Empowerment Strategies:
Theory and Action
By Douglas D. Perkins,
Program in Community Research & Action
Dept. of Human & Organizational Development
Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, USA
http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/hod/
d.perkins@vanderbilt.edu
Four Dimensions of Individual-level
Social Capital (from Perkins & Long,
2002)
Cognition/Trust
Social Behavior
Informal
Sense of
community
Neighboring
Formally
Organized
Collective efficacy
Citizen
participation
Collective efficacy (or
empowerment; formal-cognition
cell of Figure 1)



“trust” in the effectiveness of organized community
action
an extremely influential concept in community
psychology & beyond
represents a new approach to social capital by
focusing on the cognitive attributions & motivations
that lead community members to engage
professionals as collaborators rather than as
authoritative experts.
Empowerment defined:




Must mean more than the individual psychological
constructs with which it is sometimes compared or
confused (e.g., self-esteem, self-efficacy, competency,
locus of control)
"an intentional ongoing process centered in the local
community, involving mutual respect, critical reflection,
caring, and group participation, through which people
lacking an equal share of valued resources gain greater
access to and control over those resources" (Cornell
Empowerment Group, 1989)
or simply a process by which people gain control over
their lives, democratic participation in the life of their
community (Rappaport, 1987), and a critical
understanding of their environment (Zimmerman, 1992).
I.E., it is at core a collective construct
Empowerment levels, processes &
outcomes (based on Perkins & Zimmerman, 1995)
Levels:
Processes:
Outcomes:
pluralism, coalitions,
community resources
community
collective action to
access resources
organization
collective decisionmaking, shared
leadership
organizational
development,
networks, policy
leverage
individual
participation in
community
organizations
perceived control,
resource mobilization
skills
Characteristics of Empowering
Settings (based on Maton & Salem, 1995)
Resource Cultivation:

Activating of personal resources

Opportunity role structure, participatory niches

Increasing benefits, reducing costs of member participation

Mentoring
Belief System:

Group-based belief system, transcending self-concern

Focus on strengths of members

Fostering of critical awareness among members
Group Climate:

Shared events, celebrations

Inspiring leadership

Peer-based social support systems

Appreciating interdependencies

Boundary spanning

Appreciating and managing conflict
Task Functioning:

Inclusive efforts to define community issues, resources

Structured, clear goals & tasks

Inclusive, democratic decentralized decision-making

Shared leadership

Subgroups for specific tasks or sectors of community
Organizations studied for their
empowering ways (from Perkins, D.D. (1995).
Speaking truth to power: Empowerment ideology as social intervention
and policy. AJCP, 23, 765-794):











