The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7592.htm

Understanding
Understanding empowerment empowerment
from an employee perspective
What does it mean and do they want it?
39
Kay Greasley
Health Sciences Research Institute, Warwick Medical School, Received September 2007
University of Warwick, Coventry, UK Revised October 2007
Accepted November 2007
Alan Bryman
Management Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
Andrew Dainty and Andrew Price
Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University,
Loughborough, UK
Nicola Naismith
Department of Built and Natural Environment, Glasgow Caledonian University,
Glasgow, UK, and
Robby Soetanto
Department of Built Environment, Coventry University, Coventry, UK
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this article is to examine the various meanings of empowerment for
employees from their own perspective, the psychological dimension of empowerment and whether
employees want to be empowered.
Design/methodology/approach – In order to understand how employees feel about empowerment,
it is necessary to ask them directly so that one can understand their perceptions. A qualitative
approach is adopted, employing 45 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with employees. The aim of
the interviews is to provide an insight into the meanings of empowerment for these employees.
Findings – The findings indicate that the employees do not recognise the term “empowerment” nor do
they reference the term “power” in relation to themselves. However, they are able to relate to associated
concepts, notably “personal responsibility” and “control over their work”. Empowerment for the
employees was found to operate as a continuum, as the extent to which employees seek empowerment
varies considerably. The innate feelings that employees have with regard to empowerment enable an
insightful understanding of what empowerment means and the employee response to it.
Research limitations/implications – This study is based on employees from one particular
industrial sector. The research would benefit from exploration in alternative sectors.
Originality/value – The study examines the various meanings of empowerment for employees from
their own perspective. Furthermore, it explores whether employees want to be empowered.
Keywords Empowerment, Employees, Qualitative research
Paper type Research paper

Team Performance Management

Vol. 14 No. 1/2, 2008
Introduction pp. 39-55
The concept of employee and team empowerment has been a focus for research and q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1352-7592
practice for many years and the relationship between empowerment and teams has DOI 10.1108/13527590810860195
TPM been described as important (Hut and Molleman, 1998). There is still a debate
14,1/2 regarding the meaning of the concept of empowerment however Holt et al. (2000) define
empowerment as a perception that an employee holds. This paper explores in more
detail what the actual employee perception of empowerment is in order to provide a
deeper understanding of empowerment in the organisation.
The notion of empowerment involves the workforce being provided with a greater
40 degree of flexibility and more freedom to make decisions relating to work. The central
tenet is that workers respond more creatively when given broad responsibilities,
encouraged to contribute, and helped to derive satisfaction from their work (Walton,
1985, p. 76). This contrasts markedly with traditional management techniques that
have emphasised control, hierarchy and rigidity.
To facilitate successful empowerment certain characteristics within an organisation
have been identified as important. Notably employees need to understand the vision
and goals of senior management and that the organisation places a strong emphasis on
the need for openness and teamwork (Quinn and Spreitzer, 1997). Furthermore it is
argued that anyone trying to design effective self-managing work teams needs to have
a strong focus on employee involvement (Cohen et al. 1996). Although achieving
empowered work teams can be difficult it is argued that they will contribute to
organisational success (Johnson and Thurston, 1997).
The advantages of team empowerment are well documented with such
empowerment enabling responsive and adaptive workforces in an ever-changing
business environment (Swenson, 1997). Ketchum and Trist (1992) claim that
empowered teams are essential if organisations wish to improve their performance
and Kirkman et al. (2004) identified how empowered teams could influence the
performance levels of virtual teams. Dainty et al. (2002) discuss how the interaction
between individual and teamwork concepts are complex but recent developments
have converged these issues in the form of a high performance work system, which
offers a form of organisation an advance on traditional teams (Huczynski and
Buchanan, 2001).
Whilst there are accounts of the supposed advantages of empowerment to both
individual and team performance, it still remains a poorly defined concept, which is
frequently used in a rhetorical sense (Mondros and Wilson, 1994). The aim of this
research is to examine the meaning of empowerment from the viewpoint of employees
and explores their attitudes towards such empowerment. The paper will focus on the
psychological dimension by focusing on employee perceptions (Peccei and Rosenthal,
2001), that is, how employees feel about empowerment from their current role in the
workplace.
A qualitative approach employing in-depth interviews, each lasting approximately
one hour for each participating interviewee, was adopted for this study. The interview
strategy sought to focus on the notion of empowerment from the employees’
perspectives the extent to which they feel empowered or otherwise.

Theoretical perspectives on employee empowerment

The meaning of empowerment has been the subject of great debate and remains, at
present, a poorly defined concept (Cunningham et al., 1996; Geroy et al., 1998, Dainty
et al., 2002; Psoinos and Smithson, 2002). Mondros and Wilson (1994) and Russ and
Millam (1995) similarly argued that the term is rarely defined clearly and is frequently Understanding
used rhetorically. One possible reason for this lack of clarity is the tendency for empowerment
empowerment to be attached to management programmes, for example, Business
Process Re-engineering (BPR) and Total Quality Management (TQM) (Dainty et al.,
2002). Furthermore, the term “empowerment” represents a wide variety of activities,
from “sham” empowerment (Rosenthal et al., 1997) to a high level of genuine
involvement and devolution of power. However, as Ford and Fottler (1995) suggested, 41
genuine empowerment is likely to include decision-making authority over job content
and job context.
The original meaning of empowerment has been referred to as to “authorise, give
power to” (Tulloch, 1993). The use of the term “power” appears to be common
throughout the definitions of empowerment; for example, Legge (1995) argued that
empowerment should be seen in terms of a redistributive model whereby power
equalisation is promoted for trust and collaboration. Similarly, Conger and Kanungo
(1988, p. 474) focused on power as the central point of empowerment, “either to
strengthen this belief or to weaken belief in personal powerlessness”. Power is often
redistributed by transferring control so that employees have the authority to make and
implement their own decisions. The social-structural perspective of empowerment
focuses on the facilitation of empowerment by leaders and on the contextual issues that
impact on empowerment (Spreitzer and Doneson, 2005).
Pastor (1996, p. 5) defined empowerment in terms of its dynamic interaction, for
example stated that: “it is part of a process or an evolution – an evolution that goes on
whenever you have two or more people in a relationship, personally or professionally”.
Lee and Koh (2001) refined this description further by looking at the intersubjective
nature of the subordinate and supervisor. They suggested that empowerment is the
combination of the psychological state of a subordinate, which is influenced by the
empowering behaviours of supervisors. Thus, “empowerment” covers a broad range of
initiatives linked to direct participation (Psoinos and Smithson, 2002; Wilkinson, 2002;
Wall et al., 2004).

Distinguishing psychological and structural dimensions of empowerment

Two distinct perspectives on empowerment have evolved which tend to have been
studied separately. Structural empowerment refers to organisational policies, practices
and structures that grant employees greater latitude to make decisions and exert
influence regarding their work (Liden and Arad, 1996, Eylon and Bamberger, 2000,
Mills and Ungson, 2003). This relates to the notion of power sharing between
employers and their employees. The psychological empowerment perspective moves
away from the traditional study of management practices and instead emphasises
employees’ perceptions and cognitions (Peccei and Rosenthal, 2001; Holt et al., 2000;
Thomas and Velthouse, 1990).
The structural dimension of empowerment views empowerment in terms of a power
redistribution model, whereby power equalisation produces trust and collaboration
(see Legge, 1995). Researchers have identified organisational practices and structures
that devolve power through knowledge and skill development, access to information,
support, resources and responsibility as empowering (Kanter, 1977; Eylon and
Bamberger, 2000). These create a climate of involvement from which employees derive
TPM greater autonomy in their work roles. Structural empowerment represents something
14,1/2 of a dilemma for managers as its success is predicated on their ability of managers to
reconcile the loss of control with the fundamental need for goal congruence (Mills and
Ungson, 2003). This perspective of empowerment is also criticised for its failure to
address the cognitive state of those being empowered. For example, in some situations,
information and power can be afforded to employees who still feel disempowered, and
42 in other situations none of these requirements are met, and yet employees felt and act
empowered (Spreitzer and Doneson, 2005). Thus, alternative conceptions of
empowerment have emerged to account for this apparent deficiency.
The psychological dimension of empowerment moves away from the traditional
study of management practices and instead emphasises employees’ perceptions (Peccei
and Rosenthal, 2001). Through such an approach, the emphasis is upon perceptions
and beliefs of power, competence, control and self-efficacy (Psoinos and Smithson,
2002). Conger and Kanungo (1988) claimed that empowerment involves a motivational
concept of self-efficacy. This notion was further refined by Thomas and Velthouse
(1990) who developed a cognitive model of empowerment. They defined empowerment
as increased intrinsic task motivation and outlined four cognitions, which they claim
are the basis of worker empowerment: sense of impact; competence; meaningfulness;
and choice. A very similar definition of empowerment was outlined by Lee and Koh
(2001) who described four dimensions (listed below) as describing the psychological
state of the subordinate:
(1) Meaningfulness. The meaning of a value of a task goal or purpose judged in
relation to an individual’s own ideals or standards.
(2) Competence. Competence is an individual’s belief in his/her capability to
perform task activities skilfully.
(3) Self-determination (or choice). Autonomy in the initiation and continuation of
work behaviours and processes.
(4) Impact. The perception of the degree to which an individual can influence
certain outcomes at work.

The higher an individual “scores” in each of these elements, the greater the sense of
empowerment. Fawcett et al. (2004) emphasised the importance of competence by
suggesting that investments in employee competencies would be beneficial. Gagne et al.
(1997) defined these four conceptualisations as a “gestalt of four types of feeling that
are related yet somewhat independent of one another” (p. 1223). Hence empowerment
can be defined as relating to how employees “feel” about their own personal
empowerment or lack of.
There has been a somewhat limited emphasis in empirical research on employees’
perceptions of empowerment, particularly in the form of qualitative research and many
studies have instead primarily focused upon management practices (Nesan and Holt,
2002; Cunningham et al., 1996). Although these studies have their own merit, the
tendency to focus on managerial practice may be considered somewhat surprising as
essentially empowerment is a perceptual matter, since as Menon suggests
“(empowerment) is a cognitive state of perceived control, perceived competence and
goal internalisation” (Menon, 1995, p. 30). Indeed, empowerment can really only be said
to have occurred if the individual believes that they have been empowered (Dainty et al.,
2002) therefore the individual cannot be empowered without feeling that they are. This Understanding
paper examines the nature of empowerment as it is experienced and perceived by empowerment
employees, the psychological dimension of empowerment.

The espoused benefits of empowerment

The supposed benefits of empowerment can be broadly divided into two areas: benefits
for the organisation; and benefits for the individual. Much of the empirical research
43
into empowerment has focused on organisational benefits assuming these are the
driving force behind attempts to engender empowered working (Cunningham et al.,
1996). Certainly the motivation for managerial adoption of empowerment is typically
driven to help managers manage and improve work organisation and job performance,
not to primarily create an environment that is beneficial for the employee (Psoinos and
Smithson, 2002 and Marchington et al., 1992).
Global competition and a changing business environment have prompted
organisational change in response to increased pressures to improve efficiency and
performance (Lawler et al., 1992). It has been argued that organisations with higher
levels of empowerment have demonstrated improvements in various economic
performance areas (Applebaum et al., 1999). The economic benefits of empowerment
specifically may be difficult to assess as often it is introduced as part of a broader
initiative such as BPR and TQM (Psoinos and Smithson, 2002). Despite the espoused
organisational benefits Argyris (1998) argues that empowerment has still not delivered
the promised benefits, remaining a myth rather than reality.
While it could be argued that the primary motive for empowerment is initially
driven by the need to improve the economic performance of the organisation, benefits
to the individual employee have also been identified. Nykodym et al. (1994) found that
employees who consider themselves empowered have reduced conflict and ambiguity
in their role, as they are able to control (to a certain extent) their own environment.
They suggested that this reduces emotional strain on the employee. Similarly, it has
been suggested that empowered employees have a greater sense of job satisfaction,
motivation and organisational loyalty (Mullins and Peacock, 1991 and Koberg et al.,
1999, Spreitzer et al., 1997). Empowerment cannot only impact attitudes it can also
impact on performance, specifically employee productivity (Koberg et al., 1999) and
employee effectiveness (Spreitzer et al., 1997).
Overall the literature points to many potential benefits to both organisations and
employees alike should workplace empowerment be successful, hence producing a
“win-win” situation (Lashley, 1999). However, despite the strong support for
empowerment in theory, in practice empowerment may exist in rhetoric only and
control is the reality for employees (Sewell and Wilkinson, 1992). Indeed it may be
considered naı̈ve to assume that employee empowerment will improve organisational
performance for it is possible that empowered employees are not necessarily more
motivated or have higher levels of job satisfaction (Collins, 1999). Thus the benefits of
empowerment should not be assumed to automatically occur nor should the rhetoric of
empowerment be confused with the reality.
Measurement of the employee benefits is very difficult to achieve. Unlike
organisational benefits which can be measured using objective “facts”, individual
benefits are much more complex. Certain objective measures, such as absence and
TPM turnover rates have been applied in this context (Psoinos and Smithson, 2002).
14,1/2 However, it is often considered that softer measures of employees’ attitudes may
provide informative insights omitted by other more tangible measures (Psoinos and
Smithson, 2002).

The employee perspective

44 Although some previous studies have included an examination from the employee
perspective (Lashley, 1999), and a number have conceptually addressed employee
empowerment (Lee and Koh, 2001) the empirical investigation of empowerment has
generally emphasised management perspectives (Jarrar and Zairi, 2002; Nesan and
Holt, 2002; Psoinos and Smithson, 2002; Fenton-O’Creevy, 2001; Hammuda and
Dulaimi, 1997; Cunningham et al., 1996). Fewer still are the number of studies that have
empirically examined employee empowerment qualitatively. However given that
empowerment is essentially a perceptual matter it is necessary to measure
empowerment by asking employees if they feel empowered, rather than relying on
management opinions:
If we really mean empowerment we shouldn’t be assessing from the outside we should be
allowing the individuals to self-assess and see what the requirements are of them [. . .] but
they actually make the assessment of whether they’re there or not because they own it. (HR
Manager, electronics manufacturer) (Psoinos and Smithson, 2002, p. 140)
It is plausible that management and employees will offer quite distinct perspectives on
the meaning and success of empowerment, and thus offer different dimensions to the
understanding of the concept. While it is evident that empowerment is in part a
dynamic process this paper focuses specifically on the actual experience and
perception of empowerment from the viewpoint of the employee rather than exploring
the contextual influences in order to gain a detailed insight into this perspective. The
need to understand empowerment from the perspective of those who may be
empowered is re-iterated by Foster-Fishman et al. (1998) who argue that leaders or
researchers have set definitions of empowerment that may not reflect the views of
those who experience it. Furthermore without the exploration of these perceptions “we
significantly risk silencing the unique and personal empowerment experiences of the
target population” (p. 510).
The move away from the social-structural perspective towards a focus on “feeling”
empowered rather than “being” empowered (Jacques, 1996) enables a closer
examination of the meaning and experiences of empowerment for employees. This
area of research is particularly pertinent as few empirical studies have examined
employees’ psychological empowerment (Wilkinson, 2002). Through a targeted
examination of this psychological perspective understanding of the employee
perceptions and cognitions of empowerment is facilitated.

Methodology
The methods that underlie most previous studies into empowerment have tended to
derive from quantitative research (Nesan and Holt, 2002). It has been argued that by
adopting a more qualitative approach in this empirical study it is possible to gain
further insights into the meaning of empowerment (Psoinos and Smithson, 2002). The
qualitative research method used for this paper involved semi-structured interviews
with non-managerial employees from four construction projects. None of these projects Understanding
held specific empowerment strategies at this time nor were there plans to introduce empowerment
such strategies during the course of the interviews. The study therefore examines
employees’ perspectives and their feelings of empowerment in their current role and
employment situation.
Four employees were sampled within each project, with the exception of one project
where three employees were selected. Each employee was interviewed three times over 45
the course of a year to provide a total of 45 interviews. The use of repeat interviews
enabled further exploration of the meaning of empowerment. The aim of the interviews
was to provide an insight into the meanings of empowerment for these employees.
Rather than contextualising the findings the results focus on the themes elucidated by
the employees and so allowing a focus on what empowerment means for the
interviewees.
All of the interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed in full. As the interviews
were semi-structured they were neither a completely open conversation nor were they
highly structured (Kvale, 1996). The initial interviews followed suggested themes and
questions formed from the literature. The interviews explored a variety of topics
including leadership, influence/authority/power, culture, perceptions and values and
barriers to influence. The interview questions for the second and third rounds were
devised both from the literature and from previous responses given by the employees
to enable the interviewee to inform the direction of the interviews, ensuring the topics
discussed have relevance for the employees. This process ensured that the notion of
empowerment could be explored from the employees’ own perspectives rather than
relying solely on academic interpretations and hence the “meaning” of empowerment
could be thoroughly explored for these individuals. The sequential nature of the
interviews also meant that new insights and perspectives were made possible and the
subject was able to give more detailed descriptions about empowerment (Kvale, 1996).
Through this approach, it was possible to explore the perceptions, attitudes and
experiences of empowerment from each interviewee.
Before the interviews commenced, the purpose of the interview was explained and
the interviewees were assured that all responses were confidential and their transcripts
would not be made available to anybody involved in the construction project.
Furthermore, any quotations used in any report or publication would be anonymous.
This procedure encouraged interviewees to feel that they can be open in their
responses.
The analytical procedure was to transcribe the interviews verbatim and then to
import them into qualitative data software package NVivo. All transcripts were then
coded. The coding process involved reviewing the text and apportioning an
appropriate theme or themes to segments of the text. From this it was possible to view
the commonalities and differences that existed between each transcript, which enabled
an insight into the dominant themes and issues that existed for the participants. A
thematic framework was applied to the data and the thematic charts were placed
within thematic matrices (Ritchie et al., 2003). The framework was used to classify and
organise the data according to key themes, concepts and emergent categories, this
provided an overview of each respondent’s attitudes towards key themes in a
summarised, cross-tabulated format. The portions of transcripts that are presented
TPM below have been chosen to exemplify the recurring themes that were uncovered
14,1/2 through this thematic analysis of the interview data. These key themes have been
presented below using verbatim quotations drawn from the transcripts in order more
effectively to convey employee perspectives on the issues raised.

Findings
46 The analysis is presented under the key questions that were raised during the course of
interview. The findings present the main perceptions, attitudes and experiences raised
by the participants.

What is the meaning of empowerment for employees?

