UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Empowerment : a multi-level process Eylon, Dafna 1993

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1993_fall_phd_eylon_dafna.pdf [ 7.73MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0086435.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0086435-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0086435-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0086435-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0086435-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0086435-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0086435-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

the required standardEMPOWERMENT: A MULTI-LEVEL PROCESSbyDAFNA EYLONB.A., Tel Aviv University, 1985A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFDOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Commerce and Business Administration)We accept this thesis as conformingTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAOCTOBER 1993© Dafna Eylon, 1993In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.Department of (c.9 01,1p r( t=7 'AeCi 4-Jv" The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate ^'6)(( 0 DE-6 (2/88)ABSTRACTThe term "empowerment" is frequently used by organizational researchers, managementpractitioners, and consultants. However, despite the popularity of the term, there is alack of empirical work and no generally accepted definition. As part of a thorough multi-disciplinary literature review, fourteen different conceptualizations for the termempowerment were discovered and classified into four categories: Micro (intra-psychic),Meso (relational-interactive), Macro (structural), and Misnomer (bogus). As a result ofthis work, both a new definition and a multi-level process model of empowerment areoffered. Empowerment is defined here as an enhancing and energizing context specificprocess that expands an individual's power and feelings of trust, is usually facilitated byanother, and results in increased levels of self-esteem, self-efficacy and othercharacteristics related to personal growth and control, which eventually lead to outcomessuch as performance and satisfaction. The proposed multi-level process model postulatesthat the process of empowerment is driven by changes in information, responsibility, andactive belief, and mediated by intra-psychic factors. This model was empirically testedin a between-subject, pre-test, post-test simulation design. Over a period of three weeks135 graduate students completed a novel application of in-basket exercises, within whichan empowerment manipulation was embedded. This manipulation included increasinginformation, responsibility, and active belief for the empowered manipulation anddecreasing these three components for the dis-empowered manipulation. Multivariateanalysis of variance revealed that, as predicted, the manipulation had a significant impacton the three mediating intra-psychic factors (self-efficacy, self-esteem, and locus ofcontrol) and an analysis of variance found significant results in the predicted direction onthe dependent variable of job satisfaction. Regression analyses revealed the predictedmediation relationship between the intra-psychic variables and the dependent variable ofjob satisfaction. However, none of the analyses yielded significant results for theperformance measures (initiative, sensitivity, planning and organizing, delegation,administrative control, problem analysis, judgement, and decisiveness). Several potentialexplanations are offered for these results, including a motivational interpretation whichfocuses on participant's motivation directionality. Theoretical and practical implicationsfor these results are discussed as well as directions for future research.TABLE OF CONTENTSABSTRACT ^ iiTABLE OF CONTENTS ^  ivLIST OF TABLES  viLIST OF FIGURES^  viiLIST OF APPENDICES  viiiACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ^  ixINTRODUCTIONTHE WIDESPREAD USE OF "EMPOWERMENT" ^  1CHAPTER 1LITERATURE REVIEW ^  4Empowerment—Does the Emperor really have new clothes?^  4Towards Conceptual Clarity and Definitional CompactnessThe Four "M"s of Empowerment  71) The Micro Level of Empowerment—The Intra-Psychic Terms. . ^ 82) The Meso Level of Empowerment—The Relational Category . . ^ 113) The Macro Level of Empowerment—Organizational Structure. ^ 184) The Misnomers—Bogus Empowerment ^  21Summary ^  25CHAPTER 2A PROCESS MODEL OF EMPOWERMENT ^  27The Process Model ^  28A Multi-Level Process Model of Empowerment ^  30Information Availability/Restriction  37Active Belief^  39Responsibility  42Hypotheses  44Activating the Empowerment Process ^  47ivCHAPTER 3METHOD ^  52Design Overview ^  52Subjects  53Procedure ^  55Manipulation  59Pre-test  61Pilot Study ^  63Measures  64Mediating Variables ^  64Self- Esteem  64Locus of Control  65Self-Efficacy^  66Dependent Variables  67CHAPTER 4RESULTS ^  71Descriptive Information ^  71Manipulation Checks  72Mediating Variables  74Dependent Variables ^  81Summary ^  88CHAPTER 5DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ^  90Overview ^  90Implications  91Discussion of Findings ^  95Motivation and Work Performance ^  95Measurement Issues  98Instrument Psychometric Properties ^  98The Performance-Satisfaction Relationship ^ 99Attitudes and Behaviour ^  102Time as a Constraining Factor  106Limitations of the Study, Directions for Future Research,and Revised Models ^  111Contributions and Conclusions ^  118BIBLIOGRAPHY ^  121APPENDICES  134LIST OF TABLESTable 1.1: The Four "M"s of Empowerment ^  26Table 2.1: The Multi-Level Process Model of Empowerment ^ 37Table 4.1: Univariate F-tests for Manipulation Check Items  73Table 4.2: Cronbach Alpha Reliability Scores for Mediator Scales ^ 74Table 4.3: Mediator Means and Standard Deviations for BothTime 1 and Time 2 ^  77Table 4.4: Univariate F-tests for Mediating Variables, Time 2 ^ 77Table 4.5: Mediator Intercorrelations for all Observations  78Table 4.6: Correlations Among Mediating and Dependent Variables ^ 79Table 4.7: Performance Measures Intercorrelations ^  80Table 4.8: Descriptive Statistics for the Performance Measures ^ 82Table 4.9: Univariate F-tests for Performance Measures  82Table 4.10: Job-Satisfaction, Means and Standard Deviations  84Table 4.11: ANOVA Summary for Job-Satisfaction ^  85Table 4.12: Regression Analysis for Mediation  87Table 4.13: Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Mediation ^ 88Table 5.1: Job satisfaction Behavioral Intention, Descriptive Statistics ^ 108Table 5.2: Anova Summary for Job satisfaction Behavioral Intention  108viLIST OF FIGURESFigure 2.1: A Generic Process Model of Empowerment ^  29Figure 2.2: The Multi-Level Process Model of Empowerment ^ 34Figure 2.3: The Cyclical Nature of the Multi-Level Process of Empowerment . ^ 35Figure 2.4: The Interactive Nature of the Process of Empowerment^ 50Figure 5.1: Theory of Reasoned Action ^  101Figure 5.2: Satisfaction Preceding Performance ^  109Figure 5.3: Possible Performance Variables  110Figure 5.4: Awareness Intervention ^  112Figure 5.5: The Role of Motivation  113Figure 5.6: A Matter of Time?  115Figure 5.7: The Revised Multi-Level Process Model of Empowerment ^ 117VI'LIST OF APPENDICESAppendix 1 - Notice of Upcoming Program ^  135Appendix 2 - Notice of Program ^  136Appendix 3 - Opening Description  137Appendix 4 - Pierce et al. (1989) Organization-based Self-esteem Scale ^ 138Appendix 5 - Paulhus and Van Selst's (1990) Spheres of Control Scale  139Appendix 6 - Sherer et al. (1982) Self-Efficacy Scale ^  140Appendix 7 - Sample of In-basket item ^  141Appendix 8 - Request for Confidentiality and Consent  142Appendix 9 - Participant Demographic Information ^  143Appendix 10 - Post Experiment Manipulation Check  144Appendix 11 - Tymon's (1988) General Job Satisfaction Scale ^ 146Appendix 12 - OPD's In-basket Dimension Means, S.D.s, and Scoring Ranges^147Appendix 13 - Session 1 ^  148Appendix 14 - Packet 1  165Appendix 15 - Packet 2  172Appendix 16 - Evaluation Form ^  180viiiACKNOWLEDGEMENTSIt is with pleasure that I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Craig Pinder, andcommittee members, Dr. Larry Moore, Dr. Daniel Perlman, and Dr. Gordon Walter, fortheir guidance, insights, and support throughout the process of researching and writingthis dissertation. For the purpose of this research, Dr. Ken Nowak of OrganizationalPerformance Dimensions generously agreed to allow me to use his in-basket instrument,for which I am grateful. In addition, I would like to thank my friends: David Downieand Anne Lavack who helped a great deal by reading and editing my work; Karen Harlosfor freely contributing her expertise on in-baskets; Lori Thomas who always had excellentsuggestions when I encountered organizational or computer difficulties and; SandraRobinson who for years has been a wonderful sounding-board—insightful, patient, andsupportive as well as never failing to focus me on "just doing it." To my family, I wouldlike to say a special thank-you for providing me with a warm welcome during my visitswith them and for simply 'being there' throughout these years as a graduate student.I would also like to acknowledge the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Councilfor financial support (grant number 410-91-0798; Dr. Craig Pinder principle investigator)and the American Psychological Association for honouring this work with the DissertationResearch Award.Finally, this work is dedicated to Tal, my husband, who has enriched the quality of mywork, and more importantly, of my life.ixINTRODUCTIONTHE WIDESPREAD USE OF "EMPOWERMENT"During the past few years, the concept of "empowerment" has come into vogue amongbusiness practitioners. Management writers increasingly address issues related to the"new organization," assuming it will be decentralized (e.g. Drucker, 1989; Snow et al.,1992) and that employees will be more like consultants than full time members (Handy,1990). It is predicted that these employees will use different sources and tools for powerand motivation (Kanter, 1989). As a result, managers will be "reinventing their professionas they go" (Kanter, 1989:85), and these changes will produce "a new agenda for bothmanagers and scholars" (Snow et al., 1992). These trends signal the need to reevaluateseveral of our widely accepted descriptions and explanations of organizationalphenomena. One current concept which requires such reevaluation is empowerment, arecent buzz word used by both organizational researchers and management practitioners(Block, 1987; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Feschuk, 1993; Rappaport, 1989; Vogt &Murrell, 1990). In spite of the growing popularity of the term, empowerment is a diffuseand misunderstood concept.The emotional and ideological appeal of empowerment has led to a confusing proliferationof use and definitions. From reading the popular literature and talking with managers, itis clear that empowerment is currently a corporate cliche (Fisher, 1991; Kingston, 1992;Shipper & Manz, 1992). Despite the popularity of the empowerment concept, there is nocommon agreement as to the meaning of this term. It has been translated to meananything from customer support (McAuley, 1992), responsibility and accountabilitypushed down (Edwards, 1992), to being given permission to act without asking forpermission (Conrad, 1992; Shipper & Manz, 1992; Wells, 1992). Empowerment is still1"...a term that confuses even as it inspires" (Simon, 1990:27).From management's perspective, empowerment, like participation, will hopefully increaseorganizational efficiency and effectiveness (Conger, 1989; Conger & Kanungo, 1988).At a general level, empowerment implies that managers can simultaneously developothers and themselves—both in terms of skill level, task competence, and personaldevelopment. From an employee's point of view, empowerment holds promise for greaterjob satisfaction as well as increased potential for future advancement. Instituting a policyof empowerment within an organization can result in power being more evenly distributedwithin the organization. Likewise, people can transfer the feeling of empowerment to neworganizational situations and even to other realms of life (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990)where it may help them face the unknown. Empowerment may be for the youngerworkforce what organizational loyalty was for their parents—a means of providing themwith a sense of security in their daily lives. The growing popularity of empowermentstems from the constant reminder that we live in a rapidly changing environment and ina world of intense competition and technological advancement (Cummings, 1990; Kizilos,1990; Srivastva et al., 1990, Stewart, 1989). This turbulence results in our emphasizingboth the individual and the community in our attempts to ride the waves of change. Asa result, empowerment is a "pervasive positive value in American culture ... [since] itimplies both individual determination over one's own life and democratic participation inthe life of one's community" (Rappaport, 1987:121). Clearly, most believe thatempowerment is a positive, healthy process. However, some, such as Gruber and Trickett(1987:370), disagree and proclaim, "Our overall conclusions about the process ofempowerment are pessimistic."There is still no clarification over whether empowerment is a psychological state, a multi-level construct, or an evolving process. Currently, most researchers tend to assume that2empowerment is primarily a psychological state of the individual. Those who seeempowerment as a static psychological state or condition are not always clear about thelevel of the term. For others, this is not even a relevant question, since they seeempowerment as a multi-level construct (Murrell, 1985; Rappaport, 1987; Thomas &Velthouse, 1990; Zimmerman, 1990; Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988). Some researcherseven take an ecological outlook on empowerment, suggesting that empowerment is aunique process which depends both on the specific goals for which it is initiated and onthe context in which it occurs (Kieffer, 1984; Murrell, 1985; Rappaport, 1987;Zimmerman, 1990; Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988).Viewing empowerment primarily as a state or condition arrests the development ofunderstanding empowerment as a process. Viewing empowerment as a process impliesthat there is room for learning, management, and development. Empowerment as aprocess suggests that we can focus on "managing" empowerment rather than just "having"empowerment. It also suggests that there may be direct influence on work outcomeenhancement.Interest in empowerment is developing among scholars in the fields of psychology, socialwork, counselling psychology, sociology, political science, business policy, andorganizational behaviour. However, there is little cross disciplinary work integratingexisting research from these areas (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Gruber & Trickett, 1987;Hess, 1983; Kieffer, 1984; Price, 1990; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Torre, 1986;Zimmerman, 1990; Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988). This dissertation begins with acomprehensive, cross-disciplinary review. Based on findings from this reviewempowerment is delineated and defined as a multi-level process. In addition, thisdissertation demonstrates empirically how this process is mediated by intra-psychicconstructs, and how it influences work outcomes.3CHAPTER 1LITERATURE REVIEWEmpowerment—Does the Emperor really havenew clothes?Although there is no agreement as to the actual meaning of the term empowerment, itsuse and its interpretation seem to be increasing widely. From a theoretical and empiricalperspective we do not know if empowerment is a worthwhile and meaningful term, apassing fad, or a meaningless word. We need to see if the emperor is wearing new,renewed, or no clothes at all. Thus, the goal of this chapter is twofold: First to illustrateif empowerment exists or if this term is used when other familiar and existing constructswould be more appropriate; and second to integrate and clarify the multitude ofapproaches and definitions that exist in a variety of academic disciplines and practitioners'work.The wide-spread use of case methodology (Balcazar et al., 1990; Fawcett et al., 1983-4;Gruber & Trickett, 1987; Katz, 1983-4; Kieffer, 1984; Whitmore, 1990) suggests thatthe study of empowerment is in its early stages. As a result, it is no surprise that whenit comes to definitions, many would agree with Rappaport (1984) who posits thatempowerment is easy to explain in its absence. Lack of empowerment results inalienation, powerlessness, and helplessness. The positive side of empowerment is difficultto define because it takes different forms for different people and different contexts.However, "like obscenity, we know it when we see it" (Rappaport, 1984:2). Murrell(1985:36) suggests that, "the reality is that empowerment in its interactive form worksin all different ways in all different directions." There is no doubt that "further study is4needed if advances are to be made in the understanding and implementation ofempowerment" (Florin & Wandersman, 1990:44). This dissertation has taken a broad-ranging, interdisciplinary approach to the literature on empowerment to summarize itscurrent empirical and conceptual status.The multitude of distinctions found for empowerment may be a result of the diversevalues and viewpoints held by people who work in this area. The empowerment literaturecontains both psychological and sociological orientations. The psychological orientationis individualistic and tends to focus on intra-psychic components such as motivation andself-efficacy (e.g., Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Authorswithin the sociological orientation, on the other hand, seem to share the implicitassumption that people should be equal (e.g., Katz, 1983-4; Kieffer, 1983-4). Thesociological approach focuses on how people can increase their social standing, clout, andability to help themselves. "An overly individualistic conception of empowerment maylimit our understanding of the construct...we may unwittingly advance single measuresof competence and trait-oriented conceptions of empowerment while failing to considerenvironmental influences; organizational factors; or social, cultural, and politicalcontexts" (Zimmerman, 1990:173).This attitude of striving for equality is best seen in work within the "helping" disciplinessuch as social work, education, and community psychology (Florin & Wandersman,1990; Rappaport, 1987). Work on empowerment within these disciplines includes topicsas diverse as children, grassroots organizations, the elderly, people with physicaldisabilities, seasonal farm workers, and single expectant mothers (Balcazar et al., 1990;Hegar, 1989; Hoffman, 1978; Whitmore, 1990; Yonemura, 1986). The concern is withthe process of developing clients more than with the individual's process of personalpower accumulation. In these disciplines, we frequently see an ecological view of5empowerment (Rappaport, 1987; Wolff, 1985; Zimmerman, 1990; Zimmerman &Rappaport, 1988) which focuses on the community as well as the individual and theorganization. In addition, the "helping professions" have long been aware of the dilemmabetween "helping individuals in need and changing the conditions that distribute needsunequally within a population" (Swift, 1984:xi). The early interest in empowerment,within these disciplines, came in response to the social, political, and economic issues ofthe 1960's (Torre, 1986).Disciplines that work within an ecological context for empowerment are concerned withthe good of people, and are interested in offering help to others which does not fosterreliance on the helper (Kieffer, 1984). These disciplines frequently adopt the outlook that"all people possess strengths.. .that people know what they want and need" (Tone, 1986).However, the management literature has been more concerned in dealing with theorganizational layers that hold the power and less concerned with how to spread power.Management seems more interested in empowering people while still maintaining power.Price (1990:166 based on Baritz, 1974) reminds us that social scientists should be waryof pursuing a science "shaped by corporate interests." Empowerment impliesinvolvement in social change (Wolff, 1985). However, business organizations are lesslikely to be interested in promoting humanitarian social change—which results in the bulkof management scholars also veering away from these issues.Given these different disciplinary views of empowerment, let us turn to a more carefulexamination of the separate approaches that currently exist.6Towards Conceptual Clarity and Dermitional CompactnessThe Four "M"s of EmpowermentThe dictionary definition of empowerment can serve as a base level for reviewing themajor perspectives in the literature. The American College Dictionary (1958:394) defines"empower" as: "1. to give power or authority; to authorize. 2. to enable or permit."These formal definitions relate primarily to the granting of power or authority, or as away of enabling. However, the academic literature views empowerment in terms thatseem to be more similar to the dictionary's definition of enabling. "Enable" is defined as"to make able; give power, means, or ability to; make competent; authorize. 2. to makepossible or easy" (American College Dictionary, 1958:395). The distinction betweenthese two definitions is similar to the difference between may and can. May suggests thatone is allowed to proceed, can implies one is able to do so. Empowerment means that wemay—we are allowed to proceed.The empowerment literature can be grouped into four categories (micro, meso, macro,and misnomer) at three levels of analysis: the individual level (micro), the relational level(meso)1, and the organizational level (macro). Each of the four categories can be broken1 Note that in this paper the use of the term meso differs from the way it is used by Houseand Rousseau (1992:9). They define meso as "the simultaneous study of at least two levels ofanalysis wherein a) one or more levels concern individual or group behavioral processes orvariables, b) one or more levels concern organizational processes or variables, and c) the processby which the levels of analysis are related is articulated in the form of bridging, or linking,propositions and tested or inferred." The use of the term here is similar to how it is used withinthe domain of physics. The meso level of analysis in physics is the level between the quantummechanics of individual particles (microscopic level) and the statistical mechanics of complexsystems (macroscopic level). The difficulties in understanding the meso level is compounded bya bias toward trying to understand the individual components of an interacting system (Meirav& Heiblum, 1990). This difficulty is also true when we refer to empowerment—yet one morereason for the multitude of definitions and descriptions of this construct.7down further, into a total of fourteen different views (for a brief summary see Table 1.1).Below I distill and summarize the interpretations found in the literature. It should benoted that while each perspective is distinct from the rest, they are not mutuallyexclusive. As a result, an author may appear in more than one category.1) The Micro Level of Empowerment—The Intra-Psychic TermsMany authors view empowerment as an intra-psychic concept. In other words,empowerment is something that occurs within the individual, and can be initiated by theindividual without an outside catalyst. It is the "psychological energy that activates us"(Kizilos, 1990:48). Within this category there are three approaches: empowerment as apotpourri of related terms, empowerment as self efficacy, and empowerment asmotivation.la) Empowerment as a potpourri of related terms. Empowerment "has been used, oftenloosely, to capture a family of somewhat related meanings" (Thomas & Velthouse,1990:666). For example, Block (1987) describes feeling empowered as includingboth a sense of responsibility and an underlying purpose. However, he specifiesthat it is not always necessary to be clear what the purpose is as long as the personbelieves the purpose is there. In addition, there must be the commitment to achievethe purpose here and now. These aspects of empowerment reinforce the drive forself development and personal independence.Keiffer's (1984) approach is similar: empowerment is equal to self-efficacy, self-esteem, and a sense of causal importance. Zimmerman and Rappaport (1988:726)suggest that "self and political efficacy, perceived efficacy, perceived competence,locus of control, and desire for control appear logically related to the broaderconstruct of empowerment." They suggest that empowerment is the junction8(overlap) of the three areas of perceived control—locus of control (Rotter, 1966),self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977), and motivation to control one's environment (White,1959; DeCharms, 1968).There is a family resemblance' between the meanings of the terms used in theintra-psychic context of empowerment. However, each term on its own is notempowerment. Further, not all facets must exist simultaneously for empowermentto occur. In fact, any combination of two or more facets (the situation will dictatewhich) may be enough to be considered empowerment. Thus, empowermentincludes related constructs such as power, self-efficacy, self-esteem, and others.lb) Empowerment as self-efficacy. Bandura (1982:122) defines self-efficacy as,"concerned with judgments of how well one can execute courses of action requiredto deal with prospective situations." He suggests that "people are influenced moreby how they read their performance successes than by the successes per se...."Note the subjectiveness of self-efficacy, as it is driven by an individual'sperceptions. Empowerment is a process which helps a person interpret thisperformance information. Empowerment is also a process which providesexperiences and opportunities to increase self-efficacy and promote belief in one'sown capacity (Bandura, 1982; Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Ozer and Bandura(1990) explicitly recognize self-efficacy as the route through which empowermentoccurs. Florin and Wandersman (1990:43) view empowerment as: "aspects ofpersonal and collective efficacy related to concepts of empowerment." Kieffer(1984) concluded that for political activists, self-efficacy was one ofempowerment's components. Bandura (1977:193) implicitly makes the connection21 would like to thank Warren Bourgeois for suggesting the concept of family resemblance.9for us in his claim that, "The strength of people's conviction in their owneffectiveness is likely to affect whether they would even try to cope with givensituations." In other words, if you believe in yourself, you will try to act, whichin turn implies the ability to influence (i.e., you have the potential to possesspower even without a direct transfer of resources.)However, self-efficacy is a state of self-perception and not an active process. If wetake the common view of power as the ability of one social actor to overcomeresistance in achieving a desired objective or result (Pfeffer, 1981), self-efficacydoes not have any direct relation with power. The difference between self-efficacyand empowerment is somewhat similar to the distinction between ability andpower. Ability is a resource that a person may use to do something. Power impliesthat the person can and will be acting on something else. Having self-efficacysuggests that one believes they can do the task. Becoming empowered may berequired before this sense of self-efficacy can surface. For example, the ability torun a marathon does not necessarily imply that the person will feel the power todo so. Self-efficacy implies that the person believes they can run the marathon.Empowerment refers to the process in which someone (including the same person)passed/developed that self-efficacy to them. This distinction suggests that self-efficacy is the understanding that occurs when a person recognizes that they cando something, while empowerment is the recognition that they may.1c) Empowerment as a derivative of motivation. For those who take this view theimplication is that the theoretical roots of empowerment are found in work onmotivation (Vogt & Murrell, 1988). For example, Murrell (1985:36) suggests that,"we are all responsible for empowering ourselves, at least enough to get out andhave dyadic relationships." These relationships are the start of the process of10empowerment and one needs to be motivated to trigger the process. "People haveto decide for themselves whether they want to be empowered or not" (Kizilos,1990:50). This is a process which can be "initiated and sustained only... [by those]who seek power or self-determination" (Simon, 1990:32). It involves thewillingness to "think critically, and dialectically, about the world and one'sposition in it" (Torre, 1986:38). Vogt and Murrell (1990) also see the process ofempowerment as one in which the individual's motivation can be a crucial factor.Their view stems from the claim that the process can be both self initiated as wellas initiated by others. Others who view empowerment as a construct stronglyrelated to motivation include: Thomas and Velthouse, 1990; Spreitzer, 1991;Thomas, Tymon, and Velthouse, 1991. Another less prevalent view is thatempowerment gives the individual the motivation to improve (Kizilos, 1990).2) The Meso Level of Empowerment—The Relational CategoryThis category includes perspectives that view empowerment as a construct that exists onlywhen there are two or more people interacting in a relationship (i.e., something istransferred between them). The majority of the approaches in the meso category ofempowerment refer to power.Dahl's (1957) commonly accepted view on power suggests that power is when one socialactor, A, can get another social actor, B, to do something that B would not have doneotherwise. Salancik and Pfeffer's (1977:3) note that power implies that a person can"bring about the outcomes they desire." This distinction does not address the constructas power "over" another person. Similarly, Nord (1983:11) defines power as "the abilityto influence flows of the available energy and resources towards certain goals as opposedto other goals."112a)The dictionary definition cited earlier, fits best in the meso category since it refersprimarily to the formal granting of power or authority. In other words, forempowerment to occur there must be at least two individuals: one who can conferpower or authority and the other who receives it. The common assumption thatempowerment is a solution for the distribution of power in the organization relieson this definition. Frequently the wording is nearly identical. For example: "Toempower, implies the granting of power—delegation of authority" (Burke,1986:51).2b)Empowerment is the process of spreading power which results in positive outcomes.This process includes distributing resources and experiences that confer power.Conger and Kanungo (1988) note that empowerment is achieved through theremoval of conditions that foster powerlessness i.e., the feeling of not being ableto determine relevant outcomes related to one's self (Seeman, 1959). Conditionsthat foster such situations can be removed using both "formal organizationalpractices and informal techniques of providing efficacy information" (Conger &Kanungo, 1988:474). Others see empowerment as the act of building, developing,and increasing power, which is more than just the action of authorizing (Murrell,1977, 1985; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). This view is similar to Mary ParkerFollett's (1941) concept of power-with (rather than power-over).2c) Empowerment is equivalent to having socialized power [a term coined by McClelland(1970) referring to the "positive" side of power e.g., exercising power for thebenefit of others]. This perspective differs from #21, which refers to the processof spreading power; it suggests that empowerment requires a combination of powerand motivation (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). In other words empowerment is a'friendlier' term for need-for-power; it is the good side, the socialized type of12power. Some also make the distinction between having more power versus feelingmore powerful (Kieffer, 1984), with the latter being empowerment. Block(1987:xviii) takes more of a political outlook and suggests that empowerment isa process we can promote in ourselves by "discovering a positive way of beingpolitical."2d) Empowerment as the synergistic component of power. Work that falls within thisapproach relies on the view that effective organizational power and control growsby sharing power and control with subordinates (Kanter, 1979; Tannenbaum,1968). The basis for this notion, the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1963:274),suggests that "each party has rights and duties" and each will follow the guidelinesto help and not injure those that have helped them. The synergistic aspect ofempowerment differs significantly from the norm of reciprocity since the issue ofequivalence is a non-issue. The norm of reciprocity suggests that there should beequivalence in the exchange. However, synergy does not require equivalence oreven exchange. The norm of reciprocity is "a concrete and special mechanisminvolved in the maintenance of any stable social system" (Gouldner, 1963:277);the synergistic characteristic of empowerment is a mechanism for enhancing stablesocial systems. The norm of reciprocity "engenders motives for returning benefitseven when power differences might invite exploitation" (Gouldner, 1963:277);empowerment goes beyond repayment to invite growth, development andenhancement. In addition, synergy implies no feelings of indebtedness. Thisimplies that empowerment can reproduce itself and create more than the sum ofits components. "A synergistic pattern brings phenomena together, interrelatingthem... In this pattern phenomena exist in harmony with each other, maximizingeach other's potential" (Katz, 1984:202). The process of maximizing a person'spotential is part of the process of empowerment. Overall, the more a synergistic13resource is used, the more there will be to use.This synergistic view of empowerment suggests that power is activated byindividuals who function as its guardian and not as its possessor. Katz (1983-4:204) suggests that "empowerment is not limited to or identifiable withindividuals; it becomes a resource beyond the self."Vogt and Murrell (1990:52) use Argyris's (1982) concept of double loop learningto suggest that learning takes place in the empowerment process. They suggest thatempowerment is a creative act that breaks the initial frame which then allows fornew behaviours to develop. Synergy continues to occur as individuals search forviable and meaningful ways of applying their new ability and insights (Kieffer,1984), both of which are examples of resources that are neither scarce nor finite(Florin & Wandersman, 1990; Katz, 1984; Rappaport, 1987; Stewart, 1989;Zimmerman, 1990).2e) Empowerment as infinite power. The power literature has not resolved whetherpower is a finite or infinite commodity. Currently, both views exist. There arethose who consider power as a zero-sum commodity in organizations. Forexample, in Salancik and Pfeffer's (1977:9) view power is "organized aroundscarce and critical resources." On the other hand, others view power as infinite(Tannenbaum, 1968; Kanter, 1979). In his later writings, Pfeffer (1981:156)acknowledges that power games vary. When describing coalition behaviour, hecompares the situations in which the total rewards to be distributed are fixed, orhave varying sums. In the latter case one party's gain is not necessarily the otherparty's loss. The increasing sum situation is also considered as one type of varyingsituation (Walton & McKersie, 1965).14Conceptually, empowerment supports the idea that power can vary. Byempowering one's employees, an executive does not give away power but addspower to the sum total in the organization (Kanter, 1979; Tannenbaum, 1968). Inother words empowerment, "leads towards the creation of power and the decreaseof powerlessness" (Murrell, 1985:35).20 Empowerment as trusting relationships. Although few writers explicitly address theissue of trust with regard to empowerment, many scholars seem to inherentlybelieve and accept that the empowerment process requires trust and confidence inthose with whom you are working (Murrell, 1985). In addition, in conversationswith both consultants (e.g., Thier, 1992) and managers (e.g., Edwards, 1992) Ihave been told that, although trust takes time to build, it is necessary forempowerment to occur. Reports of the erosion of trust within the business world(Fisher, 1991) suggest that it is an essential factor in any study of empowerment,including this one.Culbert and McDonough (1985:224) define trust as:"A confidence people extend to others whom they see ashaving the ability to view them in the proper context, and thewillingness to search out and respect that context at momentswhen differences in self-interests and job orientation placethem in competition."Trust is so critical that "promoting trusting relationships...is the mostefficient management tool ever invented" (Culbert & McDonough, 1985:4).This assumes that people also trust themselves and "recognize that theknowledge and experience they have acquired throughout life are valid(Torre, 1986:22). Overall, it appears that trust is a critical element forempowerment to succeed.15Trust is important because it implies better communication, i.e., telling others bothwhat you want and what you need (which is at the root of what you want). Needsthat are communicated make it is easier for others to understand your aspirationsand plans for achieving them, and help you to do so. The need for communicationis an example of empowerment's many relational and interactive implications.Like communication, empowerment can not occur (as effectively) in passivesituations. For good communication to occur, communicators must be proactivein identifying and expressing their own needs and position with regard to work(Kizilos, 1990), while at the same time they must actively find out what others arethinking. This latter part of communication is where management frequently fails(Fisher, 1991).The importance of openly expressing one's needs