Empowerment supports organisational objectives at the expense of the individual worker Essay Example for Free

Em military forcement advocates organisational objectives at the expense of the individual player EssayIntroductionCompanies today be designed in roughway, at some level, to develop individuals either for their own sake, the companys sake or hopefully for both. The group has become a sophisticated structure. I t is finely engineered, maintained to a high standard, and when running smoothly it is highly productive (Cole, G, A, 1997 63).It provides an environment in which energy brush aside be maximised towards corporate needs, which too allows the individual to satisfy his or her own needs in spite of appearance work, rather than only outside of it. So often seemingly dull unimaginative and uncreative employees surprise their companies when they reveal the deepness of their energy outside work. However it is the corporate attitudes (Legge, K, 1995 104) that stifled them, and when released companies recognise they wee-wee a pool talent, a wealth of resources, at their fi ngertips.In the 1980s and nineties rationalisation and downsizing (Legge, K, 1995 53) were very(prenominal) much the order of the day therefore sanction became a business necessity.Empowerment has been in the forefront of whole step return efforts (Cole, G, A, 1997 23). Several businesses worldwide have been and still are currently closely watching quality the ability to produce superior and distinguished healthys and wait ons to recreate customer needs. The commitment to quality today is very present in service industries, non-profit organizations, government agencies, and educational institutions (Mabey at el, 1998 48). Total Quality, also known as Total Quality Management (TQM), is seen differently by different people.Organizations are reportedly introducing soft and hard (Cole, G, A, 1997 67) employee relations policies associated with the call forth to human resource commission (HRM). Softer aspects of HRM, based on the encouragement of employee commitment in suppor t of sellment aims, have received particular attention given their proposed linkage with improved organisational performance (Cole, G, A, 1997 67). This has, in turn, led many organizations to adopt schemes designed to encourage employee involvement. The concept of empowerment has been identified as a recent and advanced grammatical construction of employee involvement (Cole, G, A, 1997 68).Empowerment has been defined in different ways. Some have claimed it is a fundamentally different way of working to beat upher (Spencer Pruss, 1992 271) and quite different from the traditional notion of bind (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 possible tightings. These push aside 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 much(prenominal) varie d and interesting patronage in the form of barter enrichment. At best empowerment increases individuals finesse over how they do their work. It may also provide additional opportunities for group problem solving on operational issues.Empowerment is seen as ways of handsome people much opportunity or power (Mabey et al, 1998 38) to exercise control over, and have responsibility for, their work. It is intended to encourage individuals to use their abilities by enabling them to final payment 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 participate 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 self-aggrandizing employees the opportunity to constrain suggestions for permute (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 strategy. In most organisations it is management 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 must dominate 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 old 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 give awayed.Empowered organizations are composed of sceptered persons, although it is not needs true that a group of empowered 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 oeuvre 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 strain to empowered workplaces, disempowered workforce suffers from poor self-esteem, lack of a personal sight and a faceing of hopelessness. These attitudes and beliefs form inner barriers that block step-up and proactive ontogenesis (Legge, K, 1995 63) and manifest in the worker in the form of reluctance to accept responsibility, hesitance to communicate openly, lack of commitment and ownership and, ultimately, in below ordinary 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 laughingstock grow. Because they feel afraid, uncertain and in bulletproof, they will unconsciously sabotage impertinent interventions and wooes. An example of this is the resistance management often experience when implementing a quality management governing body (Sparrow Marchington, 1998 82). In this way employees become a stumbling block to progress instead of much-valued assets.In companies where managers garner a concerted effort to delegate 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 great 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 done (Mabey Salaman, 1997 83). To forefend such failures it is strategic to gain 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 philia managers (Spencer Pruss, 1992 92), because it is their jobs 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 countercheck 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 locoweed give rise to considerable resentment and individual resistance.There are, naturally, many problems that can arise in the empowerment solve. Many workers may resist these new responsibilities (Mabey et al, 1998 23) they in fact like having their decisions made 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 out arising from an obvious fear. There is an i nteresting theory underlying this re serve. 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, weird context, it is associated as a sort of classic block to self-actualisation. Since empowerment speaks to the selfsame(prenominal) 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 inquire an active part in the change process from the very beginning, and showing 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 the 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 retrospect 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 gain a great sense of achievement from their work therefore. The reasons for empowerment emerging as a concept for our snip (Armstrong, M, 1996385) is the need to bring energy release in employees by providing them with visionary attractorship 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 food market pressures.Empowerment at workplace level has greater justification for management in HRM terms (Beard comfortably Holden, 1994582). Management needs to decide how much power to delegate to employees while irresponsible 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., plan 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.Empowerm ent 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 of 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 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 these conditions are present, this does not necessarily motivate employees. Second there are conditions, which when present in the job, build a strong level of motivation that can re sult in good job performance.Management very rarely discusses the practical problems in attempting to apply empowerment with 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 distinguished Human Resource 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 affir mative action may jeopardise their jobs, may be more worried 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, self-reliance, 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 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 com petitive 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 real 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 essay 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 participate 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 turn away 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 gear up 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 usefulness inside an organization (Graham Bennett, 1995 13). It increases productivity and reduces overhead. budget items 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 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 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 (Sparrow 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 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 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 organiza tions 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 step 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 threat (Spencer Pruss, 1992 147), especially if they became use to the satisfactory 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 bias over how they perform their tasks (employee empowerment). Each individual can make a personal decisio n 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 bliss 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, mu st 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 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, thus 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 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 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 help s 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 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 talk 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 need 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 managerial control over labour (Brambell, 1995, Legge, 1989). final resultWork 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 benefi cial and will prevent 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 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 fall upon 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).BibliographyArmstro ng, M (1996) A handbook of Personnel Management Practice, 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 Journal 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 Cla rk, T, (1998) Experiencing Human Resource Management, ableSparrow, 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