Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

Employee Empowerment: An Integrative Psychological Approach Sanjay T. Menon* Cl

Employee Empowerment: An Integrative Psychological Approach Sanjay T. Menon* Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY, USA Une approche psychologique globale de la prise de pouvoir des salarie Â s a e Â te Â de Â veloppe Â e en partant du principe que l'expe Â rience psychologique du pouvoir soutient les sentiments de prise de pouvoir. Cette recherche e Â largit les per- spectives existantes sur la prise de pouvoir en incorporant les effets d'objectifs valorise Â s tels que ceux fournis par le leadership transformationnel. L'internalisation des objectifs a e Â te Â identifie Â e comme e Â le Â ment majeur de l'expe Â rience psychologique de la prise de pouvoir s'ajoutant ainsi aux aspects plus traditionnelsque sont la perception de la maõÃtrise de l'environnement de travail, et celle d'efficacite Â personnelle ou de compe Â tence. Des proce Â dures de mesures standards sur un e Â chantillon de salarie Â s du Que Â bec, Canada, et la validation ulte Â rieure par un e Â chantillon d'organisation de l'Ontario, Canada, ont fourni une e Â chelle, a Á trois facteurs, de la prise de pouvoir psychologique correspondant a Á ces trois dimensions. Les implications d'une de Â finition de la prise de pouvoir comme e Â tat psychologique et la ne Â cessite Â de mesures multiples de la prise de pouvoir sont aussi de Â battues. An integrative psychological approach to employee empowerment was developed based on the premise that the psychological experience of power underlies feelings of empowerment. This research extends existing perspectives on empowerment by incorporating the empowering effect of valued goals, such as those provided by transformational leadership. Goal internalisation was identified as a major component of the psychological experience of empower- ment, in addition to the two traditional facets of perceptions of control over the work environment and perceptions of self-efficacy or competence. Stand- ard measure development procedures using a sample of employed individuals from Quebec, Canada and subsequent validation with an organisational sample from Ontario, Canada yielded a three-factor scale of psychological empowerment corresponding to these three dimensions. The implications of defining empowerment as a psychological state and the need for multiple measures of empowerment are also discussed. ________________ * Address for correspondence and requests for the French language version of the scale items: Dr. Sanjay T. Menon, Faculty of Organisational Studies, Clarkson University, Box 5790, Potsdam, NY 13699, USA. Email, menons@clarkson.edu This article, which is partly based on the author's doctoral dissertation, was conducted in English and French. APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2001, 50 (1), 153±180 # International Association for Applied Psychology, 2001. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. INTRODUCTION Workplace empowerment has been hailed as the major new industrial weapon against domestic and international threats (Mathes, 1992; Shipper & Manz, 1992). While the word ``empowerment'' is relatively new, the notion of granting work-related decision-making authority to employees as a means of enhancing performance is not altogether new in the manage- ment literature. The concept of job enrichment through vertical loading (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959) and managerial practices such as delegation, have long had currency among management scholars. But it is only recently that researchers have enlarged these approaches under the rubric of employee empowerment to include transfer of organisational power (Kanter, 1977, 1983), energising followers through leadership (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Block, 1987; Burke, 1986; Conger, 1989; Neilsen 1986), enhancing self-efficacy through reducing powerless- ness (Conger & Kanungo, 1988), and increasing intrinsic task motivation (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Although the popular press periodically reports on the success or failure of empowerment initiatives (see for example, Fleming, 1991), there has been little rigorous research on employee empowerment, its antecedents, and its consequences. Thorlakson and Murray (1996) studied the effects of empowerment efforts by comparing an empowered work group to a control group in an organisational setting, but they did not actually measure psychological empowerment. Empirical studies involving measurement of empowerment are limited to the works of Thomas and Tymon (1994), who relate cognitions about empowerment to job satisfaction, stress, and work effectiveness; Spreitzer (1996), who relates psychological empowerment to organisational variables such as socio-political support and participative climate; and Spreitzer, Kizilos, and Nason (1997), who also relate psychological empowerment to work satisfaction, stress, and effectiveness. The motivation for the present research stems from several quarters. First, the diversity of thinking on empowerment has resulted in some ambiguity with regard to the nature of the empowerment construct. One major