and goals is nested in theassumptions that people interpret organizational events differently (Culbert &McDonough, 1985), and that people frequently assume that others see things in thesame way they do. However, since this is often not the case, it is a person'sresponsibility to communicate their own position coherently to others. This, inturn, will allow for mutual adjustment and support, which are at the root of theempowerment process.This type of open communication can occur only when trust exists within thesystem as "nothing can erode organizational effectiveness more quickly than arelationship that lacks trust" (Culbert & McDonough, 1985:17). A person offerstrust only to those who provide basic support and who seem to value his/her waysof contributing to the organization's effectiveness. In other words, trust is givenonly to those who provide some "validation," even on the occasions when actualperformance (but not intention) is flawed. The knowledge "that associates are16looking to identify the context that accurately reflects one's intentions can give anindividual a feeling of power and the confidence to perform his or her best"(Culbert & McDonough, 1985:26).When people lack trust in each other, they divert energy from the task and insteadfocus on getting others to listen to them. While empowerment or effectiveness canbe achieved in situations where trust is lacking, the best situation occurs whenindividuals see organizational goals as their own and the individual's andorganizational needs do not conflict. This process can be cultivated by offeringpeople the opportunity to simultaneously do things that will help themselves, othersand the organization as a whole. Initial steps towards this goal may be achievedby establishing the connection between the person's own personal interests andtheir organizational assignment. To do so, the person's frame of reference,including their choices and barriers, must first be recognized and acknowledged(Culbert & McDonough, 1985; Simon, 1990). In addition, one must visualize howthe person can relate to the project on hand, in terms that are acceptable to them.Moore (1992:125) observes: "In general, we keep our power when we protect thepower of others" (one may find that power is actually gained in the process ofgiving power away). Clearly, if this is practised, trust develops naturally. Trustoriginates in "the dialectic between people's hopes and fears" (Holmes & Rempel,1989:187). Trust develops as actions and messages are exchanged, uncertaintydecreases, and assurances that the relationship will endure increase (Kelley &Thibaut, 1978). Viewing trust as "confidence that one will find what is desiredfrom another, rather than what is feared" (Deutsch, 1973:149), we realize howsignificant this concept of trust is for a successful process of empowerment. Itwould seem that at the relational/interactive level trust is an underlying mechanism17for empowerment.Establishing the connection between the individual and the organization, which inturn enables the person to develop his/her own needs and goals, while concurrentlyworking on and achieving organizational goals, has implications for theorganization's structure that will be explored in the following section on the macrolevel of empowerment.3) The Macro Level of Empowerment—Organizational StructureThis section on the macro level of empowerment will address structure as a criticalantecedent for empowerment to occur, and as a consequence of empowerment.3a) Organizational structure as a critical antecedent of empowerment. The notion thatthe organization's structure is a critical factor in enabling the process ofempowerment is quite prevalent (Conger & ICanungo, 1988; Fawcett, 1984;Murrell, 1990; Rappaport, 1987; Spreitzer, 1991; Zimmerman, 1990). Hegar(1989:378) warns against viewing empowerment as merely a state of mind, whichmay in turn result in viewing empowerment-based practice as only a matter ofhelping others adopt new attitudes: "Such an approach ignores inequities in thedistribution of resources and experiences that confer power." In general, Hegar(1989) views empowerment-based practices as both trying to help some individualsin making real gains, while also helping others who want to change theirperceptions and use of power and thus make structural changes. It is not enoughthat management say they want to take part in empowering. Overall organizationdesign and management practices need to be changed for "real empowermentrather than temporary flurries of activity" (Kizilos, 1990:48).18Viewing empowerment at the organizational level requires an investigation of theorganizational system and whether it can adapt to meet many of a person's needs.However, the very process of empowering others is paradoxical, for the structurethat puts one group in a position to empower others, also works to undermine theequalization of power that is implied by empowerment (Gruber & Trickett, 1987;Kizilos, 1990; Simon, 1990). In other words, positions that provide one groupwith power over another, implies that others can not have those same resources.To overcome this paradox, management must promote an effective organizationthat allows individuals with different needs to succeed (Culbert & McDonough,1985). This is in line with Well's (1992) view that frequently, organizationalmembers view empowerment as equivalent to the ability of resolving problemswithout needing to seek counsel from above. An organization needs to strive fora structure that will allow its members the authority and control to performessential functions of their job. This view was validated by the results of aquestionnaire administered to hotel employees who were undergoing an in-houseempowerment training program (Edwards, 1992) in which many of the employeesdescribed a strong desire to be able to perform more roles without requestingpermission.However, empowerment is more than just removing structural controls. It alsoinvolves a constant reassessment of a person's "fit" with the organization. Maximalfit should utilize a person's skills while at the same time appreciating theimportance of the person's role and function to the productivity of theorganization. This requires a global view of the organization's goals and structure.Findings from the field support this logic: As a result of a recent transfer, anengineer (Edwards, 1992) observed that in his previous "bad" department he19wasn't involved in the direction of the department as a whole. However, in hisnew department, which he considers empowering, he is not only involved in hisspecific job, but his manager encourages him and his cohorts to take an active partin setting goals and managing the direction of their department. Another example,cited by Shipper and Manz (1992:60) in their complimentary article on Gore Inc.,relates that part of Gore's success is due to "providing multiple opportunities foreveryone to participate in the organization and multiple ways for them to berewarded for their participation." It is not enough to partially introduceempowerment. Empowerment will succeed only when "the company's practicesreinforce and are aligned with the content" (Kizilos, 1990:50).The macro level of analysis includes the possibility that organizational structurewill act as both an antecedent and a consequence of empowerment. "Organizationaleffectiveness depends on people modifying the structure of situations so that theirown subjective needs can be met" (Culbert & McDonough, 1985:65). Just as themicro approach suggest that empowerment can change peoples's needs, the macroapproach suggests that it can (and should) change an organization's structure. Forexample, people for whom the process of empowerment has been successful mayneed fewer formal boundaries or rules to constrain and direct their behaviours. Asa result they may also be less hesitant in venturing out to work across units ordepartments (Culbert & McDonough, 1985). Changes in a person's needs maynecessitate changes in the need for intermediators between the person and his/herwork, which clearly has structural implications. Surprisingly, empowerment'simpact on structure (rather than vice versa) has not been elaborated orinvestigated, and there has not been much thought given to this direction ofcausality. So far, most of the academic focus has been on the micro and mesolevels of empowerment. Scholarly work that has referred to organizational20structure, in the context of empowerment, has looked only at structural issues asantecedents for empowerment.The distinction between empowering organizations and empowered organizationsis relevant here. An empowering organization is one in which an empoweringprocess is occurring; an empowered organization has completed enough of theempowering process to influence its surroundings. Empowering organizationsfacilitate the confidence and competencies of individual members, whileempowered organizations have the ability to influence their environment (Florin& Wandersman, 1990; Zimmerman, 1990).3b) Empowerment as used by political movements. Empowerment can be (and has been)used by deviant or minority groups to control their destiny. In this way,empowerment is "the process of coming to feel and behave as if one has power [inthe sense of autonomy, authority, or control] over significant aspects of one's lifeor work" (ICizilos, 1990:49). However, since the focus of my research is at theorganizational level and not at the social-political level, I will not expand on thework in the political area.4) The Misnomers--Bogus EmpowermentThe Misnomer category includes approaches which profess to be empowerment but arenot. It is discouraging to see how much of the literature actually falls into this category.There appear to be three primary approaches which misuse the term. The first, and mostprevalent, occurs primarily in the lay literature; the second is a classic example of "oldwine in new bottles;" and the third fits the prevailing trend of being "politically correct."All three categories misuse this term and lack a clear reference to a specific and welldefined empowerment construct or process.214a)Empowerment as a lay management cliche'. Empowerment is "almost universallyacclaimed as a necessary fact of life for a competitive work force in the 1990s"(ICizilos, 1990:51). As with power several decades ago (March, 1966),empowerment is frequently used as an explanation for almost everything. Indeed,empowerment is sometimes used as the new term which explains and resolvesmany of the social and economic problems we are currently experiencing. Forexample, empowerment is offered as a solution for increasing customer service(McAuley, 1992) or as a way to reduce the workforce (Conrad, 1992). It is alsoused as a generic term for attacking subordination of every description (Simon,1990) and for describing those who shape their own destiny (ICizilos, 1990).Empowerment has become the magic potion for new life, the way to strength formeeting any business challenge. It is prescribed as a treatment to increasecreativity, dedication, risk taking, and other organizational performance outcomes.And as enthusiasts believe, industry and competitiveness will be revitalized(Kizilos, 1990).4b)Empowerment as old wine in new bottles. Empowerment is also viewed, sometimesonly implicitly, as either an elaboration or a new form of participativemanagement. As the new fad of the 90's, empowerment is similar to what unionswere in the 30's, what the human relations movement was in the 50's, what"social action" was in the 60's, what the "self-help" perspectives (Kieffer, 1984)and "participation" were in the 70's, and what "power sharing" was in the 80's.In other words, it is old wine in a new bottle.One example of this old wine in a new bottle use of empowerment is seen inFlorin and Wandersman (1990), where they suggest that we can learn aboutempowerment from studies of citizen participation. Citizen participation is a22process in which "individuals take part in decision making in the institutions,programs and environments that affect them" (Florin & Wandersman 1990:43).Most simply, citizen participation is being renamed empowerment.Stewart (1989) observes that: "The term 'participatory' crops up again and againas the leaders of corporate America discuss power." Indeed, when some topmanagers in large organizations describe their empowerment techniques, there islittle or no difference between how quality circles or other forms of participationwere portrayed and described (Kizilos, 1990). Kizilos (1990:48) quotes Lawleras saying that many of these ideas have been heard before. However, Lawler doessuggest that: "there is some evolution in some of the practices that companies areusing to support participative management—or democratic management, which itused to be called."Empowerment is also used in the context of participation in decision making(Zimmerman, 1990; Gruber & Trickett, 1987). Zimmerman and Rappaport(1988:727) suggest that "participation may be an important mechanism for thedevelopment of psychological empowerment." They explain the connectionbetween participation and empowerment: "participants can gain experienceorganizing people, identifying resources, and developing strategies for achievinggoals." In their study they found that participation in a community's activities isassociated with psychological empowerment. However, others (Rappaport, 1987;Prestby et al., 1990) recognize that participation is only one of the ways towardachieving empowerment. Byham (as cited in Kizilos, 1990:49) attempts to drawa clearer distinction between participative management and empowerment, whenhe suggests that, "participative management is just that: You ask for people's help.But empowerment is getting them to help themselves." Thus, even though23participating in decision making may be a step along the way to empowerment, itcannot be considered empowerment by itself. Referring to empowerment only asparticipation results in the paradox that empowerment can mistakenly be viewedas the "CEO who vests power in his subordinate for all to see is, in effect, cloninghimself" (Stewart, 1989). Empowerment is far more than cloning one's employees!4c) Empowerment as a euphemism for power. The popularity of empowerment is a resultof efforts to veer away from the negative connotations of power, but withoutactually being willing to put in too much effort. In reality, few companies arewilling to make the long-term commitment that empowerment implies (Kizilos,1990). As Reuben Mark from Colgate-Palmolive said: "You should consolidateand build power by empowering others..../ don't like to talk about power"(Stewart, 1989:56; emphasis added). Kanter (1979:145) sums up the currentgeneral attitude towards power: "Power is America's last dirty word." Overall,people find the concept of power quite troublesome, "because of its [negative]implications and connotations" (Pfeffer, 1981:2), as a result, they prefer to talkabout empowerment.The use of empowerment as a euphemism for power stems from management'sconcern about being politically correct, and does not reflect a real concern aboutthe process or results of empowerment. Block (1987:xviii) takes a more politicaloutlook and suggests that empowerment is a process of "...discovering a positiveway of being political" which implies, again, that the term may sometimes be usedas a vehicle for a currently unacceptable concept.24SummaryThese fourteen empowerment approaches are the main ones found in the empowermentliterature. Several themes are repeated across researchers and disciplines includingviewing empowerment as related to power, trust, support, and access to resources. Inaddition, as the three levels of analysis show above, it is clear that empowerment isindeed a multi-level construct (Murrell, 1985; Rappaport, 1987; Thomas & Velthouse,1990; Zimmerman, 1990; Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988). A common assumption(outside the misnomer category) is that empowerment can be costly and labour-intensive(Kieffer, 1984; Kingston, 1992; Kizilos, 1990) which partially explains why it requiresa risk taking commitment (Wolff, 1985). When we keep these issues in mind, thefollowing conclusion is not surprising: "In the struggle towards empowerment, conflictand growth are inextricably intertwined" (Kieffer, 1984:25).Empowerment has been viewed both as an umbrella term for a multitude of concepts andas a process. The next section explores this distinction and concludes that empowermentis a process. In the following chapter a process model of empowerment will be introducedas well as specific propositions and hypotheses which will then be empirically tested.25The Micro Level ofEmpowermentThe Meso Level ofEmpowermentThe Macro Level ofEmpowermentEmpowermentMisnomersE1 as a potpourri of familyrelated terms (e.g., Block, 1987;Keiffer, 1984; Zimmerman &Rappaport, 1988).E, as the dictionary defines:Empowerment = granting ofpower; delegation of authority.E10 as related to organizationalstructure (e.g., Conger &Kanungo, 1988; Fawcett, 1984;Murrell, 1990; Rappaport, 1987;Zimmerman, 1990).E12 as a managementcliche (e.g., Allard,1992; Kizilos, 1990).E2 as self-efficacy (e.g., Conger& Kanungo, 1988; Florin &Wandersman, 1990; Kieffer,1984; Ozer & Bandura, 1990;Spreitzer, 1991).E5 as spreading power whichresults in positive outcomes(e.g., Conger & Kanungo,1988; Murrell, 1977, 1985;Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).En as political ideology. E13 as participativemanagement (e.g.,Florin & Wandersman,1990; Gruber &Trickett, 1987; Kizilos,1990).El as a derivative of motivation(e.g., Kizilos, 1990; Murrell,1985; Simon, 1990; Spreitzer,1991; Thomas & Velthouse,1990; Thomas, Tymon &Velthouse, 1991; Vogt &Murrell, 1990).^  1985; Torre, 1986)E6 as socialized power i.e. thepositive aspects of power (e.g.,Block, 1987; Kieffer, 1984).E14 as a euphemism.E., as the synergisticcomponent of power (e.g.,Katz, 1984; Thomas &Velthouse, 1990).E8 as infinite power (e.g.,Kanter, 1979; Murrell, 1985).E9 as trusting relationships(e.g., Culbert & McDonough,Table 1.1: The Four "M"s of Empowerment26CHAPTER 2A PROCESS MODEL OF EMPOWERMENTThe prevailing view of empowerment is that it represents an umbrella term for two ormore state related constructs (e.g., self-efficacy and self-esteem) which together result inthe achievement of personal adjustment, adaptation, mastery, performance, control, andsatisfaction. Most of these umbrella terms would fall under the micro level approach ofempowerment as a potpourri of related terms (#1a). Basically, this view uses the termempowerment as a personal state or collection of related personal states. As a result, mostof the work on empowerment which uses this view focuses on empowerment outcomes,rather than on how to achieve them. Empowerment is often used as though it weresynonymous with concepts as varied as "coping skills," "mutual support," "naturalsupport systems," "community organization," "neighbourhood participation," "personalefficacy," "competence," "self-sufficiency," and "self-esteem" (Kieffer, 1984; Price,1990). Several researchers suggest that empowerment is best defined as the area in whichall these ideas intersect (Kieffer, 1984; Zimmerman, 1986; Zimmerman & Rappaport,1988). Within this outlook we find researchers focusing on identifying subsets ofconcepts and results and calling such a subset empowerment. For example, concepts ofperceived personal capacity (e.g., coping skills, competence, self-esteem, etc.) as wellas concepts representing externally perceived outcomes (e.g., customer service,performance, adaptation, mastery, etc.) are included. Overall there seems to be atendency to focus on achieving outcomes when distinguishing if a person has achieved thestate of being 'empowered.' In other words, the focus tends to be on acquiring a certainsituation, condition, or state of some sort either internally or in terms of achieving someexternal outcome.27However, others, such as Torre (1986:38), claim that: "empowerment is not simply anew term used to describe psychological states marked by positive perceptions of selfworth or esteem, self efficacy, and an internal locus of control." Rather, it is a process,and despite the multitude of interrelated concepts, it is important to distinguish that notall forms of support activate the process of empowerment.The Process ModelThis model suggests that empowerment is a process which, in turn, may cause otherprocesses to occur. Process models work at both the individual and community levels(Kieffer, 1984; Rappaport, 1987; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Wolff, 1985). Unlike thestate model of empowerment, there has been very little work done on empowerment asa process (Price, 1990). The existing process models view empowerment as a processof some sort that brings about achieving goals such as mastery over work or one'sgeneral environment (Balcazar et al., 1990; Rappaport, 1984; Swift, 1983-4; Wolff,1985; Torre, 1986; Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988). Figure 2.1 presents a genericmodel of how empowerment has been viewed as a process. The process models suggestthat there are three main phases to empowerment: antecedents, a process of change, andresults. The focus tends to be on psychological, sociological, or business related results,with attempts to explain what and how to change to achieve the process of empowerment.More specifically, it has been suggested that the empowerment process includes the:a) generation and distribution of power primarily in the form of access to and control ofresources (Rappaport, 1977, 1981; Katz, 1983-4);b) process of increasing internal locus of control and external responsibility (Hegar,1989);28CHANGECHANGEStructurePower DistributionResponsibilityMotivationLearning OpportunitiesDevelopmentAmong other thingsPsychological:e.g.. Se1f-l3fficacySociological:e.g.. InvolvementBusiness Related:e.g.. PerformanceFigure 2.1: A Generic Process Model of Empowermentc) process of encouraging competencies to emerge (Rappaport, 1984; Balczar et al.,1990);d) long term process of learning, development, and transformation (Kieffer, 1984); ande) intra-psychic, interpersonal, and organizational processes that are based onempowering mechanisms, such as organizational structure, in order to fosterempowerment (Conger & Kanungo, 1988).The process view of empowerment suggests that more is at stake than just acquiring newskills. Empowerment is a transforming and reorienting process constructed throughaction (Kieffer, 1984). It is an interactive process through which people with little or nopower experience a change which develops their ability to influence decisions and others(Whitmore, 1990). The process models in the literature share the assumption thatempowerment is more than just a state of mind (Hegar, 1989). However, some (e.g.,Zimmerman, 1990) view empowerment as both process and outcome. Nevertheless, bothfor conceptual clarity and to aid in implementation, we should distinguish between the29empowerment process and its outcomes. In other words, it is important to distinguishbetween the actual process of change and the results of such change. To do so, a multi-level process model of empowerment will be presented and empirically tested.A Multi-Level Process Model of EmpowermentAs a result of the diversity discovered in the empowerment literature, I believe there isa need for a clearer definition of empowerment. We need a definition that will allowpeople with different perspectives to work together and to further our understanding ofthe empowerment construct. The following definition of empowerment incorporates someof these perspectives and adds to them.Empowerment is an enhancing and energizing context specific process that expands anindividual's power and feelings of trust, is usually facilitated by another, andresults in increased levels of self-esteem, self-efficacy and other characteristicsrelated to personal growth and control, which eventually lead to outcomes such asperformance and satisfaction.Empowerment's key components are:1 - an interpersonal-interactive process which does not always include direct transfer ofresources,2 - a process that develops increased levels of self-growth, which are also mediators foroutcomes such as performance, satisfaction, and uplifting experiences,3 - a process resulting in enhanced power, trust and energy to the individual and, withtime, to the system as a whole,4 - a process that brings to realization a person's existing positive potential,305 - a process that is context specific. Particular contexts may involve differentcomponents that are related to the empowerment process; e.g., empoweringdifferent organization position holders such as first-line supervisors, staffprofessionals, etc. (Kanter, 1979).The empowerment process definition presented here, developed as a result of integrationand assimilation of literature from several disciplines, is relatively close to Tone's(1986:18) definition. Her work relies on investigating both academic and laymen'sperceptions of the term. She suggests that empowerment is "a process through whichpeople become strong enough to participate within, share in the control of, and influenceevents and institutions affecting their lives... [It] necessitates that people gain particularskills, knowledge, and sufficient power...."However, Tone's (1986:36) work is quite global and relates explicitly to politicalsystems: "The empowerment process appears to involve the micro system (interactionsbetween individuals), mediating structures (interactions within collectives,neighbourhoods, communities), and the macro structure (economic system, and culturalideology)." Such a broad outlook does not serve us well for investigating andunderstanding the meaning of empowerment within a work context. It is primarily at themeso level (as defined here) that we will gain the most insight and benefit forunderstanding the process of empowerment within the workplace. For these reasons weretain the currently proposed definition, which also considers key parts of theempowerment process itself.A successful empowerment process requires changes in the organization's structure, inits communication system and content, and in its pattern of functioning. Clearly, this isa complex process. The process model of empowerment proposed here differs from31current models, primarily in its comprehensiveness. This model belongs to the familyof process models but focuses on both how the empowerment process achieves theoutcomes and how currently known constructs interact in this context.This definition of empowerment emphasizes that empowerment is a process that expandsan individual's power, and that is mediated by constructs such as self-esteem and self-efficacy3. The process results from changes in contextual and environmental variablessuch as information, structure, and responsibility. These variables exist only withininteractive relations. The process of empowerment involves, in general, the relations andinteractions with people, as well as the structural issues, that are part of a person'senvironment.Structural issues are basic to the process of empowerment; without them, previousreinforcement pressures will continue to mold people and their feelings. In addition,inherent to the successful process of empowerment is a sharing of enabling values (Florin& Wandersman, 1990; Rappaport, 1987). It has already been suggested (Kizilos, 1990)that, for the process of empowerment to occur, employees should be encouraged toexamine their own values and beliefs. However, this is not a top-down process (Beer,1991) and such values must also be embraced by the organization as a whole. Overall,structure and values are critical to the process of empowerment in the workplace; withoutthem, any attempt for change will be quickly blocked, either for structural reasons or forlack of support at the both the inter (meso) and intra-personal (micro) levels.In addition to these two environmental components of structure and values, three3 As mentioned, such intra-psychic constructs have been considered by some (e.g., Conger& Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1991) as part of the construct of empowerment. However, herethey are considered as mediators and not as an integral part of the construct.32relational factors were identified as comprising the impetus for the empowerment process.These three elements—responsibility (i.e., being in charge of making something happen),information (i.e., the transfer of knowledge and data), and active belief (i.e., expressedtrust and confidence)—are underlying themes in much of the work relating toempowerment, primarily in an interactive context such as we would find in anorganization. For the purposes of this dissertation, only these three components will bemanipulated. This focus is necessary as both organizational structure and organizationalvalues are global aspects of an organization and constitute a myriad of different elements.Organizational structure and values are influenced by factors such as technology, culture(both corporate and national), and industry, which at this early stage may be difficult tosegregate. In addition, since the empirical part of this dissertation attempts to investigatecausal relations in the empowerment process, it would have been tricky, at this earlystage, to manipulate and measure all components of the model.Information, responsibility, and active belief are, relatively speaking, amenable to change.While structure and values are important factors, changes in the empowermentcomponents of information, responsibility, and active belief are sufficient for instigatingthe empowerment process, so long as the more global factors are not constraining. Thesethree components all share in common the fact that, while they are usually achieved ininteractive relationships, a person can also influence them personally. This lastconsideration—of the individual's ability to play an important role in the empowermentprocess—is an important and meaningful element to consider in the process ofempowerment (e.g., Murrell, 1985).The Multi-Level Process Model of Empowerment (see Figure 2.2) includes theempowerment process, its outcomes, as well as how the process is mediated. Themodel's intra-psychic mediators help explain why the results of the empowerment process33EmpowermentComponents Intra-psychicMediatorsWorkOutcomesInformationResponsibilityActive BeliefSelf-efficacyLocus of ControlSelf-esteemSatisfactionPerformanceFigure 2.2: The Multi-Level Process Model of Empowermentmay not be uniform across all individuals. For, as Bernard recognized, despite thetendency to try and depersonalize the individual in an organizational setting, theindividual "brings his whole self to the organization" (Wolf, 1974:68). Thus, theindividual's intra-psychic situation will be the conduit of the empowerment process. Incontrast, previous models have included only parts of this present model. As mentioned,some models have focused on related states, while others have focused more specificallyon empowerment as a process (Figure 2.1).As some models of empowerment suggest (e.g., Britt, 1991; Thomas & Velthouse,1990), empowerment is cyclical in nature. Once the process is activated, it then triggersa subset of other processes, such as enhancing self efficacy. These mediating processesenable the achievement of other outcomes, such as satisfaction and performance, whichin turn influence the intra-psychic mediators, as well as affecting how the process ofempowerment will continue (see Figure 2.3). Note, however, that for work outcomesto be affected the mediators must also be changed, even though the work outcomes maydirectly influence the components that instigated the process of change. However, in this34.011•■••••Figure 2.3: The Cyclical Nature of the Multi-Level Process of Empowermentdissertation the focus is on the process: Empowerment -0 Mediators --. Work Outcomes.This conceptualization of empowerment leads to the following proposition:P1: The process of empowerment leads to increased levels of:la. intra-psychic mediators such as self-efficacy and self-esteem, as well aschanges in locus of control;lb. performance and job satisfaction.It is important to recognize that directly manipulating only the intra-psychic mediatorsmay result in changes in short term work outcomes. The overall process ofempowerment involves a change in the person's interactive/relational settings. A changein only the intra-psychic mediators will result in less effective outcomes. If the changeis only internal the environmental process which continually influences the intra-psychiccomponents may overcome the positive internal process, or at the very least causedissonance or dissatisfaction. However, a change in the organizational or interpersonalstructure will lead to more effective changes in the work outcomes. The environmental35change leads to the positive process that continually acts to build and strengthen the intra-psychic factors, which, in turn, influence work outcomes.The process of empowerment affects work-related outcomes via the intra-psychicmediators. The change in the mediators is not the process of empowerment; rather, thisis a sub-process. The mediators are only part of the process explaining why changes inthe work context cause developments in the work outcomes. Once the work outcomeschange, the mediators will remain at the new levels only if the environmental settingscontinue to evolve in the new state (which occurred as a result of the process ofempowerment). These changes in the environmental settings can not be static if theempowerment outcomes are to be maintained. In addition, changes in the person's workenvironment must continue to be dynamic and adaptive to new needs and requirements,since a one-time occurrence of organizational change is not sufficient for changes in intrapsychic mediators and work outcomes to be maintained. Thus:P2: For the process of empowerment, and for increased levels of intra-psychic mediatorsand work outcomes to occur and remain, the person's work environment mustcontinually change.In research terms, the dependent variables are work outcomes (e.g. effectiveness andperformance) and job satisfaction. The mediating variables are the intra-psychic variables.In other words, we have outcomes at two levels: The first level empowerment outcomesare intra-psychic, and can be viewed as mediators of the empowerment process; thesecond level empowerment outcomes are work level outcomes, such as satisfaction andjob performance. Thus, the proposed model can be operationalized as shown in Table2.1, after which the three components of information, active belief, and responsibility willbe discussed.36I Design Term: 1^Independent Variables I^Mediators I^Dependent Variables IConstruct Empowerment (at work) Intra-Psychic Factors(1st level outcomes)Work Outcomes(2nd level outcomes)Explanation Empowerment is an enhancingand energizing process thatoccurs within an individual'swork environment, which hasinteractive and relationalcharacteristics.Mediators are mechanisms bywhich the independentvariable impacts thedependent variable (Emory,1985).Work outcomes areoutcomes that are relatedto and measured in thecontext of a workenvironment.Operationalization Specific components in aparticular setting; information,active belief, and responsibility,A sample of the factors thatare frequently mentioned inthe literature such as: self-efficacy, self-esteem, andlocus of control.A sample of outcomes thatare considered significantin a business setting, suchas initiative, sensitivity,planning and organizing,delegation, problemanalysis, decisiveness,judgment, administrativecontrol, and, satisfaction.Table 2.1: The Multi-Level Process Model of EmpowermentInformation Availability/RestrictionThe idea that information is important to the well-being of both the individual and thesystem is not new. Eric Trist and his associates at the Tavistock Institute have contributedto developing our understanding of the importance of 'open socio-technical systems.'Under this conceptualization, the organization is seen as an organism engaged in adynamic interchange with its environment. This view requires a focus on the larger,external system of the organization, which essentially depends on frequent and open flowof information within the organization'. The more complex the system, the more itdepends on the transmission of information (Scott, 1992:77) and on the fact thatinformation helps to reduce uncertainty (Scott, 1992:134). Trist suggested that, inturbulent environments (a condition many companies are currently experiencing)Galbraith's (1977) contingency theory also stresses the importance of information.37individuals and units will achieve the best results if they are self-regulating and carryredundancy within them. In other words, individuals and units should have access to theflow of information within the organization—regardless of their specific job. The resultof this is that "for the individual they create roles rather than mere jobs...." (Pugh,Hickson, and Hinnings, 1988:89). In turn, superior results, both in terms oforganizational performance and quality of working life, will be achieved.The American College Dictionary (1958) defines information as "knowledgecommunicated or received concerning some fact or circumstance; knowledge on varioussubjects, however acquired; the act of informing; the state of informing." This definitionincludes both the transfer of information and the actual action of providing\ acquiringinformation. Daft (1989:309) also adds the distinction between data and information. Inhis view, data are tangible and can be counted and do not become information unlesspeople use them to improve their understanding, while information "alters or reinforcesunderstanding.. .is not tangible or measurable... provides insight and is perceived asuseful by the receiver" (Daft, 309). Here, we will use a broad concept of information thatcombines data and information. In other words, information is important to the processof empowerment, even if there is no immediate or direct impact on the understanding oron the insight of the receiver. For information to contribute to the process ofempowerment it does not need to influence the receiver directly. On the contrary,frequently the information may be of no value to the receiver other than the very valueof having access to it.Information relates to both power and trust. The possessor of information has power overothers who do not possess that information. The person who receives information needsto trust the source of information, since this information may influence how s/he viewsa certain issue/problem/situation. In addition, since information is a source of power38(Pfeffer, 1992), and, as a result the "owner" of such information has power, there mustbe a relationship of trust that such power will not be abused. A truthful sharing ofinformation may develop trust and the sharing of power. Withholding or misrepresentinginformation can result in sabotaging trust. With respect to empowerment as a processthat relates to both power and trust the following propositions are presented:P3a(1): Increasing the information available to the individual promotes the process ofempowerment.The converse is also true:P3a00: Decreasing and restricting the information available to the individual will reduceand inhibit the process of empowerment. At times, reducing information willresult in an inhibition of the process of empowerment, and may result in dis-empowerment.Active BeliefActive belief is defined as actively sending both verbal and behavioral signals expressingone's "trust or confidence in some person or thing" (Webster's Ninth New CollegiateDictionary, 1987:142). It includes being actively engaged in expressing faith, optimism,implicit encouragement, and is non-defence evoking. Specifically, the importance ofone's positive expectation on another's performance has been shown within a variety ofcontexts (e.g., Eden & Shani, 1982; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968). These studies of self-fulfilling prophecies focus on what has been termed the "Pygmalion effect" which, in theorganizational context, occurs when a subordinate's performance improves as a result ofa manager's rising performance expectations (Eden, 1990). This effect entails severalvariables, including interpersonal expectancy, communication, leadership, self-expectancy, motivation, and performance (Eden, 1984). In addition, perceptions ofcontrol over outcomes directly relate to the size of the effect (Jussim, 1986). Thus, theself-fulfilling prophecies at work include these key components: the supervisor's39expectations, the subordinate's belief that his/her behaviour will lead to the desiredoutcome, and, in addition, the subordinate's belief in his/her ability to achieve thenecessary behaviours (i.e. self-efficacy). When one considers that learned helplessnessoccurs when a person believes their actions do not affect outcomes (Abramson et al.,1978), it becomes apparent just how important these issues are for empowerment.In one of the few application papers on the topic, Eden (1990:38) emphasizes theimportance of consistency in raising performance expectations. In addition, he warns that"merely telling clients to raise their expectations will not work. Expectation-raising mustbe embedded in a consulting process." This implies that words, on their own, especiallywhen randomly and erratically applied, will not achieve the goal of higher performance.What is necessary are deliberate and systemic approaches aimed at revealing untappedskills and abilities among subordinates.However, focusing only on the Pygmalion effect implies that employees are somewhatpassive and easily manipulated. Indeed, increasing employees' self-expectations is alsonecessary for empowerment. Eden (1990) called this the Galatea' effect. Thus we havea dual process: the Pygmalion-Galatea effect. Pygmalion achieves higher performanceas a result of supervisors' higher expectations of subordinate performance while Galateaachieves the same result by increasing subordinates' self-expectations. To do both,managers must "purposely fulfil the role of Pygmalion and effectively treat theirsubordinates as Galateas" (Eden, 1990:41). This can be done by setting realistic andchallenging objectives, as well as "clearing the record" (Eden, 1990:44). In a sense, anew shared positive vision, created and maintained by high, yet realistic, expectations isbeing created.5 The term is coined after the ivory image of Aphrodite, created by Pygmalion, which cameto life after Pygmalion's pleadings and prayers (Graves, 1960).40The importance of support from significant others (which has also been well documentedin other contexts, e.g., House, 1981) seems to be an underlying theme in theempowerment literature. However, it is not always clear who the significant others are.Part of social support is the concept of collective positive image (Cooperrider, 1990)which supports the notion of support as having a gestalt-like quality.Walter and Marks' (1981:91) definition of social support lends itself well to the workpresented here: They define social support as "physical, emotional, or symboliccontribution to individuals increasing their net stockpile of emotional capacity to copewith change." They view support as enabling change. This is not to say that socialsupport causes change, but rather that it allows and facilitates change. As defined here,empowerment is a process of change. Thus it should come as no surprise that one of thekey components to this process is the availability of social support—i.e., the availabilityof contributions to an individual's positive coping and growth adapting capabilities.Developing trust in empowerment has strong ties with this component of active belief.For example, Holmes and Rempel (1989) suggest that trust develops in relationships withbehavioral predictability, particularly if the partners send each other stable, positivemessages regarding convergent interests. However, it is not enough that Person A isnice, Person B must also perceive that Person A is acting in such a way because PersonA cares. In addition, it is important to acknowledge people's particular needs and affirmtheir sense of worth. Although Holmes and Rempel (1989) refer to close relationships(e.g., a couple), the same may be true in work relationships. Reducing uncertainty in theworking relationship can make people more responsive.P3b(1): Having members of the individual's environment actively expressing their beliefin the person and showing encouragement and faith in the individual's potentialand capabilities, will enhance the process of empowerment.41P3boo: If members of the individual's environment do not actively express their belief inthe person, or if they express their doubts in the individual's capabilities, theprocess of empowerment will be stunted.ResponsibilitySeveral categories at the meso level of empowerment refer to the different aspects of bothpower and trust. Power is clearly a relational construct. One cannot have power withouttwo people, or objects upon whom/which one can act. The same is true for trust. Bothpower and trust include a component of responsibility. Responsibility refers to the stateof being in charge of making something happen, it is the "personal causal influence uponan event" (Cummings & Anton, 1988:2). Responsibility has two parts: (1) feltresponsibility, which is the cognitive and/or emotional acceptance of responsibility, or (2)accountability. Accountability is the "calling to give accounts (excuses or justifications)to another (or others) for deviation between the event for which one is responsible andorganizational expectations or norms."In situations where one person has responsibility for all decisions and actions, that personautomatically has power over others. Trust depends on agreement as to howresponsibility is divided. For example, a subordinate who does not think that his/hermanager is able to make a certain technical decision will not trust whatever decision ismade—unless s/he is part of the decision making process.The role of responsibility in the process of empowerment has been neglected byacademics and is recognized here primarily in response to and as a result of the emphasisof practitioners. However, its roots can also be found in the organizational literature.McGregor (1957) suggested that individuals not only accept responsibility, but also seekit. In his work on "Theory Y," McGregor emphasized that this readiness is present in allpeople and that "it is a responsibility of management to make it possible for people to42recognize and develop" (Shafritz & Hyde, 1987:260). He also adds that, "the essentialtask of management is to arrange organizational conditions and methods of operation sothat people can achieve their own goals." This last statement clearly strengthens the viewtaken here that it is management's role to ensure that the organization does not inhibit,but rather, promotes the process of empowerment.An additional factor which contributes to the importance of responsibility in the contextof empowerment is trust. Consider the assertation that trust (which is key toempowerment) increases as one sees the other making a sacrifice of self-interest, oraccepting risk (Holmes & Rempel, 1989). Thus, giving a subordinate responsibilitywithin an organization sometimes necessitates the supervisor assuming somerisk—especially in the initial stages of a job. If the subordinate realizes that risk is beingincurred, directly or indirectly for their personal development, trust may develop. In turn,the likelihood that the subordinate will be willing to take gambles (e.g., as one would ininnovative behaviours) should increase.Thus, when we refer to responsibility in the context of empowerment, we can easily seehow it relates to all three levels. At the micro level, the individual is, at the very least,responsible for being open to opportunities. At the macro level, the organization isresponsible for being open to risk and creating opportunities for its members. Aspreviously mentioned, power and trust (both occurring at the meso level) contain elementsof responsibility. There is an element of responsibility in all interactive relations.Responsibility and accountability have direct influence on power and trust (e.g., if thereis no agreement as to how responsibility or accountability are divided). However, asThier (1992) found in her work with managers, responsibility and accountability do notalways have to be equally weighted in all situations. Managers need to refrain fromoverwhelming subordinates with immediate full accountability for all their new areas of43responsibility. The following propositions relate responsibility to empowerment:P3c(1): Providing the individual with opportunities for increased responsibility (withoutburdening them with too much accountability) will enhance the empowermentprocess.P3coo: Not providing the individual with opportunities for increased responsibility willinhibit the empowerment process.However, at the current stage of exploration we are unable to predict if each of the abovecomponents is enough to trigger and sustain the process of empowerment. As a result,this study will investigate only the following propositions:P3a(1),b(0,c(1): The three empowerment components—information, active belief, andresponsibility—together will produce and enhance the process of empowerment.P3ap,boo,c(ii): Without the three empowerment components—information, active belief,and responsibility—we will not see the empowerment process occurring.Proposition 3a,b,c, together with proposition 1, lead to the main hypotheses of thisresearch investigation:HypothesesHypothesis 1: Increasing the three empowerment components (information, active belief,and responsibility) will result in an increase in the levels of three key mediatingmechanisms and in the work outcome levels.This hypothesis can be broken down to the following sub-hypotheses:H1 a: Increased levels of information, active belief, and responsibility will result in anincrease in the measured intra-psychic mediators: self-efficacy, self-esteem, andlocus of control.H1 b: Increased levels of information, active belief, and responsibility will result in anincrease in the measured level of work outcomes: initiative, sensitivity, planning44and organizing, delegation, problem analysis, decisiveness, judgment,administrative control, and job satisfaction.H1 j): Decreased levels of information, active belief, and responsibility will result in adecrease in the measured intra-psychic mediators: self-efficacy, self-esteem, andlocus of control.Hlb(1): Decreased levels of information, active belief, and responsibility will result in adecrease in the measured level of work outcomes: initiative, sensitivity, planningand organizing, delegation, problem analysis, decisiveness, judgment,administrative control, and job satisfaction.This study tests these hypotheses in a simulation, described in detail in the next chapter,on three groups: the Empowered group, the Dis-empowered group and the Control group.The Empowered group will receive increased levels of the independent variables(information, active belief, and responsibility) and the Dis-empowered group will receivedecreased levels of these variables. The control group will also be observed over time,with no changes in the independent variables. The manipulation of the three independentvariables will be accomplished through the use of a series of in-basket tasks. The abovehypotheses predict that the best results will be achieved by the Empowered group, theworst in the Dis-empowered group.These hypotheses can be further broken down by the eight specific work outcomemeasures (1) initiative; (2) sensitivity; (3) planning and organizing; (4) delegation; (5)administrative control; (6) problem analysis; (7) judgement; and (8) decisiveness ascollected by the in-basket tasks, as well as by job-satisfaction. Thus hypotheses Hlb andHl b(1) can each be further subdivided into nine hypotheses, as follows:Hi b1: Increased levels of information, active belief, and responsibility will result in anincrease in the measured level of initiative.H1b(1)1: Decreased levels of information, active belief, and responsibility will result in a45decrease in the measured level of initiative.H1b2: Increased levels of information, active belief, and responsibility will result in anincrease in the measured level of sensitivity.H1 b(02: Decreased levels of information, active belief, and responsibility will result in adecrease in the measured level of sensitivity.H1b3: Increased levels of information, active belief, and responsibility will result in anincrease in the measured level of planning and organizing.Hlb(03: Decreased levels of information, active belief, and responsibility will result in adecrease in the measured level of planning and organizing.H1b4: Increased levels of information, active belief, and responsibility will result in anincrease in the measured level of delegation.H1 Nis: Decreased levels of information, active belief, and responsibility will result in adecrease in the measured level of delegation.H1b5: Increased levels of information, active belief, and responsibility will result in anincrease in the measured level of problem analysis.Hlbw5: Decreased levels of information, active belief, and responsibility will result ina decrease in the measured level of problem analysis.H1b6: Increased levels of information, active belief, and responsibility will result in anincrease in the measured level of decisiveness.H1b06: Decreased levels of information, active belief, and responsibility will result ina decrease in the measured level of decisiveness.H1b7: Increased levels of information, active belief, and responsibility will result in anincrease in the measured level of judgement.Hlbor: Decreased levels of information, active belief, and responsibility will result in adecrease in the measured level of judgement.H1 b8: Increased levels of information, active belief, and responsibility will result in anincrease in the measured level of administrative control.46Hlboo: Decreased levels of information, active belief, and responsibility will result in adecrease in the measured level of administrative control.H1b9: Increased levels of information, active belief, and responsibility will result in anincrease in the measured level of job-satisfaction.H1b09: Decreased levels of information, active belief, and responsibility will result in adecrease in the measured level of job-satisfaction.Activating the Empowerment ProcessFrequently the process of empowerment is activated by a crisis. The crisis serves to'unfreeze' the situation (Lewin, 1958). This is the first step in the process of change.An example of such an 'unfreezing' crisis could be a career transition. All transitions lackready solutions, while at the same time place demands on the person to cope with newpeople, tasks and situations. Only after the career transition occurs (i.e., the changewhich allows for unfreezing to take place) will the person begin the adaptation andstabilization process. It is during the period of unfreezing that empowerment shouldbegin.Another widespread crisis event which provides opportunities to instigate anempowerment process are economic difficulties. For example, in 1986 when the Ste-Therese General Motors plant was about to be closed down, major changes by both unionand management occurred. Since then, both sides are aware that "a committed work forceand a flexible factory offer the best hope of a future" (Pritchard, 1992:B28). Foreffective empowerment to occur, it is best that the process begin immediately or in closeproximity to the crisis event. Empowerment is an appropriate response to crisis eventssince it is "a process, a mechanism by which people.. .gain mastery over their affairs"(Rappaport, 1987:122).47Companies have generally tried the following three approaches to empowering employees(Kizilos, 1990:49):a)Encourage information sharing, resource sharing and participative management throughformal and informal changes in organization design,b) Encourage employees to examine their own values and beliefs concerning autonomyand behaviour,c) Teach employees to enhance their communication and influencing skills.However, as already suggested, few companies are willing to make the long termcommitment that is necessary for an empowerment process to be successful, and thereis very little work that actually documents empowerment, even in the short-term. It is notwithin the scope of this dissertation to investigate and elaborate on all components of thefull empowerment cycle. Nevertheless, a brief description of how the proposed researchfits within the cycle of empowerment is in order.In general, the empowerment process will most likely occur at the meso and macrolevels, while most of the initial outcomes occur at the micro level (see Figure 2.4). Mostof the overt components of the empowerment process occur in the interactive (meso)realm which is the level at which subordinate-leader interactions occur. For example,Ansari and Kapoor (1987:47) found that how individuals respond to their managersdepends on the interaction between the manager and the individual. They conclude thatindividuals "receive messages and cues from different sources in the social environment,which form the basis for their perception." They also found that individuals vary theirstrategies on the basis of the specific goals they seek—yet another relational issue.For the empowerment process to occur at the meso level, the surrounding structures(macro) must not inhibit their emergence. The results, such as aspects of self-growth, are48first seen within the individual. However, as Torre (1986) suggests, empowerment is aniterative developmental process, involving change at all ecological levels. With time wewill also find the empowerment outcomes at both the meso and macro levels. In otherwords, we will observe a cycle of empowerment.P11: Under the proper conditions (e.g. no structural constraints) empowerment is acyclical process which, with time, will bring change to all levels of theorganization.The empowerment cycle should lead to synergistic outcomes. Empowerment is acommodity that should grow with use; the more the process occurs, the more people willbe affected. Again, with time these effects at the meso level should spread to the macrolevel and affect the organization's structure. This staggered process of outcomedevelopment may be part of the reason why empowerment is such a lengthy process.Empowerment is a continual cycle with interdependence among the different levels (seeFigure 2.4) and for a complete understanding of the empowerment process all levels needto be considered (Rappaport, 1987). However, as the description above suggests, thesereciprocal and interdependent influences (presented in Figure 2.4 as two-headed arrows)are not always active at the same time or to the same extent. For example, in the initialstages of the process, we will probably find that connections A and C are primarily uni-directional from the meso and macro levels to the micro level.P12: The synergistic characteristics of empowerment results in increased levels of thewhole process. In other words, if we were to draw a function of empowerment itwould be an exponential curve.For a complete understanding of the empowerment cycle all three reciprocal relations(i.e., the double headed arrows A, B and C in Figure 2.4) need to be investigated. Sucha study would require a longitudinal investigation at all three levels of analysis. However,49initially we can benefit by exploring the influence of the interactive relational variables(within an individual's work environment) on the individual's intra-psychic and workrelated outcomes.Figure 2.4: The Interactive Nature of the Process of EmpowermentThis would be but the first stage in a stream of research on understanding howempowerment works and the impact it has on individuals and organizations. As weincrease our understanding of the process, we should also explore the influenceempowerment has on the organization's structure (rather than what we focus on now—theinfluence of organizational structure on empowerment), and on the organization's humanresource management practices.However, first we must empirically investigate the influence of the meso level(interactive/relational) on the micro level (intra-psychic mediators) and on the workoutcomes. As described in the next chapter, to control for the multitude of possible50competing hypotheses (i.e., experimental noise), this model will be examined within asimulation setting.51CHAPTER 3METHODDesign OverviewA managerial simulation was used to investigate the empowerment model presented in theprevious section. The hypotheses were tested in a between-subjects, pre-test post-testdesign. The experiment included three groups: a control group and two manipulationgroups. The manipulation groups included an "empowerment" group and a "dis-empowerment" group. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the three groups.The empowerment and dis-empowerment manipulations consisted of manipulatinginformation, active belief, and responsibility within the context of an in-basket simulation.The dependent variables consisted of work outcomes as identified by the in-basket taskdimensions and by a short job satisfaction questionnaire. In addition, the intra-psychicmediators (self-efficacy, self-esteem, and locus of control) were measured prior to andat the very end of the experiment. In total, participants completed three in-baskets duringthree sessions over a span of three weeks. Using Cook and Campbell's (1979) notationthe design was as follows:R^01^02R^01 X1^029R^01^X2^02,,52SubjectsParticipants were recruited from the University of British Columbia MBA studentpopulation. Students were informed, via posters and notices in their mailboxes (or in thecase of the evening MBA students, a mailing to their home address) that they would beprovided with the opportunity to participate in a new "hands-on" experience fordeveloping managerial effectiveness. The initial notice for the program was writtenfollowing Dillman's (1978:165) guidelines for cover letters. Care was taken to composethe letter in a short, catchy, and bias free manner (see Appendix 1).Class announcements of the program were made in early February (1993). During theclass announcements the program was presented as an opportunity provided exclusivelyto the students by the Professional Development Programs and MBA offices inconjunction with researchers from the faculty. Using the table in the pamphlet (seeAppendix 2), the presenter briefly explained and described the several stages of theprogram. Participants were informed that in order to take part in this developmentalexperience they must commit to all three management simulation sessions. In addition,it was explained that only those who completed all three management simulation sessionswould be eligible for the half-day effectiveness workshop and personal feedback. As partof the sign-up process, students were requested to commit to three time slots from theavailable choices as well as to record their phone numbers.In total, it is estimated that all 280 full-time MBA students and approximately half of the160 part-time MBA students were informed directly and provided with an opportunity tosign-up for this program. The remaining portion of the part-time students received theoriginal notice but may not have received a class-time sign-up opportunity. Due to thehigh response rate, participants were encouraged to write more than one preferred time53per session. In total, 189 students signed-up for the program, 177 arrived for the firstsession (6%) attrition, 165 completed the second session (7% attrition), and 135completed the third and final session (18% attrition), for a total attrition rate of 29%.During the last week of the data collection period, it was discovered that the students hadreceived several unexpected assignments, which explains in part the increased attritionrate. The 135 participants who completed all three session had a mean age of 27.13,38% were female and 62% were male.Several important precautions were taken in order to ensure the planned course of thestudy:a. All students received a phone call prior to each upcoming session;b. At the end of each session students were reminded that a master list ofsession appointments was in the room, should they wish to verifytheir next session;c. Two back-up people were trained to step in as data collectionadministrators at any time throughout the program, should the needarise; andd. Participants received a contact number which they could use should theyneed to change their scheduled sessions. Since participants could goto any of the available sessions, regardless of the manipulation groupthey had been randomly assigned to, no complications arose as aresult of the requested session changes.The first and last precautions were very important, especially for the third session.Because of the unexpected time pressure many students felt at school, a higher attritionrate was avoided by being able to recognize the problem and make the necessaryscheduling adjustments.54ProcedureIn general, participants took part in three session over three weeks, for a total of fourhours. In order to increase ecological validity, an attempt was made to simulate as muchas possible, a business setting. Since this program was presented as a MBA-PDPprogram, permission was secured to use the Executive Training facilities for the first twoweeks of the program. Since most of the procedure focuses on the in-basket, adescription of the nature of this instrument will be provided here.In-basket exercises are a popular assessment, training, selection, and research tool(Schippmann et al., 1990). Since the first in-basket exercise was developed byFrederiksen, Saunders, and Wand (1957), this tool has been used in a variety of settingsand has been carefully examined. In general, during an in-basket procedure theindividual is cast in the role of a supervisor or manager of a fictitious organization. Theparticipant is then requested to respond, within a limited time period, to a set of lettersand memos that have accumulated on the fictitious person's desk. Information regardingthe role and the organization are also provided (Tett & Jackson, 1990). Despite thedebate in the literature regarding in-basket validity and reliability (for a review seeSchippmaim et al., 1990), the major weakness of this research and evaluation instrumentseems to be its "complex, tedious scoring process" (Halos, 1992:4), which is also themain impediment to the wide spread use of in-baskets (Hakstian et al., 1986). However,one of the biggest assets of in-baskets as managerial simulation is their high face validity(Hakstian et al., 1986) which makes it easier for subjects to become involved in thesituation and to assume the role presented to them (Crooks, 1968; Hakstian et al., 1986).As a result, "behaviour elicited in this situation is more likely to be a projection of thesubject's usual response in real life" (Crooks, 1968:5). It may be of interest to the readerthat despite the wide and broad use of the in-basket technique, to the extent of the55author's knowledge, this study is the first of its kind to use existing in-basket exercisesto manipulate and compare various organizational variables.In this study, the sensitivity of the in-basket exercise was used to demonstrate the subtleeffects of the manipulation process. In-baskets can be so sensitive that "one item canintroduce stress that will affect responses on all the other items" (Crooks, 1968:5). Forexample, Crooks (1968) describes one in-basket exercise which included a confidentialmemo from the new manager's superior suggesting that the plant was in trouble and wasbeing considered for shutdown. Because the mention of a plant shutdown introduced asignificant bias on subject's responses, the memo was subsequently revised to delete themention of plant shutdown, and instead merely asked the new manager to explore theproblem and come up with a recommendation. This change was enough to substantiallyreduce the bias.Returning to the sequence of events participants experienced in this study: Upon arrivalfor the initial session all participants were greeted and instructed to choose a seat wherepaper clips and blank paper were provided. This approach was used as a method to spacethe participants for maximum comfort. After all participants were seated a briefintroduction was given which reminded them of the sequence of three sessions and of thetask they would be doing as well as some of the benefits they could receive. Participantsthen received their individualized envelopes (each person had an envelope allocated tothem, with his or her name on it) and were instructed to begin with "Packet 1." Packet1 included, a request for confidentiality and consent, demographic information (in orderto determine whether there were any cultural biases), a short written description puttingthe participant in a specific organizational setting which was essentially a summary of the56role s/he would be assuming during the simulation sessions6, and mediator scales (anamalgamation of self-efficacy, self-esteem, and locus of control instruments). (Acomplete version of Packet 1 is presented in Appendix 14.) After all participantscompleted this packet they were instructed to begin with the in-basket exercise, for whicha total of 45 minutes was allotted.This procedure was essentially repeated for all three sessions. The only differencebetween the first and second sessions was that the second session was shorter, sinceparticipants completed only a 45 minute in-basket exercise which was a continuation ofthe first simulation session. At the end of the second session, participants were remindednot to talk with others about these sessions. In addition, they were reminded that thethird session would be longer and would be the critical one for their feedback evaluations.At the beginning of the third session, participants were again reminded that this was thecritical in-basket and the instructions were read aloud. To ensure confidentiality, the in-basket was placed in an unmarked envelope inside a personalized one. The in-basketswere later numbered and then scored. The procedure for the last in-basket also differedin that participants were provided with the company's memo paper.After participants completed the in-basket exercise, they were informed where they couldsign-up for the feedback session as well as for the final workshop. Next, they wereinstructed to begin with "Packet 2" which was in their individualized envelopes. Thispacket included the in-basket's participant report form, the mediator questionnaire, andthe manipulation check. (A complete version of Packet 2 is presented in Appendix 15.)Participants who completed all three sessions were reminded of the opportunity to6 The purpose of this description was to ensure that the items tapping into the mediatingvariables would be doing so at the appropriate level, while at the same time not giving them toomuch information so as not to influence the manipulation.57participate in a Managerial Effectiveness Workshop, as well as receiving their personalfeedback information. During the half-day Managerial Effectiveness Workshopparticipants were fully debriefed. This debriefing included a description of the study aswell as a presentation of the theory examined in this dissertation. In addition, twoconsultants related the in-basket experience and the empowerment process to theirexperiences in the corporate world. Overall, based on the ratings participants gave boththe workshop and the program as a whole, they were satisfied with both the experienceand the learning that had occurred. On a 5 point scale, anchored by "Deficient" (=1)and "Excellent" (=5), 24 workshop participants (from a total of 29)7 gave theEffectiveness Workshop a mean rating of 4.35 (SD= .52). These participants alsoevaluated the simulation sessions with a mean rating of 3.88 (SD = .59). (A copy of theevaluation form is presented in Appendix 16.) In addition, the overall comments thatparticipants reported at the end of the third session, and before the workshop or personalfeedback were provided, were quite positive (question #8 in Appendix 10). Prevalentwere comments relating to the relevance and insight gained from the in-basket items. Forexample, statements such as the following were common:"I found them (the in-baskets) useful and realistic...they gave an indicationof some of the constraints for managers. The program will also beuseful in terms of possible attendance at assessment centres.""I don't have any previous experience and this was a great learningexperience.""Very interesting, reminds me a little of my job except more intense...Iliked it.""Excellent, very good opportunity to see how I responded to timeconstraints and difficult situations.""(I) got a feel of what it is like to be a manager in a large corporation.""Exhausting."7 The relatively small number of workshop participants was due to the fact that it wasprovided after all students completed their final exams by which time many people had left town.58ManipulationThe manipulation for empowerment or dis-empowerment was embedded within the threein-basket exercises. The first two in-baskets were modified combinations of two existingin-basket exercises—creativity (Shaky, 1991) and risk (Tse et al., 1988). These twowere chosen because they differ in their format from the Organizational PerformanceDimensions (OPD) exercise, which was used in the final session and therefore they wouldnot "prime" participants for the third and final in-basket. The third, and last, exercisewas the in-basket in which the dependent variables (job satisfaction and workperformance) were measured. This in-basket was developed by OrganizationalPerformance Dimensione; its psychometric properties are reported in the Measuressection. To increase face validity and to ensure that participants did not recognize thatthe three in-baskets were developed separately, continuity was built into the three sessionsby modifying the in-baskets so that names, rank, and situations fit a commonorganization. In addition, an attempt was made to vary the writing styles in the memos,including the use of colloquialism, so as to enhance the sense of realism.Participants took part in three simulations in order to emulate the passage of time, whichas suggested in chapter 1 is critical to the process of empowerment. Manipulations wereimbedded in all three in-baskets (i.e. they occurred throughout the three sessions). In thelast session most of the manipulations were developed by adding items which did notdirectly affect the in-basket items which were being evaluated. In other words, themanipulations in the forms of information, responsibility, or active belief were presentedso there was no relation between them and the decision the participant needed to makeon any one specific in-basket item. As a result, the manipulation groups had slightly81 would like to thank Organizational Performance Dimensions for their generous assistancein allowing me to use their in-basket exercise for my dissertation research.59longer in-baskets. For this reason the control group received a short article from PCMagazine so that they were kept "busy" while the two manipulation groups read throughthe additional memos. The manipulations were developed as coming both from peoplewho were above and below the individual in the organizational hierarchy. Themanipulations included providing or censoring general company information, sharing orwithholding responsibility, and actively providing or reserving indications of trust, faith,and belief in the person's knowledge and abilities. Some of the manipulations were quiteexplicit while others were developed primarily using style of response. As a sample, thefirst of the three sessions can be found in Appendix 13.Overall, there were multiple manipulations for each of the three components (information,responsibility, and active belief). In the first session the manipulation occurred 18 timesduring the one hour session. In the second session the manipulation occurred 21 timesduring the 45 minute session. In the last session the manipulation occurred 27 timesduring the 90 minute session, as well as every time a memo was written. This lastmanipulation was created by preparing different memos for each of the manipulationgroups. Every time the participant wrote a memo a manipulation occurred because in thedis-empowered group, participants were forced to cross out the former incumbent's nameand to write in their own, while in the empowerment group they had their ownpersonalized memo paper. Since the dependent variables were measured by participants'performance on this third in-basket, manipulation items were placed towards thebeginning of the simulation so that they would have an impact on the entire set of items,and not on only one or two of the items.As part of developing the manipulation it was both pre-tested and pilot-tested. First thepurpose and process of the pre-test