When the term empowerment was posed to the employees there was a general sense
that they had no familiarity with this concept. The majority of participants did not
recognise the term and it had no meaning for them.
This lack of recognition indicates that for these employees the term empowerment
does not go beyond management and academic boundaries. Despite the difficulties that
employees had in recognising the term, they were able to describe related concepts that
are frequently associated with it. One of the key themes associated with empowerment
is the ability to make and implement decisions. All of the participants were able to
describe how being able to make decisions in relation to their own work helps them to
feel that they have some autonomy in their work and this can produce a sense of
control, an indicator of empowerment, which is appreciated:
I like being in control of what I am doing yes . . . I think it’s important isn’t it, especially when
you know what you are setting up is wrong, you’re setting the other one up, not that it’s
frustrating at times, I mean even now just driving the van, if you’ve got to pick somebody up
and maybe the manager needs to be picked up, that lad’s maybe going into a meeting, the
manager you’ve got to go and pick him up, he’s maybe going to another meeting, you can’t be
in two places at once, what I’m saying is you’ve got to try and use your discretion again.
Although not all of the employees interviewed felt that they had control over their
work, they all felt that they had some autonomy to make decisions no matter how
minor they may be perceived to be. Often these decisions would relate purely to their
own work even if it was just the opportunity to prioritise their order of work or as one
interviewee described it, they may be able to influence how they complete a task but
not the outcome. Despite the agreement that they can and do make some decisions
about their work, there is a dynamic relationship between feeling competent to make
decisions and confidence; unless they felt confident they were reluctant to make
work-related decisions. Conversely, the greater the confidence in their work, the more
likely they were to accept greater decision-making responsibilities:
Well, you gain confidence, yeah. The more decisions that you make, the more confident you
become and, I think, it’s like a circle, the more confident you are, the more decisions you make.
The concept of having influence was a further theme identified by employees as having
meaning in their work. In a similar manner to the decision-making theme, all of the
employees considered that they had some influence over their work but the amount
and way in which this influence could be demonstrated varied from person to person. It
can mean simply influencing the organisation of work and the resolution of problems
faced. Alternatively influence could be substantial whereby the employee has been Understanding
recruited into the project as an “expert” and hence they have considerable influence empowerment
and autonomy:
Because as I said, when I first started for (company name) I was brought in specifically for the
civil work, because they didn’t have a civil background. They didn’t have anybody with that
background that’s what I was brought in for, so erm, initially they were getting jobs that had
been planned and thought out before I started. And I got the drawings and the plan and 47
everything and straightaway I could say, well that’s not gonna work because of this and
that’s not gonna work and they’d just go, yeah, fine, no problem, change it and we’ll go with
this system.
Problem solving was explored further by the interviewed employees who found that
this was a way that they could demonstrate some degree of control over their work.
The way in which they described the opportunity to solve problems bears a close
resemblance to the perceptions of decision-making for here too they feel able to resolve
small problems that relate specifically to their work but are unwilling or unable to
resolve “larger” problems. However, it is striking that frequently when problems had
been resolved using their discretion, these decisions would need to be reported back to
management:
Yes I mean problems, you should try and . . . if they are in your capability, no matter what job
you do, if you can sort them out yourself, sort them out, but inform them, when you have
sorted them out, that there has been a problem, the problem no longer exists, you’ve found a
solution to that problem, I’ve sorted it, is that OK? Do we have I’ve done it?
These findings indicate that while the employees feel that they have the opportunity to
solve problems – indeed they may be expected to resolve problems by management –
these have tended to be perceived to be small operational problems. However, most
indicated that unless these problems were resolved at this operational level, the
problems could grow:
Yeah, on a smaller scale yeah. I solve a lot of problems really in like, as in yeah, I solve a lot of
problems really but then as far as the small problem can turn into big problems.
The links between empowerment and responsibility were also identified with all of the
employees accepting a certain level of responsibility for their work. Specifically, all
accepted a personal level of responsibility, but they could see clear limits as to where
this responsibility ended:
Yeah, well I think it’s more or less standard everywhere. Well there’s somebody above you
that you know that can take, take a bit more than you, can’t they you know? They stand to
lose more they’re on better money and you know what I mean?
By perceiving the leader in the team as someone who should accept responsibility at a
higher level, a sense of security is secured as this represents a buffer level that should
protect the employee. If this protection is perceived to be present, employees feel more
able to focus on their own work rather than to concern themselves with issues beyond
their control. Although there is a consistent attitude towards responsibility this was
not the case with the perceptions of increased responsibility. The interviewed
employees differed in whether they wanted to accept more responsibility. Thus, there
is no definitive answer as to whether these employees are willing and/or able to accept
TPM further responsibility, implying that their leaders need to take account of these
14,1/2 individual differences:
He says, we’re looking for a Fire Marshall, do you fancy it? I said, yeah, OK. I went away and
thought about it, and thought well, that’s quite a responsibility that (Mm). It’s basically
keeping once these three buildings go up, I’ve got to be going round, making sure that all the
signage is up and all the exits are clear and that they’ve done fire training and stuff. And I
48 have to audit, and I thought, that’s good, he can kind of maybe see that he needs someone that
he can trust, and I think that’s a good thing.
I get paid for my job not to think about what’s happening to the buildings.
Thus, while the employees interviewed were in the main unable to attribute a meaning
of the word empowerment, they were able to describe the meanings of associated
concepts that were relevant to themselves in their work. Through these descriptions it
is possible to gain a view of the related meanings from the viewpoint of the employee.

Do employees want to be empowered?

The previous section explored the meaning of empowerment for these employees. This
section examines the question of whether these employees want to be empowered? By
investigating the views of employees it is possible to see if this is the case and any
nuances that may exist within this answer. The findings indicate that the employees
interviewed do want to be empowered to a certain extent and in a variety of ways. This
view is demonstrated when the employees expressed their willingness to become
involved in the project they are currently engaged:
Well it does because I’m taking more interest otherwise I could just say right, (manager
name), it’s your problem, you deal with it. You know, tell me, I’ll sit here, twiddle my thumbs,
but you know, I prefer to get something done . . .
The way in which their willingness to become involved is demonstrated through
decision making and resolving problems which may not even relate to their own work.
Interest in the project can be demonstrated in a number of ways as well as making
decisions and solving problems. In the example below the employee talks about how he
actually records his input and progress on the various projects he has worked on
previously:
Erm, because it’s quite nice, once the project’s finished, to look back and you’ve got these little
books all different it’s a record of your own work. And also it was erm I would take like
progress photos anyway, in case there’s a problem, on site, but the one putting them in a book
like I do, it’s purely for me to say, oh, I remember working on that job. You know that was a
really interesting one. It’s a record of what I’ve done, yes.
Through this process, the employee not only expresses a personal interest in the
project but this also serves as a record of achievements. Thus involvement and interest
in a project is felt to serve many needs. For example other participants state that
through involvement, they can learn from the project and other members involved and
this can also facilitate upwards progression in their employing organisation.
Although there are strong signs that the employees interviewed do want to be
empowered there are limits. When a decision has direct financial implications they
expect that there should be clear boundaries, as they feel they should not be
responsible for what is perceived as management responsibility. Notably they expect Understanding
that in circumstances where they do not have the knowledge or are unsure they should empowerment
not have to make decisions or solve problems in regard to their work. This should be
left to other more specialised members of the team:
Well I mean that’s my job I am doing now, driving the van, if for any reason I can’t drive the
van, then yes someone else would drive it, but apart from that no, because they are all
engineers, so it’s out of my scope really. 49
There is consistent agreement amongst the employees that they are only willing to
accept empowerment up to their level of capability. While they may be willing to
develop and accept more empowerment they need to feel competent and confident in
themselves that they can do the task successfully. Furthermore, they need to feel that
their managers and leaders accept their responsibility within their team and do not try
to exploit them through abdication of their duties:
. . . it’s not down to you to remember all the jobs and the details of every job you’re just given
the information for that job. You do it, and then you go and see him and get the information
for the next job. So there’s no major stress in trying to suss out what needs to be done. It’s
mainly all down to the Agent himself.
They do not feel it is within the scope of their work to accept responsibilities that they
believe their manager should accept. They do not feel empowered under such
circumstances because they consider themselves to be acting as managers without the
appropriate salary. Thus they have clear ideas of what their role is in the team and
what it is not.
Throughout the discussion there have been strong indicators that empowerment is
wanted and realised to some extent but that this varies from individual to individual.
What is evident is that there needs to be acceptance by employees of how and to what
extent they will welcome empowerment into their working lives. Employees are also
clear and concise about what empowerment is not and where they see empowerment
ending and exploitation beginning.