cause for concern is the tendency of scholars to use the word ``empowerment'' to refer to very different concepts. ``Empowerment'' has been used to denote the act of empowering (others) and also to describe the internal processes of the individual being empowered (i.e. psychological empowerment). For instance, Burke (1986), who equates empowerment to delegation, refers to the act of empowering, while Thomas and Velthouse (1990) allude to the internal state of the empowered individual (i.e. psychological empowerment). A related cause for concern is conceptual redundancy. If empowerment is equivalent to delegation (as defined by Burke, 1986) or intrinsic motivation (as defined by Spreitzer, 1995, 1996) 154 MENON # International Association for Applied Psychology, 2001. then the status of empowerment as an independent construct is debatable. There is significant extant research on delegation either as participation in decision making (Dachler & Wilpert, 1978) or as increase in job auton- omy (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Similarly, intrinsic motivation is also a well-documented construct either in connection with practices such as job enrichment (Herzberg et al., 1959) or more recently, high-involvement management (Lawler, 1986). Thus, there is a need for definitional and conceptual clarity in empowerment research. Our understanding of the empowerment construct would also be advanced by the development of multiple measures. Cook and Campbell (1976) called for multiple measures of a given construct to facilitate triangulation, which will help in gaining a better understanding of the construct. A construct measured by a single exemplar is susceptible to underrepresentation. Empowerment research might also face this danger if a single measure is relied on. For example, a number of researchers have alluded to the empowering nature of leadership (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Conger, 1989). Yet, Spreitzer's (1995) measure, which was the only measure available at the time of this study, does not capture this facet of empowerment. Thus, there is a need to develop measures of empowerment that will more comprehensively represent the construct. Availability of a variety of valid measures is also likely to stimulate rigorous empirical research. This article addresses some of the concerns outlined above. It aims to clarify the definitional and conceptual issues surrounding the empowerment construct by proposing an employee-centred psychological approach. After a brief review of existing literature on empowerment, an integrative psycho- logical perspective on employee empowerment is developed. The results of a measure development study based on this integrative approach are then presented. MAJOR APPROACHES TO EMPOWERMENT RESEARCH Although there are numerous popular books and articles on empowerment, scholarly writing on the topic has been rather limited. In line with Tymon's (1988) suggestion, academic literature on empowerment can be classified into three broad categories based on the underlying thrust and emphasis of the various streams of research: (a) the structural approach, (b) the motivational approach, and (c) the leadership approach. In the structural approach, empowerment is understood as the granting of power and decision-making authority. According to Astley and Sachdeva (1984), power in organisations stems from sources such as hierarchical authority, control of resources, and network centrality. To Mintzberg (1983), power is the ability to effect (or affect) organisational outcomes. EMPLOYEE EMPOWERMENT: A PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH 155 # International Association for Applied Psychology, 2001. Empowering employees would thus involve moving decision-making authority down the organisational hierarchy and granting employees the ability to significantly affect organisational outcomes. For example, according to Kanter (1977), empowerment results from decentralisation, a flattening of the hierarchy, and increased employee participation. More recently, London (1993) stated that empowerment is ``ensuring that the employee has the authority to do his or her job'' (p. 57). This has been the traditional approach to empowerment and it focuses on the actions of the ``powerholders'' who transfer some power to the less powerful. The psychological state of those being empowered is not addressed by this line of research. In the motivational approach pioneered by Conger and Kanungo (1988), empowerment was conceptualised as psychological enabling. These authors defined empowerment as ``a process of enhancing feelings of self-efficacy among organisational members through the identification of conditions that foster powerlessness and through their removal by both formal organis- ational practices and informal techniques of providing efficacy information'' (p. 474). Thomas and Velthouse (1990) extended this approach by viewing power as energy: to empower is to energise. According to these authors empowerment is associated with ``changes in cognitive variables (called task assessments), which determine motivation in workers'' (p. 667). Spreitzer's (1995) model, based on the Thomas and Velthouse (1990) approach, defines uploads/s1/ ee-6.pdf