self-help groups, educational programs
religious congregations other faith-based community
action, service, & advocacy organizations
substance abuse prevention & health promotion
coalitions
environmental organizations
large companies
community development organizations
school-based associations
citizen advisory boards of government agencies
youth sports & recreation groups
community crime prevention groups
resident associations & many other contexts
10 recommendations to policy-makers,
program planners & empowerment
researchers (Perkins, 1995) :
1. Greater attention should be paid to different
levels of empowerment... look beyond
individualistic conceptions... to collective
conceptions... that are commensurate with
solving group, organizational & community
problems.
2. Smaller is better. Beyond the community &
organizational level... higher levels of policymaking...result in progressively more
ambiguous conceptions of empowerment &
diminishing returns... local grassroots efforts
may work best.
3. The paradox implied in 1 & 2 illustrates a dialectic of
empowerment. Other possible dialectics include (a)
emphasizing both personal & collective (and, for some,
spiritual) control, (b) the paradoxical requirements of
leadership, order, & organization in helping others to help
themselves, (c) people's needs for both individual &
community identity & (d) for both change & stability
(Brown & Perkins, 1992), (e) the personal & organizational
benefits of empowerment along with its risks & challenges,
(f) a political orientation of both populism & progressivism,
& (g) an approach to theory & research that allows for
both deductive & inductive logic & both specific & general
info... pay more specific attention to what models of
empowerment work with what populations in what settings
& why.
4. The relationship between empowerment cognitions,
person-env. transactions, & behaviors must be explored...
In particular, because many vague descriptions of
"empowering thought patterns," emotions & other
intrapsychic constructions have clouded the... concept,
greater emphasis on empowering behaviors-- such as
citizen participation in the community, workplace, &
government-- is needed.
5. Researchers need to become more familiar with the
policy-making process... & more comfortable
disseminating & directly applying their research, not
just in a particular organization, but by working with
executive, legislative, & judicial bodies & advocacy
organizations at all levels, from local to federal &
international agencies.
6. Follow Coleman's 5 steps to planning effective policy
research: "1) identify the parties in policy outcomes
& with some power... to affect policy; 2) determine
interests of these parties; 3) find what kinds of
information are relevant to their interests; 4)
determine the best way to obtain this information; 5)
determine how to report the results."
7. Policy researchers must become more proactive, not
only in the planning & evaluation stages, but
throughout the process, from agenda formation &
policy adoption to policy implementation & review.
8. Researchers should play the role more of
learner/collaborator than "scientist". ...graduate programs
in community psychology & related disciplines should do a
better job of training for such a role.
9. Learn to disseminate more practical information & to
deliver it in (more user-friendly) ways... cultivate
information channels within the policy-making bureaucracy.
may include choosing multiple target audiences (e.g.,
legislators, voters, other interest groups), understanding
each one's unique orientation, & tailoring the focus & style
of presentation accordingly. It requires the ability to
present complicated theories & data concisely, in plain but
accurate terms (i.e., without overgeneralizing or
overstating the case)...
10. Both theory & research would be more practical if more
psychologists carefully examined & tried to understand the
qualitative knowledge about real-world empowerment
processes that practitioners bring...The clearest definitions
& descriptions of empowerment may come more from
voices on the front lines of movements for social change
than from the policy or even research literatures...
Social Capital at the
Organizational Level: The
“Learning Organization”

A “learning organization” helps staff &
volunteers engage in critical analysis of:




(a) the organization’s demonstrated goals & values
(not just its mission statement),
(b) power relationships in decision-making practices,
(c) the interdependent role of participant stakeholders
& organizations as part of a complex, communitywide (or larger) system, &
(d) how to work toward fundamental change of all
the above.
Organizational learning only
happens with opportunities for
critical reflection, collaboration, &
effective communication.


The lit. suggests that “learning organizations:”
 include all affected staff and clients in program planning,
which will enhance individual learning & development, &
organization effectiveness.
 facilitate critical reflection, open communication, & team
learning.
 focus on both an organization’s development & its managers’
& staff’s professional development
AND (we add):


facilitate participants’ development, not only as workers
(e.g., skills), but also as citizens (empowerment &
participation)
encourage participants to respect differences, value justice,
fairness, & community, take active roles in society
Learning Organizations & Social
Capital




Learning & other psychological bases of social
capital largely untested
“Learning organization” processes & outcomes in
small non-profit & voluntary organizations &
communities not well established or studied as
they have been in larger for-profit corporations
Values, norms, beliefs, & aspirations of civic
responsibility are learned through child
socialization & adult learning in communities
Learning communities linked to social capital in
educational reform & community development
Orders of Change & Levels
Community
Change
Organizational
Learning
2nd
Order
1st
Order
Systems
2nd-order
change: systemslevel change in
the basic goals,
structure or
processes of the
org.
Incremental
1st-order change:
effects just part
of system vs.
Organization/
Role/Task Civic
Individual Learning or Development
“Learning Communities & Learning
Organizations” Pilot Study (Center for
Community Studies, Vanderbilt University)




focuses on structures, processes, & cultures in
community and nonprofit organizations that
promote individual, team, & organizational
learning
how community organizations create learning
opportunities & empowering settings
Organizational learning practices positively affect
group & organizational communication, culture,
job satisfaction, & performance
Dewey: democracy depends on the creation of a
“civil society” by the education & participation of
its citizens
Decision-Making Practices,
Participation, and Learning in
Non-Profit Organizations
Kimberly Bess, Douglas Perkins, Dan Cooper, Diana Jones
Organizational Change Work Group,
Center for Community Studies
Peabody College of Vanderbilt University
Prepared for:
Prepared for the10th Biennial Conference for the
Society for Community Research & Action
University of Illinois Urbana Champaign
**Research funded by Learning Sciences Institute, Vanderbilt University
kimberly.d.bess@vanderbilt.edu http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/hod/cra.htm"
Presentation Focus






Study Background
Theoretical Framework
Working Model
Research Methods
Case Study Comparisons
Lessons, Limitations & Future Directions
Study Background





Part of a larger two-year exploratory project using mixed methods
to study community organizations as contexts for multi-level
learning
Phase 1: Compilation, from multiple sources, of a comprehensive
database of all 2,361 community-based, nonprofit human service,
volunteer, and member organizations throughout mid-size southern
city.
Phase 2: Brief telephone survey of 270 organizations, measuring
such organizational characteristics as staff/membership size, use of
volunteers, the nature and extent of their activity, organizational
type and goals
Phase 3: Case studies of 16 organizations, stratified by
organizational type, were selected for in-depth qualitative case
studies.
Current examination of decision making will focus on data from 2
grassroots neighborhood-based community organizations from
qualitative study
Exploratory Research Questions



What is the relationship between participation,
decision making, and individual & organizational
learning & empowerment?
What is the nature of external influences on how
decisions are made in community-based nonprofits?
What is the impact of organizational learning
and of how decisions are made on the
organization’s capacity to fulfill their community
change goals?
Theoretical Framework:
Participation ->Decision-Making -> Goals Attainment & Learning

Organizational Learning Theory



Senge (1994)
Marsick & Watkins (1993, 2000)
Organizational Empowerment Theory



Peterson & Zimmerman (2004)
Mathews, Diaz, & Cole (2003)
Riger (1984)
Theoretical Framework: Learning Organization Characteristics,
Practices, and Foci (based on Marsick, 2000)
Learning Organization
Characteristics
Learning Organization Core
Practices (Watkins &
Marsick, 1993)
Providing strategic leadership
for learning
Systems thinking capacity
Connecting the organization to
its environment
Continuous learning at the
systems level
Greater participation and
accountability by a larger
percentage of employees
Creating continuous learning
opportunities
Encouraging collaboration and
team learning
Empowering people toward a
collective vision
Culture and structure of rapid
communication and
learning
Promoting inquiry and
dialogue
Knowledge generation and
sharing
Creating systems to capture
and share learning
Foci for enhancing
organizational
learning
Critical reflection:
“provide people and
systems with the
ability to enhance
what is an otherwise
tacit, experiential
learning process”
Collaboration: “can
provide avenues for
building joint
knowledge”
Communication:
“provides for
feedback loops across
the system”
Working Model of Organizational
Decision Making
External Influences on Organizational Decision-Making in
Non-Profit Settings
Forces driving
decision-making
process:
•Crisis
•Maintenance
•Growth
External environment factors that
influence the decision-making process:
•Funding organization demands
•Resource environment
•Umbrella organization relationship
•Community Needs/Issues
Internal Organizational Decision-Making Practices
Based on Learning Organization Theory
Culture of decision making:
•Members invited to contribute to the organization’s vision
•Members are viewed as resources for decision making
•Client’s/community’s views brought into the decision making process
•Members given responsibility for decisions related to work
Decision-Making Processes and Structures :
•Process for getting input from members to inform decisions
•Process for building alignment across different levels and work groups
•Structures for communicating decisions across the organization
Impact/
Outcome
Mediating
Factors
Stated
Mission
and Goals
Community
Level
Change
Individual
Level
Change
Impact of decisionmaking practices
on:
•individual learning
•organizational
learning
•Employee/volunteer
morale
•Employee/volunteer
ownership
•accountability for
outcomes
Qualitative Methods




