackman &
Weiner, B. (1985)An attributionaltheory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.
L. I. Suttle (Eds.), Improving life at work: Behavioral science approaches to organizational change (pp. 297-363).
Vroom,V. H. (1964)Workand motivation. New York:Wiley.
Whetten, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (1984)Developing management skills. Glenview, IL:Scott, Foresman.
Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.
Szilagyi, A. D. (1980)Causal inferences between leader reward behavior and subordinate goal attainment, ab-
White, R. W. (1959)Motivationreconsidered: The concept of
competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297-333.
senteeism, and work satisfaction. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 53, 195-204.
Jay A. Conger (D.B.A., Harvard University)is Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior, Faculty of
Management, McGill University.Correspondence regarding this article can be sent to him at: McGill
University,Faculty of Management, 1001Sherbrooke
Street West, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3A 1G5.
RabindraN. Kanungo (Ph.D.,McGillUniversity)is Professor of OrganizationalBehavior,Faculty of Management, McGill University.
482
This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:20:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions