Empowerment supports organisational objectives at the expense of the individual worker Essay

IntroductionCompanies directly be designed in someway, at some level, to develop singulars either for their own involvement, the gilds sake or hope in full for both. The team has become a sophisticated structure. I t is finely engineered, maintained to a high standard, and when running smoothly it is extremely productive ( bread, G, A, 1997 63).It provides an environment in which energy cigarette be maximised towards collective needs, which as well as in whollyows the individual to satisfy his or her own needs indoors build, quite a than only outside of it. So often seemingly dull unimaginative and uncreative employees surprise their companies when they reveal the depth of their energy outside fail. How forever it is the corporate attitudes (Legge, K, 1995 104) that stifled them, and when resignd companies recognise they bind a pool talent, a wealth of resources, at their fingertips.In the 1980s and 1990s rationalisation and downsizing (Legge, K, 1995 53) were very frequently the order of the day therefore adornment became a business necessity.Em providement has been in the forefront of fibre betterment efforts (Cole, G, A, 1997 23). Several businesses worldwide gift been and motionlessness argon currently closely watching quality the ability to produce superior and distinguished goods and services to meet customer needs. The loading to quality today is very present in service industries, non-profit organizations, government agencies, and educational institutions (Mabey at el, 1998 48). Total Quality, as well as known as Total Quality wariness (TQM), is seen otherwise by different stack.Organizations are reportedly introducing soft and hard (Cole, G, A, 1997 67) employee relations policies associated with the shift to human resource oversight (HRM). Softer aspects of HRM, based on the encouragement of employee commitment in support of forethought aims, have received particular attention conk outn their proposed linkage with impro ved organisational performance (Cole, G, A, 1997 67). This has, in binge, led many some other(prenominal) organizations to adopt schemes designed to encourage employee involvement. The concept of say-so has been identified as a recent and advanced manifestation of employee involvement (Cole, G, A, 1997 68). authorisation has been defined in different ways. Some have claimed it is a fundamentally different way of working together (Spencer & Pruss, 1992 271) and quite different from the traditional notion of control (Cole, G, A, 1997 94). Cole (1997) is able to define the concept of empowerment as an application to none managerial roles such as team members. However, he argues there are several(prenominal) possible meanings. These can range from having addd authority (Cole, G, A, 1997 53) and therefore their ability exercise a wider range of choices at work and to be given a more varied and interesting job in the form of job enrichment. At best empowerment increases individuals discretion over how they do their work. It may also provide additional opportunities for group problem solving on operational issues. dominance is seen as ways of giving people more opportunity or power (Mabey et al, 1998 38) to exercise control over, and have office for, their work. It is intended to encourage individuals to use their abilities by enabling them to consider decisions. According to Potterfield (1999), empowerment will be best defined as a way of bestowing upon employees the power to use more judgment and discretion in their work and to enrol more fully in decisions affecting their working lives (Legge, K, 199584).Others are more sceptical. Armstrong (1996) points out that Empowerment, for example, may mean little more than giving employees the opportunity to make suggestions for change (Armstrong, 1996 76). In practice, empowerment is intended to release active employee engagement only so long as it falls within the parameters for which it was selected as a strate gy. In virtually organisations it is charge which defines and adjudicates and ultimately exercises control (Armstrong, 1996 78).The concept of empowerment is based on the belief that to be successful, organisations essential harness the creativity and brain power of all the employees not just a few managers (Graham & Bennett, 1995 3). The idea that everybody in the business has something to contribute represents a radical shift in thinking away from the archaic idea that managers managed and the workforce simply followed orders. The fact that empowerment does represent a radical shift in thinking explains why, in many organisations, the initiative has failed. charge organizations are composed of sceptred persons, although it is not necessarily true that a group of empower persons automatically creates an empowered organization. Organizations that are truly empowered have moved out of the old paradigm of competition and beliefs in limitation and scarcity (Sparrow & Marchington, 1998 291).The face of the contemporary workplace is drastically changing. More and more companies are realising the value of more flat democratic organisational structure (Mabey et al, 1998 23) over the traditional autocratic, hierarchical management styles.In contrast to empowered workplaces, disempowered workforce suffers from poor self-esteem, escape of a individualized vision and a feeling of hopelessness. These attitudes and beliefs form inner barriers that block growth and proactive development (Legge, K, 1995 63) and manifest in the prole in the form of reluctance to accept obligation, hesitance to communicate openly, lack of commitment and ownership and, ultimately, in below average performance. Such employees become passive passengers who are more focused on having their personal needs met than on contributing fully (Sparrow & Marchington, 1998 82) so that the company can grow. Because they feel afraid, uncertain and insecure, they will unconsciously sabotage tonic in terventions and approaches. An example of this is the resistance management often experience when implementing a quality management system (Sparrow & Marchington, 1998 82). In this way employees become a stumbling block to progress instead of much-valued assets.In companies where managers make a concerted effort to delegate and share power and control, the results are not always astonishing (Graham & Bennett, 1995 93). The reason for this is either a lack of understanding of the nature of empowerment, or a greater focus on applying a set of managerial techniques than on creating conditions that are essential for empowerment to thrive.Where empowerment does not work it is because people do not think it through (Mabey & Salaman, 1997 83). To avoid such failures it is important to net income commitment for the senior management team, and then to cascade this down to other levels of management. The hardest group to convince about empowerment are middle managers (Spencer & Pruss, 1992 92), because it is their jobs that are virtually likely to be affected. It is because these managers often have the most to lost that they may have a tendency to undermine or delay implementation of a new policy.The implementation of empowerment in organisations instead of the traditional hierarchies elbow room a flatter organisational structure (Cole, G, A, 1997 57), which can give rise to considerable choler and individual resistance.There are, naturally, many problems that can arise in the empowerment cultivate. Many workers may resist these new responsibilities (Mabey et al, 1998 23) they in fact like having their decisions do for them and will resent the extra burdens (and work).There still may be those workers who resent the implications of greaterself-direction, possibly even arising from an obvious fear. There is an interesting possibility underlying this reaction. Maslow has called this the Jonah Complex, the fear of ones own greatness (Maslow, 1971 34). While Maslow d iscussed this term in a more mystical, spiritual context, it is associated as a flesh of classic block to self-existingisation. Since empowerment speaks to the same sort of needs as self-actualisation, it could be drawn that there is the possibility of a collective sort of Jonah Complex at the heart of many conflicts in organizational transitions.Employees may also be cynical and suspicious of this approach (Gennard & Judge, 1997 235, Hitchcock and Willard, 199527) as another way to get more work out of them for less money. However allowing employees to take an active part in the change process from the very beginning, and covering them that their organization is truly changing will remove some of their wariness.There is also the danger of the employees feeling too empowered (Legge, K, 1995 57) in feeling so independent of other facets of the organization that there might also be troubles in transitioning to teams.Empowerment supports organisational objectives at the expense of th e individual worker to speed up the decision making processes and reducing operational costs (Sparrow & Marchington, 1998 293) by removing unnecessary layers of management such as staff functions, quality control and checking operations. In recollection empowerment is usually advocated to release the creative and innovative capacities of employees (Armstrong, M, 1996386), to provide greater job satisfaction, motivation and commitment and giving people more responsibility enables employees to solve a great sense of achievement from their work therefore. The reasons for empowerment emerging as a concept for our time (Armstrong, M, 1996385) is the need to generate energy release in employees by providing them with visionary leadership and a supporting environment and by treating them as a valuable asset to be invested in rather then as a cost despite the fact that organisations are driven by profit generating, cost reduction and market pressures.Empowerment at workplace level has gre ater justification for management in HRM terms (Beardwell & Holden, 1994582). Management needs to decide how much power to delegate to employees while dogmatic their levels of creative energies and at the same time not undermining managerial prerogatives (Beardwell & Holden, 1994 582). TQM (total quality management) suggests a system whereby worker empowerment is restricted very much within the boundaries set by the management (Beardwell & Holden, 1994 582).Training can provide an opportunity to empower and motivate employees (Honold, L, 1997). Empowering workers in this small way (i.e., schedule the training sessions) during the actual implementation of the organizational change can provide workers with a small degree of control over what is essentially a change in process over which they have no control.Empowerment can be argued as an objective in its own right as a means of extending worker satisfaction (Gennard & Judge, 1997 211). This can be related to the concept of Quality o f Working Life (QWL). It refers primarily to how efficiency of performance depends on job satisfaction, and how to design jobs to increase satisfaction, and therefore performance. The early psychological basis of QWL and of justifications of empowerment relating to increased worker motivation was Herzberg (1968). Herzberg developed a theory called the two-factor theory of motivation.Herzberg argued that job factors could be class as to whether they contributed primarily to satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Spencer & Pruss, 1992 64). There are conditions, which result in dissatisfaction amongst employees when they are not present. If these conditions are present, this does not necessarily motivate employees. present moment there are conditions, which when present in the job, build a strong level of motivation that can result in good job performance.Management very rarely discusses the practical problems in attempting to apply empowerment through quality management (Mabey & Salaman, 199734) therefore employee views and feelings are unheard. The argument in supporting quality management requires an increase in workers skills and results in genuine employee empowerment (Mabey & Salaman, 199734). However, in contrast to the optimistic approach is the argument that empowerment through quality management results in the increasing subordination of employees in return for little or no extra reward(Mabey & Salaman, 199735).Recently, empowerment has become an important Human choice Management tool (Graham & Bennett, 1995 93) in many organisations. It has been portrayed as the ultimate tool to access unleashed potential and help leaders get the best from their people. In reality, however, organisations that are trying to empower people may be fighting an uphill battle. Managers who harbour a fear that affirmative action may imperil their jobs, may be more worried about keeping their jobs than about empowering others. With the rationalization of layers of management, pr omotion is becoming less realistic and, therefore, middle managers share with non-managerial employees evolution feelings of cynicism as well as a heightened sense of estrangement from the predominant goals and values of their employing organizations (Denham, N et al, 1997).According to Maslow (1998), people need a sense of self-determination, autonomy, dignity, and responsibility (Legge, K, 1995 221) to continue to function in a healthy, growth-motivated way. When placed in an environment where any or all of these qualities are removed from them and they are instead pressure to submit to anothers will and think and act under constant supervision (Legge, K, 1995 221), their sense of esteem and self-worth is robbed from them.The implementation of empowerment can be used successfully as a HRM tool as it provides a competitive advantage ensuring organisational survival (Mabey & Salaman, 199725) and at the same time protecting employees jobs. However, employees maybe compelled to work harder and more flexibly for their own good (Mabey & Salaman, 199725) otherwise they might be made redundant for the greater good.The aim of empowerment is to enable employees to actually have to deal with problems to implement solutions quickly and without recourse to supervisors (Gennard & Judge, 1997 71) and or higher levels of management. This is increasingly necessary as large and bureaucratic organisations delayer (Beardwell & Holden, 1994 91) management hierarchies in the search for administrative efficiency and lower costs.Employee empowerment is a very important aspect when considering human resource management. The failure of employers to give employees an opportunity to recruit in decisions affecting their welfare may encourage union member ship (sparrow & Marchington, 1998 53). It is widely believed that one reason managers begin employee involvement programs and seek to empower their employees is to avoid collective action by employees (Cole, G, A, 1997 83). Employee empowerment offers the employers and the employees the chance to be on the same level, so to speak. Empowerment allows them to help make decisions that affect themselves, as well as, the company. Basically, through empowerment, employers and employees are in a win-win situation. The employees feel like they are needed and wanted, while the employers gain satisfaction through their prosperity (Mabey & Salaman, 1997 64).Employee empowerment can be a powerful tool. The now advanced leadership style can increase efficiency and effectiveness inside an organization (Graham & Bennett, 1995 13). It increases productiveness and reduces overhead. Overhead expenses are those needed for carrying on a business, i.e. salaries, rent, heat and advertising (Mabey & Salaman, 1997 39). It gives managers the freedom to dedicate their time to more important matters. Managers can highlight the talents and efforts of all employees. The leader and organisation take advantage of the divided up knowledge of workers (Beardwell & Holden, 1994 64). Managers at the same time develop their own job qualifications and skills attaining personal advancements (Spencer & Pruss, 1992 38).Empowered employees can make decisions and suggestions that will down the line improve service and support, saving money, time and disputes between companies and their customers (Gennard & Judge, 1997 291). Empowerment of qualified employees will provide exceptional customer service in several competitive markets therefore it will improve profits through repeated business (Beardwell & Holden, 1994 76). Customers prefer to deal with employees that have the power to manage arrangements and objections by themselves, without having to frequently inquire of their supervisors (Beardwell & Holden, 1994 76).Empowerment is a strong tool that will increase revenue and improve the bottom line (Sparrow & Marchington, 1998 280). Empowerment is also the best way to promote a good long-lasting employee-customer relationship (Spa rrow & Marchington, 199832). Empowerment also brings benefits to employees. It makes them feel better about their inputs to the company it promotes a greater productivity, and provides them with a sense of personal and professional balance (Cole, G, A, 1997 91). It exercises employees minds to decree alternative and better ways to execute their jobs, and it increases their potential for promotions and job satisfaction. It results in personal growth (Mabey at al, 1998 174) since the whole process enlarges their feelings of confidence and control in themselves and their companies.It is a process that makes workers utilize their full potentials. This enables them to stay behind their decisions, assume risks, participate and take actions. It is a win-win situation (Wilkinson, A, 1998) customers benefit from sharp employees organizations benefit from satisfied customers and sharp employees and employees benefit from improving their confidence and self-esteems.Benefits come with changes in the organizations culture itself. Benefits require changes in management and employees (Mabey at al, 1998 54). For empowerment to succeed, the management pyramid (Mabey et al, 1998 54) must be inverted. Old-fashioned managers must take a tonicity back and for the first time serve their subordinates and give up control. Old-fashioned employees must also agree to changes. They could see empowerment as a holy terror (Spencer & Pruss, 1992 147), especially if they became use to the convenient old style of management structure where the rules and decisions always came from above (Legge, K, 1995 94).Employee involvement and participation schemes are to enhance job responsibility (Legge, K, 1995 24) by providing individuals with more influence over how they perform their tasks (employee empowerment). Each individual can make a personal decision on how to perform his or her task instead of being instructed on how to do so by management. When employees are involved, they have some influ ence on how they perform their job. This in turn is likely to increase their contentment with the job (Mabey at al, 1998 134), the probability that they will remain in that job and their willingness to except changes in the task that make up the job. Individual employees are more likely to be effective members of the workforce (Sparrow & Marchington, 1998 76) if management taps into their knowledge of the job by seeking their opinion on how the job should be performed and how it can be organised better.For employees, the greater empowerment and control given to frontline staff and to their teams has meant a great degree of freedom than ever before in controlling their own working lives (Sparrow & Marchington, 1998166).The power that managers have, the capacity that managers have to influence the behaviour of employees and work responsibilities, must be now shared with employees (Gennard & Judge, 1997 73) through the creation of trust, assurance, motivation, and support for competiti ve needs. Work-related decisions and full control of the work is being pushed down towards the lowest operating levels (Armstrong, M, 1996 58). Self-conducted teams have also emerged, which are groups of empowered employees with no or very little supervision. These groups are able to solve work problems, make choices on schedules and operations, learn to do other employees jobs, and are also held accountable and responsible for the quality of their outputs (Beardwell & Holden, 1994 12)Guest (1987) argued under high commitment management workers would be committed to managements vision, and that management would favour individual contracts over collective agreements as a mean of furthering worker commitment and dependence, therefrom making unions redundant.Employees who feel they are in a stable work environment will feel more secure and empowered (Cole, G, A, 1997 94). Advancement opportunities and rewards/incentive programs should also be implemented, as they feed into how committ ed and employee feels to making affirmatory contributions and whether or not they are recognised for their efforts. Morale, too, provides a good measure of the culture of the organisation. Organisations with a restrictive, secretive environment where information is tightly controlled (Beardwell & Holden, 1994 162) will have less informed less empowered employees. Organisations with a more open environment, where ideas are encouraged from all levels will have a freer flow of information, better-informed employees, and thus higher empowerment.Through the process of employee empowerment, employees feel more valued (Beardwell & Holden, 1994 40) because they are able to participate in the planning process and the decision making process. Empowerment gives employees the opportunity to contribute to the companys overall success (Beardwell & Holden, 1994 40). This helps an employee feel that he/she is truly valued, rather than that they are just a back to be stepped upon by those trying to reach the top. All in all, if the employee is happy with their job, than a paying customer will see that and want to return.Empowerment allows an employee to find new ways to express their creativity (Armstrong, M, 1996 161). Through creativity, employees are able to make sales or transactions an unforgettable and pleasurable experience for customers, thus ensuring the customers return. Employee empowerment can have a profoundly adept impact on the bottom line if used correctly (Mabey et al, 1998 18). Empowerment