Triangulation of Methods: Participant
Observation, Interviews, Public Documents
Triangulation of Sources: Semi-structured
Interviews with staff, leaders, volunteers, &
board members
Interview data content analyzed using NVIVO by
2 raters
Content categories based on a framework
developed by Peterson and Zimmerman (2004)
of intra-, inter-, and extra-organizational themes.
Decision Making in Grassroots
Community Organizations
Radcliff Community Org.
 Community-based HSO serving
defined geographic area
 20 years old
 Serves rapidly changing,
working-class, most ethnically
diverse area of city
 Multi-level change mission:
individuals, families,
community
 Programs incl. ESL, housing &
job assistance/development,
youth/mentoring, WIC/food,
clinic, literacy, immigrant svcs.




United Neighbors
Neighborhood-based,
community decides issues to
focus on
Started by organizing around
urban renewal in ’60’s
Currently focuses on housing
and development, education,
crime
Community level change focus
External Influences on
Organizational Decision Making
Radcliff Community Org.
 Crisis & Maintenance
 Financial Crisis: from $50K
to $1.5M budget in 4 years;
accounting expertise did not
keep up, causing a problem
w/ biggest funder
 # & variety of programs
expanded rapidly
 Funding Organization Demands
 Funding more indiv. svcs.
 Vanderbilt U. volunteers also
more svc.-oriented
 Diverse community needs &
constituencies


United Neighbors
Crisis & Maintenance
 Ongoing Struggle with funding
 Maintaining participation from
members and partners
 Neighborhood problems
Community Needs/Issues
 Development pressures;
affordable housing
 Crime
 Lack of amenities
Organizational Decision-Making
Structure, Practices, Culture
Radcliff Community Org.
 Mix of top-down management &
participatory
 3 or 4 paid senior staff (incl.
strong Ex. Dir.) make most
decisions
 Others w/ some input:
volunteers/participants used
as collaborators & source of
expert knowledge




board members (mostly
residents from
neighborhood)
volunteer staff (many who
live outside of the
neighborhood)
other outside organizations
(funders, university)
persons served by programs





United Neighbors
Bottom-Up: Neighborhood resident
input informs decision of what
issues to focus on.
Residents volunteer to serve on
issue related committees; gather
research.
Top-Down: Board decides action
steps and strategies without much
resident (volunteer) input
Formal structure for soliciting
resident participation and input in
org. decision making; however, not
continuous across all levels of org.
decision making
Outcomes & Impact of Decision
Structures, Practices, Culture
Radcliff Community Org.
 Good learning/human capital
development opportunities w/in
programs
 Some [limited] participatory mgmt.
opportunities for individual learning
& empowerment
 But big decisions made at top, thus
hurting:





role clarity for staff, bd., volunteers
diversity of input on big decisions
fiscal planning & responsibility
reputation of org. w/ funders,
some neighborhood residents
Gravitation toward individual
services & away from grassroots
community change



United Neighbors
Opportunities for individual
learning and empowerment
related to neighborhood /
community level change
Top-down decision making in
regards to actions/strategies
limits:
 Potential to organize more
residents
 Civic learning in residents
 Potential Collective efficacy
Actions/Strategies tend to focus
on ameliorative community
change
 More inclusive participation
and organizing could help
generate more collective
power; transformative
change
Benefits and Challenges of Rapid Growth
Radcliff Community Org.:
 “What happened to us is we were a little sleepy
community organization up to about four years
ago, and we went from a probably $50,000
budget to a $1.5 million budget and…I mean we
were all just doing everything we could… [but]
we didn’t do the things we needed to do to grow
effectively. We just service people, which is
probably one of my worst traits… I didn’t back
up to make sure everybody was on board…so I
mean it was a great learning tool for me and it
was a great learning tool for my board and it
was a great mending and direction setting
period for this organization. So it was a good
thing.” Executive Director
Lessons, Limitations, Future
Directions



