Empowerment is the belief that you have the ability to make decisions and take action. That’s a tremendous concept, but I’ve always felt that in practice it was more a loaded buzzword that managers toss around but rarely appreciate or fully support. Like many worthy concepts (e.g. engagement), the rhetoric of employee empowerment usually far exceeds the reality.
A study recently published in the Journal of Applied Psychology (full citation below) provides strong support for why managers should provide more reality and less rhetoric when it comes to employee empowerment. This meta-analysis of 142 previous studies also reveals what the evidence shows are the most effective means to achieve employee empowerment.
The study showed that for both individuals and teams, empowerment drives both employee behaviors and attitudes. Empowered employees were more satisfied and committed at work, and less likely to experience stress and to think about leaving the organization. The critical behaviors driven by empowerment were performance, innovation, and organizational citizenship.
Empowered employees produce results that affect both revenue and profit.
The evidence shows empowered employees are a result of both things about the workplace/job and things about the employee. To make the job more empowered, you need to provide positive leadership (e.g. trust, authenticity, support), high-performance managerial practices (e.g. training, rewards, recognition, participatory decision making), social/political support (e.g. access to resources, information sharing, fairness), and work characteristics (interesting work with a variety of different tasks).
I think the most interesting finding from this research is that employee personality (e.g. core self-evaluation, self-efficacy, locus of control) is as strongly associated with empowerment as any of the above workplace factors. According to the authors:
A practical implication of our results is that organizations might consider selecting employees who have positive self-evaluation traits to help establish a workforce that is more willing and able to show initiative and take an active role in improving its own performance. (p. 16)
Don’t bother trying to hire positive people only to give them crappy jobs and a line of bullshit about empowerment. If you are serious about reaping the benefits of an empowered workforce, make sure you are committed to providing good jobs, fair policies, and remarkable leadership, then go hire good folks and invite them to partner with you to continuously improve your workplace.
Good people that are enabled to make decisions and take autonomous action are a competitive force that can transform every aspect of your business.
Full citation: Seibert, S.E., Wang, G, and Courtright, S.H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology
Related Posts:
Servant Leadership, Trust, And Team Performance
How To Assess Locus Of Control
You should follow me on twitter here.
Another great post, Bret. Right on the money — and by the way, there are two ways that money is critical to whether management can increase employee empowerment.
Money for Good Tools: Is management spending with the right priorities to produce usable, up-to-date systems and resources that people can use to clarify and streamline their decision-making? Or is management expecting employees to navigate through a thorn patch of cumbersome forms, bureaucracy and/or computer programs that end up discouraging initiative and innovation?
Money for Good People: Is management providing the kind of extrinsic rewards (pay, bonus, recognition dollar awards, etc.) that will truly reward and motivate people to take action over and above baseline expectations? Or is management forever tacking more tasks onto a job description without addressing, via remuneration, the increased level of responsibility, pace and performance that accompanies each additional (albeit small) action requirement? I see this kind of scope creep as a trend in many industries today. Bosses under pressure to optimize their department performance without hiring additional staff may take this route, failing to see that they’re increasing the level of expertise required from their staff whenever they increase the spectrum, snd therefore general complexity, of their jobs. “Above my pay grade” might be the eventual response from workers, and if the increase in performance expectations is not accompanied by an increase in pay or other benefits, you get a workforce that is “dis-encouraged” to meet even basic expectations. “Partnership,” “engagement” and “empowerment” will remain buzzwords.
This is why, from my perspective, the money issue is the real nut to crack for managers seeking to empower their employees. Most bosses have to put together budgets to submit to a higher level of management, the board of directors, or whatever. Money equals priorities with these folks. Intrinsic values such as empowerment don’t often have a straight-line predictable effect on the bottom line. Hopefully having evidence-based studies such as this one can help these managers make the case for some funds diversion, first towards employee feedback programs to identify where exactly the pain points are, then towards appropriate systems improvements and compensation restructuring. Once they can get some money to flow into these key areas, then managers should be able to get some hard numbers in the year-over-year analysis to prove the worth of increased employee empowerment.