allocates responsibility to an employee and creates the motivation to reach customer expectations. In order to keep customers for life, employers must empower their employees to make their own decisions.Empowerment gives employees the opportunity to make decisions and suggestions (Cole, G, A, 1997 39) that will down the line improve service and support, saving money, time and disputes between companies and their customers.Empowerment is an aspect, which must be considere d in negotiating an effective team contract (Spencer & Pruss, 1992 69) .The team must be empowered to seek and find information across the existing management structures. The communication aspect of empowerment means that the team must be clearly shown where their work adds value to the company, where their effects will show results and where their work fits in with the companys objectives.Organizations wishing to instil a culture of empowerment must find a way of establishing systems and processes that do not restrict employees. By concentrating on what behaviour is considered optimal for the employees and what they do well, management can adapt, develop and change the organizational structure to produce the sought after behaviour (Erstad, M, 1997). Culture changed programmes are commonly promoted (Mabey et al, 1998 132) to increase the power of the worker, through empowerment. However, critics have argued empowerment is a means of increasing work intensity and gaining greater mana gerial control over labour (Brambell, 1995, Legge, 1989).ConclusionWork place attitudes such as praising teams for success and punishing teams for failure are inherent in our society (Mabey et al, 1998 32) where winning and survival have become synonymous. Businesses are installing empowerment into their organisations to give people more responsibility and asking them to test the corporate boundary limits (Graham & Bennett, 1995 91). A t the same time, organisations are asking staff to be more entrepreneurial, and take more risks. It can be argued employees who empower themselves can be called troublemakers and those who take entrepreneurial risks and fail are referred to as failures. The business ethic which condemns failure as a bad thing is going to restrict its best people (Beardwell & Holden, 1994 12), force them to avoid taking risks that may one day be beneficial and will prevent the team experiencing the excitement of the empowerment which is vital to motivation and team dyn amics.The advantages gained through empowerment are numerous. Employee empowerment allows an organization to unleash the vital, untapped forces of employee creativity and motivation to solve business problems (Legge, K, 1995 50). Empowering employee also allows them to make decisions on the spot. This is very important when you work in an industry where you work directly with a paying customer. When employees are empowered, the employer enables them to offer full service to their clients and protect them from the competition. The rewards of empowerment outweigh the risks of losing the employees themselves (Spencer & Pruss, 1992 203). The retail industry is a perfect example.Managers are learning to give up control and employees are learning how to be responsible for the actions and decisions (Cole, G, A, 1997 34). It is fundamental that management shares information, creates autonomy and feedback, and trains and creates self-directed teams for empowerment to work properly. Managers often prefer not to communicate with employees, and not to share some extremely important information (Beardwell & Holden, 1994 247) with them, but an effective leader must have no hidden agendas. They must treat employees as stakeholders for the road of success (Beardwell & Holden, 1994 247). Employees must have a clear vision of success, because if they are not aware of what success means to the company and where the company is heading, there is no way they can feel empowered to help accomplish this success.Empowerment is not something, which can be passed over from management to employees as a pen is handed from one person to another. It is a complex process, which requires a clear vision, a learning environment both for management and employees, and participation and implementation tools and techniques in order to be successful (Erstad, M, 1997).BibliographyArmstrong, M (1996) A Handbook of Personnel Management Practice, Sixth Edition, Kogan PageBeardwell, I & Holden, L (1994) H uman resource Management- A contemporary perspective, PitmanCole, G, A (1997) Personnel Management, Fourth Edition, LettsDenham, N, Ackers, P & Travers, C (1997) Doing yourself out of a job? How middle managers cope with empowerment , Employee RelationsVolume 19 No. 2Erstad, M (1997) Empowerment and organizational change,International ledger of Contemporary Hospitality Management Volume 9 No. 7Gennard, J & Judge, G (1997) Employee relations, Institute of Personnel & DevelopmentGraham, H, T &Bennett, R (1995) Human Resources Management, Eight Edition, M+E handbooksHonold, L (1997) A review of the literature on employee empowerment, Empowerment in Organisations Volume 5 No. 4Legge, K (1995) Human Resource Management-Rhetorics & Realities, Macmillan BusinessMabey, C & Salaman, G (1997) Strategic Human Resource Management, Blackwell BusinessMabey, C, Skinner, D & Clark, T, (1998) Experiencing Human Resource Management, SageSparrow, P & Marchington, M (1998) Human Resource Management-T he New Agenda, PitmanSpencer, J & Pruss, A (1992) Managing your team, PiatkusWilkinson, A (1998) Empowerment theory and practice, Personnel Review Volume 27 No. 1