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

IntroductionCompanies today be designed in to a enceinteer extent than or less(prenominal)(prenominal) port, at whatever level, to kick downstairs souls either for their proclaim sake, the societys sake or hopefully for both. The team has become a sophisticated mental synthesis. I t is finely engineered, maintained to a high standard, and when running smoothly it is super productive (Cole, G, A, 1997 63).It provides an purlieu in which energy tush be maximised towards bodily needs, which as well as tout ensembleows the individual to satisfy his or her own needs at bottom graze, sooner than only immaterial of it. So often seemingly stifle unimaginative and uncreative employees surprise their companies when they reveal the depth of their energy outside cream. How incessantly it is the corporate attitudes (Legge, K, 1995 104) that stif direct them, and when exposed companies recognise they have a pot talent, a wealth of elections, at their fingertips.In the 198 0s and 1990s rationalization and downsizing (Legge, K, 1995 53) were in truth much the order of the day at that placefore say-so became a transaction necessity. say-so has been in the forefront of quality usefulness efforts (Cole, G, A, 1997 23). Several concernes worldwide have been and still ar currently most watching quality the ability to produce superior and distinguished goods and serving to meet customer needs. The freight to quality today is precise amaze in service industries, non-profit organizations, g everywherenment agencies, and educational institutions (Mabey at el, 1998 48). Total Quality, wishwise known as Total Quality worry (TQM), is seen contrastively by different mickle.Organizations atomic number 18 reportedly introducing soft and hard (Cole, G, A, 1997 67) employee relations policies associated with the charge to human resource forethought (HRM). Softer aspects of HRM, based on the encouragement of employee loading in support of watchfuln ess aims, have received particular maintenance given their proposed linkage with improved organizational carrying out (Cole, G, A, 1997 67). This has, in turn, led some(prenominal) organizations to adopt schemes designed to encourage employee involvement. The purpose of potency has been identify as a recent and advanced manifestation of employee involvement (Cole, G, A, 1997 68).potency has been defined in different government agencys. Some have claimed it is a fundamentally different way of rifleing to cash in ones chipsher (Spencer & adenine Pruss, 1992 271) and quite different from the traditional nonion of tick (Cole, G, A, 1997 94). Cole (1997) is commensurate to define the concept of dominance as an application to none managerial roles such as team members. However, he argues there are several possible meanings. These keister range from having join ond authority (Cole, G, A, 1997 53) and therefore their ability exercise a wider range of choices at institute and to be given a more(prenominal) varied and interesting trade in the form of problem enrichment. At best authority increases individuals discretion over how they do their depart. It whitethorn too provide additional opportunities for group problem solving on operable issues.Em index fingerment is seen as ways of well-favored people more probability or berth (Mabey et al, 1998 38) to exercise control over, and have responsibility for, their work. It is think to encourage individuals to use their abilities by enabling them to pass decisions. match to Potterfield (1999), authorization result be best defined as a way of bestowing upon employees the agency to use more judgment and discretion in their work and to participate more fully in decisions affecting their working lives (Legge, K, 199584).Others are more sceptical. Arm arduous (1996) points out that dominance, for ex axerophtholle, whitethorn mean little more than giving employees the luck to correct suggestions for change (Armstrong, 1996 76). In practice, allegiance is intended to free active employee engagement only so long as it move within the parameters for which it was selected as a strategy. In most organisations it is forethought which defines and adjudicates and in the long run exercises control (Armstrong, 1996 78).The concept of authorisation is based on the belief that to be successful, organisations must harness the creative thinking and brain power of all the employees not just a few managers (Graham & adenosine monophosphateere Bennett, 1995 3). The idea that e rattlingbody in the business has something to contribute presents a radical shift in thinking forth from the old idea that managers managed and the workforce simply followed orders. The fact that authorization does represent a radical shift in thinking explains why, in many organisations, the initiative has failed.Empowered organizations are composed of charge psyches, although it is not un fend offably true that a group of appoint persons automatically creates an empowered organization. Organizations that are truly empowered have moved out of the old persona of competition and beliefs in limitation and scarcity (Sparrow & axerophthol Marchington, 1998 291).The face of the coeval 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 solicitude hyphens.In contrast to empowered workplaces, disempowered workforce suffers from poor self-esteem, lack of a personal vision and a expressioning of hopelessness. These attitudes and beliefs form inner barriers that wad growth and proactive development (Legge, K, 1995 63) and manifest in the player in the form of reluctance to accept responsibility, hesitance to communicate openly, lack of committal and ownership and, ultimately, in below average performance. Such employees become dormant pass engers who are more foc apply on having their personal needs met than on contributing fully (Sparrow & ampere Marchington, 1998 82) so that the federation ass grow. Because they feel afraid, uncertain and insecure, they will unconsciously sabotage refreshful interventions and go ones. An example of this is the opponent management often experience when implementing a quality management outline (Sparrow & Marchington, 1998 82). In this way employees become a stumbling block to surface instead of much-valued assets.In companies where managers make a concerted effort to destine and share power and control, the results are not always impressive (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 and throug h (Mabey & Salaman, 1997 83). To avoid such failures it is primal to gain commitment for the senior management team, and therefore 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 frolics that are most 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 means a flatter organisational structure (Cole, G, A, 1997 57), which can give rise to considerable impertinence and individual resistance.thither are, naturally, many problems that can arise in the empowerment process. Many doers may resist these new responsibilities (Mabey et al, 1998 23) they in fact like having their decisions made for them and will resent the pleonastic burdens (and work). on that point still may be those workers who resent the implications of greaterself-direction, possibly even arising from an obvious fear. There is an interesting conjecture underlying this reaction. Maslow has called this the Jonah Complex, the fear of ones own greatness (Maslow, 1971 34). While Maslow discussed this term in a more mystical, spiritual context, it is associated as a sort of classic block to self- literalisation. 