will be described and then the reader will be presentedwith a brief description of the pilot-test.60Pre-testThe purpose of the pre-test sample was to show discriminant validity and to alleviate anyconcern that the manipulation items were drawing upon constructs other than the onesthey were supposed to manipulate. In other words, this pre-test sample was intended toverify that items used in the manipulation truly represented the three categories of activebelief, information, and responsibility. To confirm their association with these categoriesa technique similar to the Q-sort methodology was employed. Two expert judges werechosen. One of the judges was a faculty member in the area of organizational behaviourfrom an American university in the Pacific Northwest. The other judge was a middlemanager with a large American software company. A sample of the manipulation itemswas randomly selected and each manipulation set (where a set included both theempowered and the dis-empowered version of an item) was presented on a separate sheetof paper. In addition, items were developed for three "bogus" categories (mood, values,and goal setting) and these items were added to the pool of manipulation sets. In total,each judge received 33 item sets, an organizational chart representing the organization'sstructure, and definitions for all six categories. The definitions were as follows:1) Mood: A frame of mind or state of feeling during a particular time (from theAmerican College Dictionary),2) Values: Guiding principles or ideals (from the American College Dictionary),3) Information: Knowledge communicated or received concerning some fact orcircumstance,4) Responsibility: What one has when they are in charge of making something happen.Can be as a result of an external assignment or as a result of personal choice orfeeling,5) Active Belief: Faith, optimism, implicit encouragement, and positive expectations, allreceived from others,6) Goal Setting: The process of developing, negotiating, and formalizing the targets orobjectives that an employee is asked to accomplish (from Schermerhorn et al.,1991:201).Prior to conducting the sorting task the judges received written instructions and an61example. The instructions were as follows:Attached you will find a number of items addressed to J. Carter. Each itemis representative of a memo one may receive at work from a variety ofdifferent people, and is expressed in two different ways. Please place eachset of items in one of the six categories which you have in front of you.Each set of items is related to one of the six categories. Choose thecategory which you think identifies the issue on which the two items in eachset differ from J. Carter's point of view. Note that sometimes thedifferences are subtle and may take careful reading and thought to identifythe appropriate category. You may also find that the difference is that oneof the two items relates strongly to one of the categories, while the otherdoes not. In other words, the difference may be that one item clearlyrelates to one of the categories (i.e. contains some element of it) while theother lacks in it. In a few instances you will only receive one item. Placethe item in the category it fits best. Always keep in mind the receiver's (J.Carter's) point of view, rather than that of the sender.Initially each judge independently sorted all items into the six categories with which theywere presented. During the second stage, the judges met together and in the researcher'spresence discussed their choices and made the final sort. The judges were carefullyinstructed that they must achieve consensus on where to place each item set. Theresearcher's role was to ensure that the process of achieving consensus was followed andthat no bartering, bargaining, or swapping occurred between the two.The results of the Q-sort on the random sample of manipulation items verifieddiscriminant validity. Except for one item, which subsequently was thrown out, allmanipulation items were sorted into the categories as expected by the items' developer.Not surprisingly, the judges sometimes identified that some of the items developed forthe three original manipulation categories (information, active belief, and responsibility)also related to the additional categories of mood, goal setting, and values. However, theitems developed for the three additional categories were never identified as belonging toone of the study's original categories. In other words, the study's three categories may62sometimes trigger additional constructs such as mood. However, since the competingconstructs (goal setting, mood, and values) never triggered the core categories, it is safeto say that overall these constructs are significantly distinct.In addition to demonstrating that the manipulation items represented the categories forwhich they had been developed and were distinctly different from other categories, as aresult of observing the negotiation process between the expert judges, some of the itemswere slightly re-worded, and a few additional items were added to the manipulation.Pilot StudyPh.D. and recently-graduated MBA students were recruited for the pilot tests. Thesegroups were selected, rather than current MBA students, so as not to reduce the potentialMBA student population size. As suggested by Dillman (1978), part of the pilot sampleincluded colleagues who knew of the general topic area. Specialists in the areas ofOrganizational Behaviour, in-basket development and scoring, as well as in ManagementInformation Systems (the simulated organization's area of specialization was related tocomputers) were part of the pilot sample. In addition, because English as a secondlanguage (ESL) students comprise a significant percentage of the University of BritishColumbia MBA student population, a Ph.D. ESL student was also included in the pilotstudy. In total, nine people participated in the pilot study during two separate rounds.After the two pilot studies were completed participants took part in a group discussionon the experiment and were also individually interviewed at length by the investigator.As a result of the pilot study, several minor changes were made to the procedure for themain study:63a. One of the manipulation items was changed from inviting the person to a squash gameto inviting them to lunch (so as not to give non-squash players a sense ofexclusion),b. One of the manipulation items was re-written so that it would be clearer, andc. Rather than using blank paper, Servcom memo paper was prepared for the thirdsession.The results of the pilot study indicated that on all dimensions (change in the mediators,manipulation check, and performance on the in-basket) the two experimental groups (i.e.,empowered versus dis-empowered) differed significantly in the expected directions.Considering the small size of the pilot study, the strength of the results were encouraging.Except for one outlier, the results of all participants were as predicted.MeasuresMediating VariablesIn this study three mediating variables were investigated: self-esteem, locus of control,and self-efficacy. All mediating variable instruments were presented after participantsreceived a short description of the role they would be assuming. These three mediatorswere chosen since there are good measurement scales that have been widely used andwell documented. For all three constructs, pre-existing, validated, and reliableinstruments with a Cronbach alpha value of over .6 (the value recommended by Nunnally,1978) were chosen.Self- EsteemIn a comprehensive review of the employee self-esteem literature, Tharenou (1979:317)64used Coopersmith's (1977) definition of self-esteem: "...the evaluation which theindividual makes and customarily maintains with regard to the self: it expresses anattitude of approval or disapproval, and indicates the extent to which the individualbelieves the self to be capable, significant, successful and worthy." Self-esteem can beglobal (a general evaluation), specific (to a situation or role), and task specific(competence in a particular activity). Since the purpose of this study was an investigationof people in the context of their workplace, a measure of self-esteem in the context of theorganization (i.e., a specific measure of self esteem) was chosen. The measure used wasthe Pierce et al., (1989) Organization-Based Self-Esteem (OBSE) scale. This scaleconsists of 10 items and is presented in Appendix 4. The OBSE scale was chosen bothfor the level of analysis at which it examines self-esteem and for its psychometricproperties. The OBSE scale has an internal consistency of .91 and a test-retest reliabilityof .87. This specific level of self-esteem is appropriate because it is the same level atwhich the experimental manipulation occurred.Locus of ControlLocus of control is the causal relationship a person associates between his/her behaviourand an event or outcome. If an individual attributes an outcome to luck, fate, orpowerful others, the person is considered to have an external locus of control. However,if the person believes that the outcome was a result of his/her owncharacteristics/behaviour, they are considered to have an internal locus of control (Rotter,1966).The locus of control scale used here was a modified version of the Spheres of ControlScale (Paulhus & Christie, 1981), in its latest version SOC3 (Paulhus & Selst, 1990).This scale assesses three components of perceived control: personal control, interpersonalcontrol, and socio-political control. However, in this study only the first two components65of perceived control were assessed and the items were re-worded so as to assess personaland interpersonal control in an organizational setting. For the personal control sub-scaleitems were simply re-worded to focus on the fictitious organization. However, theinterpersonal control sub-scale was re-worded to focus more generally on organizationalsettings. This more general focus on organizational settings was thought to be necessarybecause the social nature of the interpersonal control sub-scale may result in too jarringa contrast with the limited information available to the participants. These minor changesdid not have a significant impact on the scale's properties (Paulhus, 1992)9. It wasassumed that the sociopolitical control scale, unlike the personal and interpersonal controlscales, would not change as a result of the manipulation, so as a result, this sub-scale wasnot included. Typically, the SOC scale is administered with questions from the sub-scalesintermixed. Here, the items from the SOC two sub-scales were intermixed with itemsfrom the other mediating variable instruments. The SOC scale's items (presented inAppendix 5) are rated on a 7 point scale. The SOC scale has a test-retest correlation of0.8 at 4 weeks, an alpha reliability of 0.8, and has been shown to measure separatedomains of the general construct of perceived control.Self-EfficacySelf-efficacy differs from self-esteem and locus of control. Self-esteem is considered tobe a trait reflecting a person's affective self-evaluation. Locus of control is a belief aboutthe general causal relationship between actions and outcomes. Self-efficacy is a judgmentabout one's capability (Gist et al., 1991); it is the person's expectation about whether theycan "successfully execute the behaviour required to produce the outcome" (Bandura,1977: 192). Key to the mediating role self-efficacy has in the process of empowerment9 When instrument modification was necessary the following guidelines were adhered to: (1).keeping the items simple, to insure that all participants will understand them equally, and (2).refraining from placing potentially difficult and/or threatening questions first (Rossi et al., 1983:212,220). Updated Cronbach alpha reliability scores are reported in the "Results" section.66is that it "affects coping and perseverance in the face of obstacles" (Gist et al.,1991:840).In this study, scales for generalized self-efficacy (GSE) were used. Generalized self-efficacy is a person's expectation that he/she can perform well across a wide range ofsituations (Tipton & Worthington, 1984). The self-efficacy scale used here is the Shereret al. (1982) general self-efficacy scale and is presented in Appendix 6. This GSE scaleconsists of 17 items rated on 5 point scales, with a Cronbach alpha reliability coefficientof .86. Construct and criterion validities were also shown to be acceptable (Sherer et al.,1982). In one of the validity tests (Sherer & Adams, 1983) a mean of 64.31 and a SDof 8.58 were obtained. These GSE scale items appeared intermixed with the othermediator items in the questionnaire.Dependent VariablesIn this study the dependent variables of interest were work satisfaction as well as eightfacets of work performance. The eight work performance variables were measured usingan in-basket task's scales. These measures were gathered during the participants' thirdmeeting, in which the participant completed a full in-basket. The results of theirperformance on the in-basket constituted the dependent measures for work performance.The specific in-basket used here to measure the dependent variables is entitled the"Servcom Corporation," and is produced by Organizational Performance Dimensions.This simulation has a high inter-rater reliability of .93 and a criterion-related validity withsupervisory performance ratings of r= .27.10 In this 90 minute exercise participants'° The validity coefficient, which may seem low at first glance, is at the high end of a rangeof -.25 to .36 found by Schippmann et al., (1990) in their review of in-basket performancemeasures. Since, as should be the case with laboratory studies involving simulation (Campbell& Stanley, 1966) the goal of this study is not to provide external generalizability, but rather, totest my model of empowerment, a validity coefficient of .27 is satisfactory.67assume the role of a new manager, and with the aid of background information on theorganization, respond to 23 letters, memos, reports, requests, and problems that haveaccumulated on their predecessor's desk. (An example is presented in Appendix 7.)Participants need to make decisions, take actions, delegate responsibility, write letters,initiate meetings, assign work, plan, organize, and schedule activities based on thematerial in the in-basket. In addition, upon completion of the in-basket, they arerequested to fill out a 15-minute participant report form. This in-basket exercisemeasures a total of eight work performance dimensions from three different areas.Means, standard deviations, and scoring range for each of the eight work performancedimensions can be found in Appendix 12. These dimensions and areas as defined by thein-basket's author (Nowack, 1988) are summarized below:1) Personal/Interpersonal:Initiative - The individual takes action and makes decisions without waiting for directionfrom others.Sensitivity - The individual takes action and makes decisions that show consideration forthe feelings and needs of others.2) Administrative:Planning, Organizing, and Scheduling - Effective scheduling of time and activities, aswell as establishing a course of action in order to accomplish specific goals.Delegation - Allocating the necessary authority and resources to subordinates so that theycan accomplish a task, assignment, or project.Administrative Control - Developing procedures to monitor and evaluate the progress ofjob activities, tasks, and delegated assignments on a regular basis.683) Decision Making:Problem analysis - Accurately defining a problem, determining possible causes, analyzinginformation relevant to the problem, and determining alternative solutions toresolve the problem.Judgement - Making decisions of high quality and considering alternative courses ofaction based on available information.Decisiveness - Ability and willingness to make a decision, render judgements, or takeactions when required.In-baskets were scored using a scoring key developed by Organizational PerformanceDimensions. This scoring key provides the raters with a series of over 100 guidingquestions that are grouped by the eight dimensions. Once all relevant questions areaddressed, the total score for each dimension is tallied. For each question an individualcan receive full points, half points, or none at all. For example, one of the questionsrelated to Sensitivity is: "Was an attempt made to respond to the phone call in a prompt,courteous, and sensitive manner?" If the participant responded to this in-basket item byrequesting that one of his/her subordinates call the person and politely explain thesituation, the participant would receive one point. However, if in their request theparticipant did not give any guidelines as to how the call should be dealt with, other thanthat it should be answered immediately, the question would only receive half a mark. Ifthere was no reference to speed or to how the issue should be dealt with no points wouldbe awarded. All the in-baskets were scored by two judges who were trained for over 40hours until they achieved an inter-rater reliability of .98 and a mean intra-rater reliabilityof .94.The satisfaction variable was measured after participants completed the in-basket in thethird session. At the same time that respondents were asked to complete the mediator69scale items at the end of the third session, they also completed a short four-item jobsatisfaction scale. All of these mediator and satisfaction items were presented to theparticipants within a single questionnaire. The four-item job satisfaction scale has beensuccessfully used previously, and all four items are established facet-free indicators ofgeneral job satisfaction (Tymon, 1988:60). This job satisfaction scale has a Cronbachalpha reliability coefficient of .87 and is presented in Appendix 11.The first three job satisfaction items, taken from Hackman and Oldham (1980), have a7-point scale response category, anchored by "Agree" (=1) and "Disagree" ( =7). Thefourth item from Quinn and Mangione (1973) asks whether subjects would take the jobagain, knowing what they now know. This item has five responses: I would definitelytake the job again; I would probably take the job again; I am not sure if I would take thejob again; I would probably not take the job again; I would definitely not take the jobagain.In the next chapter the results of this procedure will be presented.70CHAPTER 4RESULTSIn this chapter the results of the analysis will be presented and evaluated in relation to thehypotheses introduced in Chapter 2. However, before these results are offered, statisticsdescribing the participants and the instruments used, as well as the results of themanipulation checks, will be presented.Descriptive InformationParticipantsAs mentioned earlier, 135 participants completed all three sessions. Of the 135, 51(37.8%) were female and 83 (61.5%) were male (one participant did not report gender).The mean age was 27.12 years and 43 % of the participants were first year MBAstudents, 39.3 % were second year MBA students, and 17.7% were evening MBAstudents. Of the 109 participants who reported full time work-experience, 33% hadworked for less than two years, 9.2% reported having worked for more than eight years,and the rest of the participants had between two and eight years of full time work-experience. In addition, participants were asked to report their part-time workexperience. Of the 105 who responded, 28.6% reported having worked part-time for lessthan two years, 18.1% reported working part-time for more than eight years, and the resthad between two and eight years of part-time experience. The relatively low responserate on these two work-related questions may be explained in part by their open-endedformat, which the participants seemed more likely to omit in comparison to the multiplechoice format.71All participants were randomly assigned to the three conditions. At the end of thesimulation there were 47 participants in the control group, 46 in the empowerment group,and 42 in the dis-empowerment group who had participated and completed all threesessions. The overall attrition rate of 29% over the duration of the entire study wasevenly distributed across the three groups. Given that participants were initially randomlydistributed to all three groups and the attrition was evenly distributed across the threegroups, it would seem that the manipulation had no effect on the attrition rate per group.Therefore, we can conclude that attrition would not have caused a confound with theindependent variable.Manipulation ChecksAt the end of the last session participants answered seven manipulation check items.Statistical analysis of this data indicated that these items had a Cronbach alpha reliabilityscore of .85 which is well above the acceptable value recommended by Nunnally (1978).A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) by treatment group was used to testwhether there were significant differences between the three groups on the manipulationcheck items. A significant difference was detected (waken A = . 