Discussion
The importance of a strong focus on employee involvement in achieving empowered
work teams has been emphasised in the literature (Cohen et al., 1996). This paper
explores the concept of empowerment from the perspective of the individual team
member. There is a focus on the psychological dimension of empowerment through
exploration of the meaning of empowerment and the response to empowerment from
the perspective of the employee, whether the employees are engaged in individual or
team activities. By emphasising the psychological dimension it is possible to
understand empowerment from the employee perspective in a comprehensive manner
rather than specifically examining the external factors which may influence their
perceptions. However it should be noted that the evidence presented in this paper
covers employees from one particular industrial sector and future research could
explore these issues in other sectors.
The focus on employees in this study is reflected in the work of Psoinos and
Smithson (2002) who rejected the notion that research into employee empowerment
should use managers as their representatives. Using a qualitative approach enables the
TPM employees to voice their understanding of empowerment from their perspective. This
14,1/2 appears to be especially important when examining the term “empowerment” for this
specific term does not have any meaning for them so the interviewees refer to related
issues. Further, through the inclusion of relevant quotations it is possible to
understand the perspectives of the employees in their own words.
The findings indicate that all of the employees feel that they are empowered to some
50 degree and that they want to be empowered to some extent. Thus, empowerment for
these employees operates as a continuum whereby they all accept some empowerment
but the extent varies on an individual basis. The individual response to the amount of
empowerment employees currently accept and are willing to accept would appear to
offer support for the importance of individual variations in experiences of
empowerment (Lee and Koh, 2001; Conger and Kanungo, 1988) as the individual
perceptions and beliefs impact upon empowerment acceptance (Psoinos and Smithson,
2002). As indicated by those authors who support the psychological dimension, the
individual employee needs to be predisposed to accepting empowerment. The work of
Thomas and Velthouse (1990) and Lee and Koh (2001) explored the cognitive model of
empowerment, defining it as increased intrinsic task motivation. This concept is also
reflected somewhat in this study for here the employees emphasised the importance of
“competence” (employees’ belief in their ability to do the work) as being crucial to their
willingness to be empowered. The more competent they considered themselves, the
more likely they were to be willing to accept increased levels of empowerment.
The level of empowerment that employees believe is appropriate is, however,
dependent on their perception of its use. While willing to be empowered employees
believe empowerment should not be perceived just as an opportunity for management
to abdicate their responsibility and accountability from their role within the team and
pass this onto employees who feel that they are not in a position or rewarded to accept
this responsibility. While studies like that of Johnson (1994) who also found that
employees may resist empowerment, as they fear the increased levels of responsibility
and accountability, the present study also points to the importance of employees
feeling that the empowerment levels should be appropriate to their positions within the
team. Further, if their levels of empowerment are deemed exploitative, employees react
negatively to the experience. These findings imply that managers are caught in a
delicate operation of needing to reconcile employees’ desires to be allowed some
personal responsibility with not just organisational demands but also the same
employees’ concerns about potential exploitation.
Although there was very little recognition of the term empowerment, employees
were able to relate to associated terms which did hold relevance in their working lives,
notably, decision making, problem solving, influence, acceptance of responsibility,
control and willingness to become involved with their work. Among these features,
there was an emphasis on personal responsibility and control over work, indicating
that for these employees these are the most important features of empowerment. What
is notable was the limited reference to the term power, for while many academic
authors refer to the importance of power in empowerment (Tulloch, 1993; Legge, 1995;
Conger and Kanungo, 1988), the employees did not use this term in their descriptions.
This omission could reflect employees not wanting or not receiving power over their
work or that power for them has other connotations. However it may be that power is
perceived by interviewees as a resource of attribute that resides in the upper echelons Understanding
of organisations rather than in relation to manual labour. In other words, it is not just empowerment
that power is differentially distributed, but that it is not associated with workers like
them, it is only associated with more senior members of the team. Despite there being
no direct references to power, there is evidence that employees want to have some
decision-making autonomy.
51
Conclusion
There is evidence that teamwork is an important characteristic of organisations that
facilitate successful empowerment. However to understand empowerment we need to
begin at an individual level of the employee. This paper provides a thematic analysis of
employees’ perspectives to discover a deeper understanding of what empowerment
actually means to them in their current role through a focus on the psychological
dimension. It was found that empowerment operates through individual variations in
experience and is a perception that individuals hold. All of the employees were able to
describe in their own words how they were or were not empowered, “the process of
empowerment” and the meanings they associated with this, that is, “the outcomes of
empowerment”. Both the processes and outcomes described form key components of
the perceptions that are held by each individual employee. Hence it is the perception of
empowerment with all its associations and meanings that form the employee reality.
Through exploration of the perceptions, beliefs and feelings of empowerment the
importance of competence and control in the form of decision making and problem
solving is identified. The general consensus is that employees typically want some
empowerment in the form of control, authority and decision making but the level and
form of the desired empowerment varies. Notably they do not associate themselves
with the term “power”, perhaps because they do not recognise this in themselves or in
their roles in the team. The limits of empowerment vary according to the individuals’
willingness and ability to be empowered and should this line be crossed then
empowerment soon becomes exploitation.
There is a high level of understanding of the meaning of empowerment and
exploitation at an individual level. Managers therefore need to be aware that there is
clear recognition by employees of what empowerment is and what it is not and once
deemed exploitative negative consequences can emerge. To avoid such outcomes
employees’ personal responses to empowerment, control and competence should be
examined at an individual level. In essence it is important not to underestimate the
awareness and understanding of employees’, for despite the lack of reference to
abstract academic labels they understand clearly their meaning of empowerment (and
indeed exploitation). The innate “feelings” (Gagne et al., 1997) that employees have
enable them to recognise whether or not they are empowered in their team and
organisation. Therefore to understand empowerment from the employee perspective
we need to access these emotional responses.