Analysis of organizational decision-making provides
insights into learning, power, and org. development
Org. learning largely ignored in nonprofit and voluntary
organizations but may be key to survival in funding
environment
Great diversity of organizations (size, type/mission,
budget, structure, culture, role of volunteers) requires
mixed methods:
 Large samples of orgs to capture diversity
(quantitatively)
 In-depth case study analysis to capture subtle
differences in culture/climate, leader style, observed
(as opposed to "official") practices
New SPECs
Action-Research Project
Organizational Change Work Group
Center for Community Studies
Vanderbilt University
2005 SCRA Biennial Conference, Urbana
Vanderbilt New SPECs Team (currently):
Kimberly Bess, Leslie Collins, Patricia Conway, Scot Evans, Diana
McCown, Bob Newbrough, Doug Perkins, Isaac Prilleltensky (P.I.),
Courte Voorhees + other student volunteers
[for more info: isaac.prilleltensky@vanderbilt.edu
http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/hod/
NewSPECs is an action-research project, in
consultation & collaboration with human service
organizations & the local branch of a national
funding agency, whose aim is to create a new
intervention paradigm that focuses…
Less on:




Deficits
Reactive intervention
Expert decisions
Changing Individuals
And More on:




Strengths
Primary Prevention
Empowerment
Changing
Community
Conditions



Principles of New SPECs
 Ownership by workers and community members
 Participation of workers and community members
 Home grown solutions
 Practice and reflection
 Learning and taking risks together
Goals of New SPECs
 Develop policies & practices in line with SPEC
 Institutionalize SPEC in the life of the organization & community
 Create new practical knowledge for the org. & research team
Challenges in New SPECs
 Process-outcomes tensions:


Marriage, not “rug sale” [institutionalize SPEC in life of the orgs]
 Ownership for sustainability; avoid “colonizing” client orgs.
 “Power before program”
Opportunities
 Create in partnership a new model for health & human services
 Help people who are currently suffering because the conditions
are too overwhelming for them to overcome on their own
 Educate health and human service providers across the city,
U.S., and internationally on the benefits of a SPEC approach


Some uncomfortable w/ so much focus on process; want outcomes
Others jump to action for outcomes w/out a good process
Our own team structure: part circle
(decision-making, reflection), part
pyramid (tasks)
Principal Investigator
(Faculty)
Process Consultant
(Emeritus Faculty)
Research Consultant/
Co-PI (Faculty)
Research Coordinator
(M.Ed. student)
Research Assistants
(M.Ed. students)
Org. Consultant/Research
Associates (PhD students)
Research Interns (B.A.
students)
Org. Intern (Med.
student)
Methods

Data Collection Methods



Survey
Focus groups
Interviews
Key staff members
 Snowball sample



Observational field notes
Archival Data

Organizational records and documents
Our own team processes:

In add. to frequent mtgs. w/ partner orgs.,
meet as a team at least 2X weekly:




Once for business
Once for reflection & mutual support
Also held overnight retreat for reflection &
team bldg.
Exploring “critical friend” role w/in team,
which is also our hoped-for role w/ org.
partners as they take and shape the changes
for themselves
Inter-team Relationships (Mesosystem)

The main issue is whether the main effect of the
Project in the community is the colonization of the
neighborhoods. Status differential conferred on the
Project Team members. Takes the form of:








More education
Better spoken
More social skills
Has a plan based on theory, experience and ideology
Has resources
Takes initiatives
Controls the agenda
This may be much more difficult than planned.
With-in Project Team (Microsystem) Issues


The main issue is whether the power is distributed
internally so that the team is prepared and functions to
carry out the Project (status, age/experience,
degree/program, gender, methodology/interests
differences influence roles, opportunities, intervention
approaches, & team process).
The team culture is one of equality and open
communication, yet the press of business pulls time
away from adequate communication and learning. Have
a consultant (JRN) to represent these issues and a
structure/procedure is evolving.
Key team power management
questions:

How do we harness power in the team?


Who has the power and how do they use it?



Management style, lot’s of staff participation & responsibility
Project Staff to T-Team, indirectly as much as possible
Internal to T-Team. There is a status differential conferred by
(experience, personality, location)
When is it used and how does it become salient?


