Contextual factors of psychological empowerment
| Published date | 01 December 2000 |
| Pages | 703-722 |
| Date | 01 December 2000 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480010296474 |
| Author | Marc Siegall,Susan Gardner |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Psychological
empowerment
703
Personnel Review,
Vol. 29 No. 6, 2000, pp. 703-722.
#MCB University Press, 0048-3486
Received October 1998
Revised May 1999
Accepted May 1999
Contextual factors of
psychological empowerment
Marc Siegall and Susan Gardner
California State University, Chico, California, USA
Keywords Empowerment, Employee communications, Supervision, Performance, Teamwork
Abstract This paper examines the relationships between four contextual factors related to
empowerment (communication with supervisor, general relations with company, teamwork, and
concern for performance) and the four components of psychological empowerment (meaning,
impact, self-determination, and competence) identified by Spreitzer and her colleagues. We
surveyed 203 employees of a manufacturing firm, using new and established measures of
contextual factors and Spreitzer's measures of empowerment components. The contextual factors
were found to be differentially associated with the elements of psychological empowerment.
Communication with supervisor and general relations with company were significantly related to
the empowerment facets of meaning, self-determination, and impact, but were not related to the
facet of competence. Teamwork was related to meaning and impact. Concern for performance
was related to meaning and self-determination. These associations also varied by type of job. We
conclude with implications for research and practice.
Introduction
Many managers and scholars recognize that an organization's only true
sustainable competitive advantage is its people, and that all organizational
members need to be involved and active for the firm to succeed (e.g. Lawler,
1992, 1996). The concept of empowerment is closely aligned with this thrust to
gain organizational effectiveness through the wise utilization of human
resources. Conger and Kanungo (1988) pointed out that empowerment ``is a
principle component of managerial and organizational effectiveness ... [and]
empowerment techniques play a crucial role in group development and
maintenance'' (p. 471). With more organizations relying on team-based designs
(Parker, 1994), empowerment becomes important at both the individual and
team levels. Unfortunately, empowerment programs have not always proven
effective (e.g. Griggs and Manring, 1991; Thorlakson and Murray, 1996);
therefore, a better understanding of which factors positively influence
empowerment would be useful.
In this paper, we examined the impact of four contextual/organizational
elements on four factors that have been shown to comprise the psychological
side of empowerment. We looked at the relationships between employees'
perceptions of their work environment and their reported sense of
empowerment. Our general research question was whether these contextual
factors affected each psychological component in the same way. We also
sought to contribute to the literature that utilizes a specific (psychological
based) conceptualization of empowerment. Our goal is to contribute to both the
academic and practitioner literatures.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com
Personnel
Review
29,6
704
While there are multiple meanings of empowerment (Conger and Kanungo,
1988; Wilkinson, 1998), in practice empowered employees have a high sense of
self-efficacy, are given significant responsibility and authority over their jobs,
engage in upward influence, and see themselves as innovative (Conger and
Kanungo, 1988; Ford and Fottler, 1995; Quinn and Spreitzer, 1997). Empowered
employees view themselves as more effective in their work and are evaluated
as more effective by their co-workers (Quinn and Spreitzer, 1997). Numerous
articles and books (e.g. Byham and Cox, 1990) attest to the power of
empowerment to increase organizational effectiveness and employee well-
being. For example, empowering employees has been shown to improve
efficiency and reduce costs on the assembly line in a transmission plant (Suzik,
1998). Furthermore, empowering employees affected employee satisfaction,
loyalty, performance, service delivery, and concern for others among service
employees in private clubs (Fulford and Enz, 1995).
Empowerment can be particularly important for organizations operating in
a team environment or for organizations that wish to transition to a team
environment. Based on a study using their model of work team effectiveness,
Cohen et al. (1996) concluded that the context for employee involvement should
be the primary focus for anyone trying to design effective self-managing work
teams. Their specific contextual variables ± group task design, group
characteristics, encouraging supervisory behaviors, and an organizational
context that supports employee involvement ± were based on Lawler's (1992)
principles for high-involvement organizations, principles that directly related
to the concept of empowerment. Similarly, a key element in Johnson and
Thurston's (1997) model was the importance and difficulty of empowering
work groups so that they will contribute to organizational success. According
to Ketchum and Trist (1992), empowering teams should be a central concept for
managers who wish to improve their organization's performance. Shipper and
Manz (1992) went even farther, suggesting that to be successful, an
organization should strive to become one large empowered team.
Issues with the construct
Note that while the above examples of empowerment and its outcomes have the
general commonality of employee-centered control and action, commentators
find it difficult to draw upon one specific definition of empowerment. Thomas
and Velthouse (1990) stated that ``empowerment has become a widely used
word within the organizational sciences, . . . but has no agreed-upon definition.
Rather, the term has been used . . . to capture a family of somewhat related
meanings'' (p. 666). Almost a decade later, Wilkinson (1998) pointed out that the
literature still uses the term empowerment ``very loosely and it is not always
clear if we are comparing like with like'' (p. 40), and that the meaning and
purpose of empowerment shifts with its political and organizational contexts.
Thorlakson and Murray (1996) stated that ``despite its current popularity .. .
little research has been conducted on empowerment in the workplace . . .
Although empowerment is a relatively new concept in terms of organizational
To continue reading
Request your trial