Empowerment

Table of Contents. 2

1.0 Introduction 3

2.0 Empowerment at PublicOrg 5

3.0 Empowerment at AerospaceCo. 7

4.0 Analysis of empowerment at AerospaceCo and PublicOrg. 9

4.1 Resistance to Change 9

4.2 Training and Communication 10

4.3 Job Security 11

4.4 Commitment and Trust 11

4.4.1 The Commitment Model 12

4.5 Theory X or Theory Y ? 13

4.6 Employee Involvement 13

5.0 Communication- the root of all problems 14

6.0 Recommendations for PublicOrg 15

7.0 Bibliography 16

1.0 Introduction

The basic definition of empowerment is “being given power or authority by either legal or official means.”(dictionary.com,2006).However, this definition does not give a vivid conception of empowerment in context to HRM.What really is �empowerment’ then?How do we implement and evaluate it?The truth is that in reality there is no lucid definition of empowerment along managerial lines. Many do not comprehend its true shared meaning and thus, resort to its narrow implementation.

When empowerment is considered from the managers’ viewpoint, it usually means they desire their staff to “extend their contributions, quicken problem-solving, be more proactive and take increased responsibilities.” (impactfactory.com)

On the other hand, employees view empowerment as a tool that provides them with more freedom in their work and decision-making processes.It allows them to achieve a higher “degree of autonomy.” (impactfactory.com) These two separate viewpoints might look compatible initially, but the reality is far from it.

People have their own perspectives of empowerment.They need to recognize that employment has different forms. It should be “analysed in the context of broader organisational practice.” (Redman and Wilkinson,2001 )In other words we need to look at the organization at which it is applied. “How we define empowerment within our projects will depend upon the specific people and context involved.’’(Bailey,1992)

“At its simplest,empowerment would be associated with the redistribution of power”(Wilkinson forthcoming,p11).The concept of power is central to empowerment. “Power is related to our abilities to make others do what we want regardless of their own wishes or interests.”(Weber ,1946).Without the change and expansion of power, empowerment is impossible.

“TQM is designed to empower workers and encourage participation and innovation.”(Ford 1995,p18).Though TQM may seem to claim to empower,there is no assurance that it will provide 100% empowerment.To achieve the desired results, empowerment needs to be considered in all decision making levels in organisations.Such consideration would ultimately lead to its proper implementation.

This coursework examines the case studies regarding empowerment initiatives at PublicOrg and Aerospace Co. and evaluates the reasons behind the success of empowerment at Aerospace Co. and failure at PublicOrg.

2.0 Empowerment at PublicOrg

PublicOrg, an executive agency, providing service to millions of customers, recognized the need to shift from its hierarchical system and introduced empowerment. However, it is clear that the entire concept failed due to the difference in the managers’ and employees’ perspective or notion of empowerment. Empowerment is a unitary concept that implies that managers and employees should be on the same side, which is clearly not the case at PublicOrg.

Empowerment was initiated with a view to provide better quality of customer service and job satisfaction among employees.Its main driver was the need to make PublicOrg more customer-focused and competitive.

PublicOrg followed a management-driven empowerment programme ; not worker-driven.They wanted their employees to believe that all of them had an equal opportunity (without transferring any power) to contribute to the success of the agency.They assumed that this belief would lead to greater job-satisfaction among employees. Thus,PublicOrg intended to provide power to the employees in a psychological sense;not raw power.

Employees were not well educated about empowerment.They