Implicit structure operates whenever there is a social interaction.
It can be observed in the speaking-up patterns in the meetings.
Explicitly, directive power occurs when there is pressure to get
something done.
Organizational Survey
Demographics
Organization
Frequency
Valid Percent
Gender
Valid Percent
n=125
John Snow
Foundation
32
26%
Female
79%
MLK Center
28
22%
Male
21%
Nazareth Center
20
16%
Healthy City
25
20%
Island Center
20
16%
Role in
Organization
Frequency
Valid Percent
n=122
Direct service
staff
Support staff
Manager of
support staff
Operations
manager
Manager of direct
service program
Upper
management
n=123
Average Age = 62 yrs (n=125)
Average Years of Org Employment = 7.5 (n=125,
SD=4.96, Range=19.75)
Education Level
Frequency
Valid Percent
21
17%
11
9%
51
42%
31
25%
32
26%
6
5%
n=121
GED or High
school
Associate
Degree
Bachelors
Degree
4
3%
Master's Degree
33
27%
25
21%
Doctorate
3
3%
24
20%
Other
2
2%
SPEC Work & Support Measures

Empowerment







1a. Regardless of why this may be the case; to what extent does your work
give co-workers voice and choice in decision-making processes at the
organization?
1b. I feel I have enough opportunities in my job to give co-workers voice and
choice.
1c. I feel I have adequate time to give co-workers voice and choice.
1d. I feel I have adequate preparation and skills to give co-workers voice and
choice.
1e. I have adequate organizational support to give co-workers voice and
choice.
[1f-i: same items asked re empowering clients and community members]
Changing Community Conditions





What percentage of work time do you engage in changing community
conditions such as pollution, access to health care, lack of transportation,
affordable day care, living wage, and others?
1a. I feel I have enough opportunities in my job to work on changing the
conditions that affect our clients and communities
1b. I feel I have adequate time to engage in work to change community
conditions
1c. I feel I have adequate preparation and skills to engage in community
change activities
1d. I have adequate organizational support to engage in community change
activities
Modified Dimensions of Learning
Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ)
Scales

The following questions that were asked on a 6 pt. Likert Scale. They
have been scaled together to create new variables.

Organizational Cohesiveness







My organization builds alignment of visions across different levels and
work groups.
My organization encourages people to think from a community
perspective.
My organization considers the impact of decisions on employee morale.
My organization works together with the outside community to meet
mutual needs.
My organization encourages people to get answers from across the
organization when solving problems.
In my organization, leaders ensure that the organization's actions are
consistent with its values.
Organizational Skills



In my organization, leaders generally support requests for learning
opportunities and training.
In my organization, investment in workers¹ skills and professional
development is greater than last year.
In my organization, the number of individuals learning new skills is
greater than last year.
Modified Dimensions of Learning
Organizations Questionnaire (DLOQ)
Scales

Organizational Climate
 In my organization, teams/groups treat members as equals, regardless






of rank, culture, or other differences.
In my organization, teams/groups revise their thinking as a result of
group discussions or information collected.
My organization gives people control over the resources they need to
accomplish their work.
My organization considers the impact of decisions on employee morale.
In my organization, leaders mentor and coach those they lead.
In my organization, leaders ensure that the organization's actions are
consistent with its values.
Organizational Disempowerment




While performing job duties, organizational members are not
encouraged to use independent problem-solving skills.
I have to follow rules in my organization that conflict with my best
professional judgment.
I can take little action within my organization unless my superior
approves it.
I have "freedom within limits" in my organization; I know what is
expected of me but I also have freedom to be creative.
Modified Dimensions of a Learning
Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ)
Scales

Organizational Learning from Action & Practice





In my organization, people openly discuss mistakes in order to learn
from them.
In my organization, people view problems in their work as an
opportunity to learn.
In my organization, people give open and honest feedback to each
other.
In my organization, whenever people state their view, they also ask
what others think.
Change in Organizational Learning from last year