But that is one tough nut to crack.
[Reply]
Bret L. Simmons Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 9:44 am
Another exceptional commentary, Beth. I hope people will find and read your comments and take the time to respond back in this thread. Strongly concur that you can’t have something for nothing. Thanks! Bret
[Reply]
Ozioma Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 7:07 pm
I am reading this at the best time of my life where I am looking to see proper criticism about this construct. This is marvelous contribution, beth. it sheds more light on the different perspective of empowerment.
Thank you Bret and Beth
[Reply]
Bret L. Simmons Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
Welcome, Ozioma. Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts! Bret
[Reply]
Interesting results. Do you think we should utilize the results of personality testing more in the workplace?
[Reply]
Bret L. Simmons Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 9:51 am
I’m not a big fan of personality testing, but the evidence suggests it has a role. Thanks, David
[Reply]
Last year, my husband quit a high-paying job in which he was fed plenty of lines about “empowerment” — and received nothing but criticism from his general manager.
He took a 40% pay cut to go to a new job in which his manager communicates appreciation on a daily basis. Suddenly, I’m married to a man who says “I’m happy” — for the first time in over three years.
Do we miss the money? Sure. But the money is of so little importance, it’s hardly worth mentioning. The husband is now in a job in which he is viewed as a fellow worker, not a lowly inferior. He now goes to work with enthusiasm and gets tanked up through his work instead of being drained dry. He’s a better man and a better employee, and we wouldn’t trade that for all the paychecks in the world.
[Reply]
Bret L. Simmons Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Welcome, Courtney! I love this example. Truth be told I too would love to have a job like the one you describe. I don’t need to make a lot of money, but I really need to believe that my work matters. I find it extremely stressful working for people that don’t give a damn about me. That’s MY fault… thanks for sharing!! Bret
[Reply]
Courtney Cantrell Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
Thanks for the welcome, Bret. : )
I understand what you mean about needing to believe your wok matters. Before going into the job that made him miserable, my husband did a 6-year stint as a missionary in a foreign country. The contrast between the two jobs — work that helped other people vs. work that didn’t matter at all — really tore him apart.
“Fault” is a strong word, Bret. If you’re staying in a job where your employers are that callous…it might simply mean you’re not ready to quit for some reason. And whatever that reason is, it’s a legitimate reason — otherwise, you would already have made a change. I believe in following your passion but also listening when your gut tells you it’s not quite time yet.
Obviously, I don’t know your situation at all…but I hope you can reach that ready-for-change point and find work that’s meaningful to you. : )
[Reply]
Bret L. Simmons Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Oooh, great advice, Courtney. Parts of my job are incredible (e.g. interacting with motivated students) and parts of it suck (e.g. interacting with power hungry colleagues). I’m trying to prepare myself to be ready for an opportunity to change if one comes up. I can see how your husband’s situation was difficult – from work to improve the value of living to work to make a living. Thanks for sharing! Bret
[Reply]
Courtney Cantrell Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 2:04 pm
Bret, if my story can shine light in anyone else’s life, I count myself blessed. : )
At least you still have a rewarding aspect to your job! That’s a way to keep pushing through the sucky parts. but I think you’re right, it’s important to prepare for those opportunities. And maybe it’s a growth process, too — learning to recognize those little moments we might have been blind to in the past. But if we learn to pay attention to them, they can lead to great things.
[Reply]
Bret L. Simmons Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 5:05 pm
It’s *always* a growth process for me. Thanks! Bret
Hi Bret, speaking of empowerment… have you seen this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc . The guy speaking is Daniel Pink and he talks about what he thinks what makes people tick and do what they do. If you have time, check it out, it’s about 10 minutes long. Haipin
[Reply]