References
Applebaum, S.H., Hebert, D. and Leroux, S. (1999), “Empowerment: power, culture and
leadership – a strategy or fad for the millennium?”, Journal of Workplace Learning:
Employee Counselling Today, Vol. 2 No. 7, pp. 233-54.
TPM Argyris, C. (1998), “Empowerment: the emperor’s new clothes”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76
No. 3, pp. 98-105.
14,1/2
Cohen, S.G., Ledford, G.E. Jr and Spreitzer, G.M. (1996), “A predictive model of self-managing
work team effectiveness”, Human Relations, Vol. 49 No. 5, pp. 643-76.
Collins, D. (1999), “Born to fail? Empowerment, ambiguity and set overlap”, Personnel Review,
Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 208-22.
52 Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988), “The empowerment process: integrating theory and
practice”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 471-82.
Cunningham, I., Hyman, J. and Baldry, J. (1996), “Empowerment: the power to do what?”,
Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 143-54.
Dainty, A.R.J., Bryman, A. and Price, A.D.F. (2002), “Empowerment within the UK construction
sector”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 333-42.
Eylon, D. and Bamberger, P. (2000), “Empowerment cognitions and empowerment acts:
recognising the importance of gender”, Group & Organisation Management, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 354-72.
Fawcett, S.E., Rhoads, G.K. and Burnah, P. (2004), “People as the bridge to competitiveness:
benchmarking the ‘ABCs’ of an empowered workforce”, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 346-60.
Fenton-O’Creevy, M. (2001), “Employee involvement and the middle manager: saboteur or
scapegoat?”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 24-40.
Ford, R.C. and Fottler, M.D. (1995), “Empowerment: a matter of degree”, Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 21-9.
Foster-Fishman, P.G., Salem, D.A., Chibnall, S., Legler, R. and Yapchai, C. (1998), “Empirical
support for the critical assumptions of empowerment theory”, American Journal of
Community Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 507-36.
Gagne, M., Senecal, C.B. and Koestner, R. (1997), “Proximal job characteristics, feelings of
empowerment, and intrinsic motivation: a multidimensional model”, Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 14, pp. 122-40.
Geroy, G.D., Wright, P.C. and Anderson, J. (1998), “Strategic performance empowerment model”,
Empowerment in Organisations, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 57-65.
Hammuda, I. and Dulaimi, M.F. (1997), “The theory and application of empowerment in
construction: a comparative study of the different approaches to empowerment in
construction, service and manufacturing industries”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 289-96.
Holt, G.D., Love, P.E.D. and Nesan, L.J. (2000), “Employee empowerment in construction:
an implementation model for process improvement”, Team Performance Management,
Vol. 6 Nos 3/4, pp. 47-51.
Huczynski, A.A. and Buchanan, D. (2001), Organizational Behaviour: An Introductory Text,
4th ed., Pearson, Harlow.
Hut, J. and Molleman, E. (1998), “Empowerment and team development”, Team Performance
Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 53-66.
Jacques, R. (1996), Manufacturing the Employee: Management Knowledge from the 9th to the
21st Centuries, Sage, London.
Jarrar, Y.F. and Zairi, M. (2002), “Employee empowerment – a UK survey of trends and best
practices”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 266-71.
Johnson, P.R. (1994), “Brains, heart and courage: keys to empowerment and self-directed Understanding
leadership”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 17-21.
empowerment
Johnson, R.D. and Thurston, E.K. (1997), “Achieving empowerment using the empowerment
strategy grid”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2,
February-March, pp. 64-73.
Kanter, R.M. (1977), Men and Women of the Corporation, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Ketchum, L.D. and Trist, E. (1992), All Teams Are not Created Equal: How Employee 53
Empowerment Really Works, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Kirkman, B.L., Tesluk, P.E., Rosen, B. and Gibson, C.B. (2004), “The impact of team
empowerment on virtual team performance: the moderating role of face-to-face
interaction”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 175-92.
Koberg, C.S., Boss, W., Senjem, J.C. and Goodman, E.A. (1999), “Antecedents and outcomes of
empowerment: empirical evidence from the health care industry”, Group and
Organizational Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 71-91.
Kvale, S. (1996), InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Lashley, C. (1999), “Employee empowerment in services: a framework for analysis”, Personnel
Review, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 169-91.
Lawler, E.E., Mohram, S.A. and Ledford, G.E. (1992), Employee Involvement and Total Quality
Management: Practices and Results in Fortune 1000 Companies, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA.
Lee, M. and Koh, J. (2001), “Is empowerment really a new concept?”, International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 684-95.
Legge, K. (1995), “Human resource management: rhetoric, reality and hidden agendas”,
in Storey, J. (Ed.), Human Resource Management: A Critical Text, Routledge, London,
pp. 46-50.
Liden, R.C. and Arad, S. (1996), “A power perspective of empowerment and work groups:
implications for human resources management research”, in Ferris, G.R. (Ed.), Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 14, pp. 205-51.