In my organization, leaders mentor and coach those they lead.
In my organization, programs and services are better than last year.
In my organization, workers seem more motivated than last year.
In my organization, organizational members follow the mission better
than last year.
In my organization, our responsiveness to community problems is
greater than last year.
In my organization, client satisfaction is greater than last year.
Frequencies - Empowerment and
Changing Community Conditions
Empowerment
co-workers
voice/choice
N
Mean
SD
1=not at all
2=very little
3=somewhat
4=moderate
5=considerable
6=a great deal
122
3.68
1.37
17
121
121
121
121
4.18
3.99
4.37
3.98
1.24
1.14
1.10
1.21
2=disagree
7
11
8
33
3=somewhat
disagree
14
17
11
20
4=somewhat
agree
38
44
33
36
opportunities
time
prepration/skills
org support
8
1=strongly
disagree
6
4
2
5=agree
44
40
56
8
6=strongly
agree
12
5
11
N
Mean
SD
1=not at all
2=very little
3=somewhat
4=moderate
5=considerable
6=a great deal
clients & comm
member voice/choice
117
3.78
1.35
14
114
112
112
98
4.00
3.89
4.18
4.00
1.18
1.22
1.19
1.24
32
3=somewhat
disagree
18
25
12
5
25
4=somewhat
agree
43
32
37
23
28
opportunties
time
prepration/skills
org support
6
1=strongly
disagree
3
4
6
3
12
6=strongly
agree
10
7
8
10
Changing Community
Conditions
% of CCC individual
N
107
Mean
2.12
SD
1.67
3=41%-60%
9
3=somewhat
disagree
16
10
7
13
4=61%-80%
8
4=somewhat
agree
37
38
37
39
opportunity
time
preparation/skills
org support
117
117
117
117
4.00
4.00
4.36
4.19
1.27
1.36
1.28
1.20
1=20% or less
62
1=strongly
disagree
3
6
5
2
2=disagree
11
11
5
7
2=21%-40%
13
2=disagree
16
16
8
12
5=agree
29
33
44
30
5=81%-100%
14
5=agree
33
34
40
37
6=strongly
agree
12
13
20
14
Correlations - Empowerment
Empowerment-Correlations
Values = Pearson Correlation
co-workers
voice/choice
opportunities
time
prepration and
skills
org support
clients & comm
member
voice/choice
opportunties
time
prepration and
skills
org support
Role in organization
Years of
employment
Education level
Org cohesiveness
Org climate
Org
disempowerment
Org learning from
action & practice
Organizational skills
Change in org
learning
Correlation is significant at
the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Correlation is significant at
the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
co-workers
voice/choice
opportunities
time
prepration
and skills
org
support
clients &
comm
member
voice/choice
1.000
0.605
0.442
0.605
1.000
0.748
0.442
0.748
1.000
0.376
0.564
0.601
0.596
0.717
0.652
0.300
0.224
0.141
0.231
0.395
0.295
0.284
0.223
0.307
0.317
0.377
0.389
0.297
0.436
0.404
0.376
0.596
0.564
0.717
0.601
0.652
1.000
0.586
0.586
1.000
0.135
0.198
0.188
0.397
0.227
0.416
0.508
0.366
0.348
0.492
0.300
0.231
0.284
0.224
0.395
0.223
0.141
0.295
0.307
0.135
0.188
0.227
0.198
0.397
0.416
1.000
0.380
0.347
0.380
1.000
0.638
0.347
0.638
1.000
0.306
0.499
0.664
0.372
0.662
0.709
0.317
0.297
0.377
0.436
0.389
0.404
0.508
0.348
0.366
0.492
0.306
0.372
0.499
0.662
0.664
0.709
1.000
0.727
0.727
1.000
0.257
0.201
0.038
0.176
0.068
0.207
0.075
0.047
0.223
0.091
-0.069
0.285
0.536
0.627
-0.059
0.229
0.400
0.523
-0.103
0.118
0.403
0.502
0.070
0.284
0.171
0.257
-0.040
0.186
0.536
0.633
0.042
0.047
0.141
0.167
0.107
0.027
0.278
0.278
-0.184
-0.049
0.366
0.357
-0.069
0.189
0.275
0.318
-0.213
0.066
0.279
0.350
-0.467
-0.356
-0.190
-0.105
-0.354
-0.196
-0.149
-0.074
-0.158
-0.133
0.410
0.378
0.385
0.178
0.486
0.157
0.319
0.370
0.191
0.367
0.445
0.432
0.477
0.168
0.513
0.230
0.315
0.400
0.397
0.329
0.489
0.454
0.481
0.188
0.565
0.198
0.314
0.386
0.251
0.313
opportunties
time
prepration
and skills
org
support
Regressions – Empowerment
Dependent Variable: Co-worker Empowerment
Standardized
Independent
Coefficients
Significance
Variables
Beta
Level
Opportunities (coworker)
0.60
0.00
Time (co-worker)
0.44
0.00
Preparation/ skills (coworker)
Adequate org support
(co-worker)
Client & Community
Member
Empowerment
Opportunities (client &
communtiy member)
Time (client &
community member)
prepration/skills (client
& community member)
Adequate org support
(client & community
member)
0.38
0.00
0.60
0.00
0.27
0.01
0.12
0.22
0.28
0.00
0.32
0.00
Dependent Variable: Client & Community Member
Empowerment
Standardized
Independent
Coefficients
Significance
Variables
Beta
Level
Co-worker
empowerment
0.30
0.00
Opportunities (coworker)
0.22
0.02
Adequate org support
(co-worker)
0.20
0.03
Opportunities (client &
communtiy member)
0.21
0.13
Time (client &
community member)
0.32
0.09
-0.24
0.27
0.20
0.29
Prepration/skills (client
& community member)
Adequate org support
client & community
0.30
0.00
Role in organization
0.17
0.07
Education level
Org cohesiveness
Org climate
0.23
-0.12
0.61
0.01
0.49
0.00
Role in organization
0.21
0.03
Org disempowerment
Org learning from
action & practice
Org skills
-0.20
0.03
Org disempowerment
-0.21
0.06
-0.07
0.09
0.54
0.40
Org skills
0.24
0.07
Change in org learning
0.02
0.91
Change in org learning
0.12
0.46