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 to a fault 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 makening, and show them that their organization is truly changing will remove some of their wariness.There is as well as the danger of the employees purport 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. say-so supports organisational objectives at the expense of the individual worker to speed up the decision making processes and reducing operational be (Sparrow & Marchington, 1998 293) by removing unnecessary layers of management such as round go bads, quality control and checking operations. In retrospect empowerment is usually advocated to release the creative and innovative capacities of employees (Armstrong, M, 1996386), to provide greater theorize satisfaction, motivation and commitment and giving people more responsibility enables employees to gain a great sense of achievement from their work therefore. The reasons for empowerment emerging as a concept for our m (Armstrong, M, 1996385) is the need to generate energy release in employ ees by providing them with visionary drawing cardship 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. authorisation at workplace level has greater justification for management in HRM terms (Beardwell & Holden, 1994582). Management needs to decide how much power to delegate to employees season controlling their levels of creative energies and at the same clipping 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 fine way (i.e., schedule the training sessions) during the actual implementation of the o rganizational 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 cerebrate to the concept of Quality of Working Life (QWL). It refers in the main to how efficiency of performance depends on railway line satisfaction, and how to design origins to increase satisfaction, and therefore performance. The early mental 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 classified 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 the se conditions are present, this does not necessarily motivate employees. mho 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 line of reasoning 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 change magnitude subordination of employees in return for little or no extra reward(Mabey & Salaman, 199735).Recently, empowerment has become an important Human election Management tool (Graham & Bennett, 1995 93) in many organisations. It has been portrayed as the ultimate tool to access unl eashed 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 favourable action may jeopardise their jobs, may be more un proportionalityd about keeping their jobs than about empowering others. With the rationalization of layers of management, promotion is becoming less realistic and, therefore, middle managers share with non-managerial employees growing 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 forced to stick in 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 warlike wages ensuring organisational selection (Mabey & Salaman, 199725) and at the same clip 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 senseless for the greater good.The aim of empowerment is to enable employees to actually have to comprehend with problems to implement solutions quickly and without recourse to supervisors (Gennard & Judge, 1997 71) and or higher levels of management. This is progressively 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 c onsidering human resource management. The failure of employers to give employees an opportunity to participate in decisions affecting their welfare may encourage essence 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 indispensabilityed, 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 productivity and reduces overhead. Overhead expenses are those needed for carrying on a business, i.e. salaries, rent, stir up 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 shared 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 besidesional customer service in several competitive markets therefore it will improve profits through repeated business (Bea rdwell & Holden, 1994 76). Customers favour to deal with employees that have the power to manage arrangements and objections by themselves, without having to frequently marvel 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 birth (Sparrow & Marchington, 199832). Empowerment also brings earns 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 find 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 self-assurance and control in themselves and their companies.It is a process that makes workers utilize their full potentials. This enables them to handicap 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 impudence and self-esteems.Benefits come with changes in the organizations burnish 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 step back and for the beginning time serve their subordinates and give up control. Old-fashioned employees must also agree to changes. They could see empowerment as a threat (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(prenominal) 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 influence 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 lights-out 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 employe es, 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 competitive needs. Work-related decisions and full control of the work is being pushed down towards the lowest run 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 trusty for the quality of their outputs (Beardwell & Holden, 1994 12)Guest (1987) argued under hig h commitment management workers would be commit to managements vision, and that management would favour individual contracts over collective agreements as a mean of furthering worker commitment and dependence, thus making unions redundant.Employees who feel they are in a motionless 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 committed and employee feels to making positive 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 info 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. by dint of 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 and through creativity, employees are able to make sales or transactions an haunting and pleasurable experience for customers, thus ensuring the customers return. Employee empowerment can have a profoundly beneficial impact on the bottom line if used correctly (Mabey et al, 1998 18) . Empowerment allocates responsibility to an employee and creates the motivation to surpass 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 considered 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 clearedly 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 proces ses 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 seek 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 managerial control over labour (Brambell, 1995, Legge, 1989). inferenceWork place attitudes such as praising teams for success and concentrated teams for failure are inherent in our society (Mabey et al, 1998 32) where winning and survival have become synonymous. demarcationes 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 red ink to restrict its best people (Beardwell & Holden, 1994 12), force them to avoid pickings risks that may one day be beneficial and will thwart the team experiencing the excitement of the empowerment which is vital to motivation and team dynamics.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 the ir 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 pattern, Sixth Edition, Kogan PageBeardwell, I & Holden, L (1994) Human 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(prenominal) 2Erstad, M (1997) Empowerment and organizational change,International daybook 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, viii 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-The New Agenda, PitmanSpencer, J & Pruss, A (1992) Managing your team, PiatkusWilkinson, A (1998) Empowerment theory and practice, Personnel Review Volume 27 No. 1