Marchington, M., Goodman, J., Wilkinson, A. and Ackers, P. (1992), New Developments in
Employee Involvement, Research Series No. 2, Employment Department, Manchester
School of Business, UMIST, Manchester, May.
Menon, S.T. (1995), Employee Empowerment: Definition, Measurement and Construct Validation,
McGill University, Montreal.
Mills, P.K. and Ungson, G.R. (2003), “Reassessing the limits of structural empowerment:
organisational constitution and trust as controls”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28
No. 1, pp. 143-53.
Mondros, J.B. and Wilson, S.M. (1994), Organising for Power and Empowerment, Columbia
University Press, New York, NY.
Mullins, L.J. and Peacock, A. (1991), “Managing through people: regulating the employment
relationship”, Administrator, December, pp. 45-55.
Nesan, L.J. and Holt, G.D. (2002), “Assessment of organisational involvement in implementing
empowerment”, Integrating Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 201-11.
Nykodym, N., Simonetti, J.L., Warren, R.N. and Welling, B. (1994), “Employee empowerment”,
Empowerment in Organisations, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 45-55.
TPM Pastor, J. (1996), “Empowerment: ‘what it is and what it is not’”, Empowerment in Organisations,
Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 5-7.
14,1/2
Peccei, R. and Rosenthal, P. (2001), “Delivering customer-oriented behaviour through
empowerment: an empirical test of HRM assumptions”, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 831-50.
Psoinos, A. and Smithson, S. (2002), “Employee empowerment in manufacturing: a study of
54 organisations in the UK”, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 132-48.
Quinn, R.E. and Spreitzer, G.M. (1997), “The road to empowerment: seven questions every leader
should consider”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 26 No. 2 Autumn, pp. 37-49.
Ritchie, J., Spencer, L. and O’Connor, W. (2003), “Carrying out qualitative analysis”, in Ritchie, J.
and Lewis, J. (Eds), Qualitative Research Practice, Sage Publications, London.
Rosenthal, P., Hill, S. and Peccei, R. (1997), “Checking out service: evaluating excellence, HRM,
and TQM in retailing”, Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 481-503.
Russ, D.E. and Millam, E.R. (1995), “Executive commentary-empowerment a matter of degree”,
Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 29-31.
Sewell, G. and Wilkinson, B. (1992), “Empowerment or emasculation? Shopfloor surveillance in a
total quality organisation”, in Blyton, P. and Turnbull, P. (Eds), Reassessing Human
Resources Management, Sage, London.
Spreitzer, G.M. and Doneson, D. (2005), “Musing on the past and future of employee
empowerment”, in Cummings, T. (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Development, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Spreitzer, G., Kizilos, M.A. and Nason, S. (1997), “A dimensional analysis of the relationship
between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction and strain”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 679-704.
Swenson, D.X. (1997), “Requisite conditions for team empowerment”, Empowerment in
Organisations, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 16-25.
Thomas, K.W. and Velthouse, B.A. (1990), “Cognitive elements of empowerment: an interpretive
model of intrinsic task motivation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 666-81.
Tulloch, S. (Ed.) (1993), The Reader’s Digest Oxford Wordfinder, Clarendon, Oxford.
Wall, T.D., Wood, S.J. and Leach, D. (2004), “Empowerment and performance”, in Cooper, C. and
Robertson, I. (Eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 19, Wiley, London, pp. 1-46.
Walton, R. (1985), “From control to commitment in the workplace”, Harvard Business Review,
March-April, pp. 77-84.
Wilkinson, A. (2002), “Empowerment”, in Poole, M. and Warner, M. (Eds), International
Encyclopaedia of Business and Management, 2nd ed., International Thomson Learning,
London, pp. 1720-30.

Further reading
Cunningham, I. and Hyman, J. (1999), “The poverty of empowerment? A critical case study”,
Personnel Review, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 192-207.
About the authors Understanding
Kay Greasley is a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Warwick. Her research focuses on
qualitative research methods, organisation studies and learning in Higher Education. Kay empowerment
Greasley is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Alan Bryman is Professor of Organisational and Social Research at the School of
Management, University of Leicester. His research interests lie mainly in leadership, research
methodology, and organisation studies.
Andrew Dainty is Professor of Construction Sociology at Loughborough University, UK. His 55
research focuses on human social action within construction and other project-based sectors.
Andrew Price is Professor of Project Management at Loughborough University. His current
research includes: innovative design and construction solutions for health and care
infrastructure; continuous improvement; and sustainable urban environments.
Nicola Naismith is a lecturer for the School of the Built and Natural Environment at Glasgow
Caledonian University. Research interests include: Strategic management; Strategic Human
Resource Management; Procurement and Construction SMEs.
Robby Soetanto is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Built Environment at Coventry
University. He researches human related factors in the built environment context.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.