Problems with
empowerment:
Is empowerment too vague, overused, or misused to
provide a meaningful & useful basis for research &
intervention?
Beware political use & cooptation of "empowerment"
(for whom? for what? community control can be
oppressive: NIMBYism, Berger & Neuhaus: religious or
ethnic minorities in Salt Lake can simply move to New
York or San Francisco; Empower America; see Perkins,
1995)
Review dilemmas for creating empowering settings:
Hierarchical vs. egalitarian organizational structures
"Challenges of success": Who is empowered?
Can empowerment be initiated from the top down?
Discussion Questions:




What do you think of the following arguments by Riger (1993)?
1. An empowerment orientation raises expectations for real power
which are unrealistic & rarely achieved.
2. Empowerment's emphasis on autonomy only increases
competition within & among groups & thus overshadows more
cooperative or communitarian approaches that women's or other
groups might take.
Additional questions:



a. Do you agree that most of psychology (even CP?) is excessively
individualistic?
b. Do you agree with Riger that even (especially?) empowerment
theory & research are individualistic, anti-communal, or anti-feminist?
c. Is there a contradiction in Rappaport’s claim that empowerment
can be enhancement of collective as well as individual control? (IE,
to the extent that one is enhanced, does the other tend to be
diminished?)
General Discussion Questions:





1. Have you participated in any organizations or institutions that
were empowering? What made them so?
2. Has your experience as a U. student been empowering or
disempowering? What about the rest of your personal, family, &
community history? (narrative as empowerment: Rappaport,
1995)
3. Over the past two decades, community psychology’s two
leading intervention paradigms have been: prevention &
empowerment. Which of these two (or what other) is the best
paradigm for the field? Why?
4. Do religious organizations tend to be empowering or
disempowering?
5. Collective ritual, in general, plays an important role in
community solidarity & cultural identity. What role, if any, does it
play in empowerment?