267,F(14,250)=16.67, p < .001). These results indicate that the manipulation was successful,inasmuch as the participants experienced the empowerment/dis-empowerment treatmentsas expected. Since the omnibus MANOVA was significant, the univariate ANOVA testswere conducted and are presented in Table 4.1. As shown in Table 4.1, six out of theseven manipulation check items (which are presented in Appendix 10) were significant11 The Wilks' Lambda is a likelihood ratio statistic that tests the likelihood of the data underthe assumption of equal population mean vectors for all groups against the likelihood under theassumption that population mean vectors are identical to those of the sample mean vectors forthe different groups (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989:398).72at least at the p < .01 level. The exception was the manipulation check of motivation,where the three treatment groups did not differ significantly from one another.Nevertheless, the overall results of the manipulation check indicate that the treatmentgroups differed on the manipulated aspects of the simulations.Anecdotal support for the strength of the manipulation was also found during the half-dayManagerial Effectiveness Workshop. During the workshop, participants were encouragedto speculate on the nature of the study. None of the responses correctly identified thetopic. (Some of the ideas about the possible nature of the study included decision-making,time-management, and identifying differences between first-year and second-year MBAstudents.) However, after the purpose of the study was described and participants wereasked to identify which group they had been in, those in the empowered and dis-empowered group did so with no difficulty.Table 4.1: Univariate F-tests for Manipulation Check ItemsItems df F PQl-Information 2/131 5.08 .01Q2-Responsibility 2/131 31.43 .001Q3-Trust and respect 2/131 132.26 .001Q4-Support 2/131 75.44) .001QS-Empowered 2/131 75.71 .001Q6-Like to work for 2/131 19.21 .001_ Q7-Motivated to do my best 2/131 .28 n/s73Mediating VariablesThe mediating variables were measured using pre-existing intra-psychic scales. Scalereliability scores are reported in Table 4.2.Table 4.2: Cronbach Alpha Reliability Scores for Mediator ScalesReported Cronbach Alpha Cronbach Alpha Ti(pre-manipulation)Cronbach Alpha T2(post-manipulation)Org. Based Self-Esteem .91 (Pierce et al., 1989) .85 .94Self-Efficacy .86 (Sherer et al., 1982) .77 .88Locus of Control, Personal Not reported for new version .68 .88Locus of Control, Interpersonal Not reported for new version .74 .84Locus of Control, All .80 (Paulhus & Selst, 1990) .83 .92The mediating intra-psychic variable hypotheses were tested using multivariate analysisof variance (MANOVA). This was prefaced, however, by an evaluation of the validityof the MANOVA assumptions. Overall, a sample with more than 20 degrees of freedomper cell is considered to assure multivariate normality of the sampling distribution onmeans, even with unequal sample sizes (Tabachnick & Fide11, 1989). Further, thevariable distributions were plotted, suggesting that there was no cause for concern overthe issues of normality or linearity. In addition, no extreme outliers were found(p <0.05). Univariate homogeneity of variance was also examined using the sensitiveBartlett-Box test which failed to reject homogeneity of variance for each of the fourmediating variables (p >0.05). Similarly, the Box's M test (Box's M test =24.744,F(20,59786)=1.182, p= .258) indicated that there is no violation of the homogeneity ofdispersion matrices assumption. Bartlett's test of sphericity (Bartlett sphericity test (6)74= 218.726, p < .001) suggested that the variables were not independent and that usingmultivariate techniques was appropriate. The same was true for these variables after themanipulations had occurred cr2) (Bartlett sphericity test (6) = 278.044, p < .001).However, for T2 (i.e., after the manipulations) the sensitive Box's M test rejected theassumption of homogeneity, and instead the variances of each treatment group werecompared so as to confirm that the ratio between the largest and the smallest variance wasless than 20:1 (Neter et al., 1990; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). In fact, the largest ratiowas about 4:1 for the Locus of Control—Personal Control on the dis-empowered groupversus Organizational Based Self-Esteem on the empowered group.Two multivariate analysis of variance tests were performed on the mediating variables.The first MANOVA looked at the participants' scores on all mediating variables observedat the very beginning of the simulation (Ti). No significant effect was found Milks A= .965, F(8,256) = .562, p= .808). This result was expected since participants had beenrandomly assigned to the three treatment groups and at Ti no manipulation had yetoccurred. However, the MANOVA test using data collected after the manipulations hadoccurred was significant (Wilks A = .568, F(8,250)=10.21, p < .001). Since theomnibus MANOVA was significant univariate tests were conducted and found to besignificant at least at the p < .05 level for every one of the mediating variables. Intra-psychic variable means and standard deviations are presented in Table 4.3, and the resultsof the univariate tests can be found in Table 4.4.All univariate tests shown in Table 4.4 were significant, and the differences between thegroup means shown in Table 4.3 were all in the expected directions (i.e., empowered >control > dis-empowered). Therefore, post-hoc Scheffe's multiple range tests wereexecuted on all the intra-psychic variables at T2 to determine which of these differencesbetween group means were statistically significant.75Substantial support was obtained for Hypothesis Hla, which stated that increased levelsof information, active belief, and responsibility would result in a significant increase inthe three measured intra-psychic mediators (self-esteem, self-efficacy, and locus ofcontrol). The mean scores of the empowered group on the three intra-psychic mediatorswere found to be significantly higher than the mean scores of the dis-empowered group(p < .01). However, the mean scores for the empowered group on the three intra-psychicmediator variables were only slightly greater than the mean scores for the controlgroup, and while these differences between the empowered and control groups were inthe expected direction, they were not found to be statistically significant.Hypothesis H1 aw was well supported, since decreased levels of information, active belief,and responsibility resulted in a decrease in the three measured intra-psychic mediators(self-esteem, self-efficacy, and locus of control). For all three of the variables (self-esteem, self-efficacy, and locus of control), the mean scores of the dis-empowered groupwere significantly lower than the mean scores of the empowered group (p < .01 andp < .05 for self-efficacy). For two of the three variables (self-esteem and locus ofcontrol), the mean scores of the dis-empowered group were also significantly lower thanthose of the control group (p < .01). Only for the self-efficacy variable was the mean ofthe dis-empowered group (66.80) not significantly less than the mean for the controlgroup (68.82); however, this statistically non-significant difference was in the expecteddirection.Intercorrelations among the intra-psychic mediators are presented in Table 4.5.76Table 4.3: Mediator Means and Standard Deviations for Both Time 1 and Time 2Variable ,Time! Time 2Emp Control Dis Emp Control DisMean(sd)Mean(sd)Mean(ad)Mean(ad)Mean(ad)Mean(ad)Org. Based Self-Esteem 43.19 41.80 43.00 44.60 42.27 33.23(3.71) (5.28) (4.65) (4.45) (6.16) (8.47)Self-Efficacy 68.79 67.65 67.54 71.86 68.82 66.80(5.68) (7.66) (6.51) (6.96) (8.39) (7.82)Loc. of Control, Personal 49.60 48.80 48.85 51.06 49.71 42.07(4.99) (5.58) (5.83) (5.86) (5.39) (10.32)Loc. of Control, Interpersonal 55.71 54.46 55.73 56.65 55.61 50.39(5.86) (6.45) (6.97) (5.71) (7.36) (9.53)Loc. of Control, All' 105.32 103.28 104.70 107.71 105.33 92.68(9.92) (11.40) (11.83) (10.86) (11.86) (18.96)Table 4.4: Univariate F-tests for Mediating Variables. Time 2Variable df F pOrg. Based Self-Esteem 2/128 38.45 .001Self-Efficacy 2/128 4.55 .012Loc. of Control, Personal 2/128 18.12 .001Loc. of Control, Interpersonal 2/128 8.61 .00112 The combined score of both the Personal and Interpersonal scales is reported for theinterest of the reader. However, due to their distinct nature (Paulhus & Se15t, 1990) the focusthroughout the remainder of this discussion will be on the scores of the separate dimensions.77Table 4.5: Mediator Intercorrelations for all ObservationsOrg. Based Self-Esteem TiOrg. Based Self-Esteem T2Self-Efficacy TiSelf-Efficacy T2LOC, Personal Control TiLOC, Interpersonal Control TiLOC, All TiLOC, Personal Control T2LOC, Interpersonal Control T2LOC, All T2OBSE Ti1.0000.1846.5299**47545*.6146**.5296**.6145**.3052**.2829**.31091*OBSE T21.0000.2646*.5728**.3062**.3207**.3395**.7526".69281*.7642**SE Ti1.0000.6262**.5619**.5951**.6269**.3342**.3228**.34'72**SE T21.00003475**.5321**.5828**.6518**.63711*.6811**LOC PC Ti1.0000•7094**.91051*.4611**•3945**.45261*LOC IC Ti1.0000.9374**.3838**.5204.•.47671*LOC ALL T11.0000.4531**.5003**.5034**LOC PC T21.0000.7910**.9478**LOC IC T21.0000.9448**LOC All T21.0000N=1301-tailed Signif: • - p < .01 11 - p < .001Ti = Time 1, pre-manipulationT2 = Time 2, post-manipulationLOC = Locus of Control78Table 4.6: Correlations Among Mediating and Dependent VariablesInitiative Sensitivity Planning &OrganizingDelegation AdminControlProblemAnalysisJudgement Decisive Z-scoreJob-StfnOrg Based Self-Esteem Ti -.0815 .0507 -.0187 , .0310 -.0216 , -.0455 -.0287 .0551 -.1981Self-Efficacy Ti .0856 .2339* .0060 .1622 .1332 .0360 .0377 .1775 -.2377*LOC, Personal Control T1 .0236 .2190* .1191 .1003 .1162 -.0025 .0023 .2125* -.2584*LOC, Interpersonal Control Ti .0985 .2084* .1426 .1360 .1339 .0614 .0838 .2233* -.2444*LOC, All Ti .0695 .2306* .1425 .1294 .1360 .0348 .0503 .2360* -.2710**Org Based Self-Esteem T2 .0382 .0624 -.0097 .0905 .0734 -.1387 .0931 .0730 -.6726**Self-Efficacy T2 .1428 .1879 .0496 .2122* .1324 .0385 .1058 .1960 -.4672**LOC, Personal Control T2 .1040 .1516 .0673 , .1639 .1610 -.0365 .0760 .1606 -.7171**LOC, Interpersonal Control T2 .0970 .1497 .0887 .1087 .1935 .0448 .1381 .1845 -.6112**LOC, All T2 .1062 .1592 .0822 .1444 .1871 .0038 .1126 .1821 -.7028**N=1301-tailed signif: * - p< .01^** - p < .001Ti = Time 1 (pre-manipulation)T2 = Time 2 (post-manipulation)LOC = Locus of Control79Table 4.7: Performance Measures IntercorrelationsInitiativeSensitivityPlanningDelegationAdmin. ControlProblem AnalysisJudgementDecisiveTotalInitiative1.0000.5738**.4748**.3690**.5842**.6156**.7233**.7191**.8105**Sensitivity1.0000.3194**•3364**.4467**.4046**.4754**.6287**.6216**Planning1.0000.2059*.3035**.5649**.5392**.5104**.7252**Delegation1.0000.2995**.3176**.3471**.4278**.4975**Admin.Control1.0000.4614**.4499**.5503**A5191**ProblemAnalysis1.0000.5571**.6135**.8386**Judgement1.0000.7029**.8283**Decisive1.0000.8674**Total1.0000N=1351-tailed Signif: * - .01^** _ .00180Dependent VariablesTo determine whether there were significant differences among the means of the threegroups in terms of the dependent variables, the Performance measures were analyzedusing multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), in order to take into account theinterrelations among the variables. The Job Satisfaction measure was analyzed usinganalysis of variance (ANOVA). Intercorrelations among the mediating and dependentvariables are presented in Table 4.6, and intercorrelations for the Performance measuresare in Table 4.7.The validity of the multivariate assumptions was examined. As mentioned earlier, asample with more than 20 degrees of freedom is considered to assure multivariatenormality of the sampling distribution on means, even with unequal sample sizes(Tabachnick & Fide11, 1989). Further, the individual variable distributions were plottedand it was found that there was no cause for concern over the issues of normality orlinearity. In addition, no extreme outliers were found (p < .05). Univariate homogeneityof variance for each variable was examined using the Bartlett-Box test, which failed toreject homogeneity of variance (p = .068). The sensitive Box's M multivariate test forhomogeneity of dispersion matrices (Box's M = 100.016, F(17,47671)=1.26, p = .06)indicated that there was no violation of multivariate homogeneity. Bartlett's test ofsphericity (Bartlett sphericity test (28) = 501.96, p < .001) suggested that the variableswere not independent (i.e., there was homoscedasticity).A MANOVA test was performed on all eight Performance measures (Initiative,Sensitivity, Planning, Delegation, Administrative-control, Problem-solving, Judgement,and Decisiveness) for the three treatment groups (empowerment, control, and dis-empowerment). Variable means and standard deviations can be found in Table 4.8. The81omnibus MANOVA test did not show significant multivariate effects. The Wilks' Acriterion of .874, F(16,250) = 1.08, was not significant (p> .37). The results of theunivariate tests can be found in Table 4.9. Thus Hypotheses Hlb(1 to 8) and Hlb(1)(1to 8) were not supported; increasing or decreasing levels of information, active belief,and responsibility did not result in significant differences on the performance measures.Table 4.8: Descriptive Statistics for the Performance Measures Dimension Empowerment Control Dis-Empowerment Total Sample Scoring RangeMean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Range Min,MaxInitiative 3.83 2.17 4.65 1.67 4.52 1.95 4.33 1.96 0-12 0,^8.5Sensitivity 4.68 2.22 5.45 2.12 5.29 2.12 5.14 2.16 0-15 .5, 11Planning 27.02 8.10 29.36 5.23 27.58 6.92 28.01 6.86 0-45 6, 43Delegation 6.89 3.29 7.50 3.85 6.42 3.34 6.95 3.51 0-29 0,^17Admin. Control 7.08 2.97 8.03 2.55 7.63. 2.72 7.58 2.76 0-21 1,^15Problem-Analysis 20.26 11.02 25.74 8.62 26.19 10.50 24.01 10.36 0-64 0, 48Judgement 20.19 8.04 22.78 7.31 21.59 6.99 21.53 7.49 0-60 4, 38Decisiveness 19.26 8.60^_ 21.70 6.08 20.80 7.70 20.59 7.53 0-44 0, 42Table 4.9: Univariate F-tests for Performance MeasuresVariable F d.f. pInitiative 2.36 2/132 .098Sensitivity 1.64 2/132 .197Planning 1.47 2/132 .232Delegation 1.04 2/132 .355Admin Control 1.37 2/132 .256Problem-Analysis 4.85 2/132 .009Judgement 1.39 2/132 .250Decisiveness 1.24 2/132 .29082To ensure that these results were not influenced by the lack of participants' ability on thein-basket exercise, it was important to investigate whether participants performedadequately on these measures. Thus, the participants' means and standard deviations onthe eight measures were compared with the developer's anchor group (which arepresented in Appendix 12). As expected, the MBA participants scored very similarly tothe norm group. In addition, despite the fact that the participants were randomlyallocated to the treatment groups, an additional analysis was undertaken to verify thatparticipants' ability did not significantly differ by treatment group and thus, confound theresults. In order to do so, participants' work-experience was used as a proxy for abilityto perform on a managerial exercise.For the above reason, two MANCOVA tests were performed; one used full-time workexperience and the other used part-time work experience as covariates. With the use ofthe Wilks' criterion it was found that both the full-time and part-time variables did notsignificantly covary with the dependent measures of performance (Wilks A = .916,F(8,98) = 1.11, p> .363 and Wilks A = .861, F(8,94) = 1.88, p> .071). Thus, it wasconcluded that work-experience did not significantly influence the results of themanipulation.The model presented in Chapter 2 suggested two sets of dependent variables. The firstset of dependent variables, Performance measures, have been examined above. Now wewill turn our attention to the Job Satisfaction dependent variable. Since the items werenot measured on the same scale, the scores were first transformed to Z-scores and thenaggregated. The scale for this variable had a Cronbach alpha reliability score of .85.An ANOVA test by treatment group for the Job-Satisfaction variable was found to besignificant (F(2,130) =18.534, p < .001; see Table 4.11), and the differences between the83group means shown in Table 4.10 were all in the expected directions (i.e., empowered< control < dis-empowered, where lower scores mean higher Job-Satisfaction).Substantial support was obtained for Hypothesis H1b9, which had predicted that higherlevels of information, responsibility, and active belief would increase Job-Satisfaction.Using the post-hoc Scheffe's test, it was found that the empowered group did, in fact,have mean Job-Satisfaction scores that were significantly lower (i.e., where low scoremeans high Job-Satisfaction) than the dis-empowered group (p < .01), thereby supportingHypothesis H1b9. However, the difference in mean Job-Satisfaction scores between theempowered (mean score = 8.13) and control (mean score = 9.08) groups, although inthe expected direction, was not statistically significant.Hypothesis H113(1)9 had predicted that decreased levels of information, active belief, andresponsibility would result in a decrease in the measured level of Job-Satisfaction. Usingthe post-hoc Scheffe's test, it was found that the dis-empowered group did, in fact, havemean Job-Satisfaction scores that were significantly higher (i.e., where high score meanslow Job-Satisfaction) than both the empowered group and the control group (p < .01),thereby supporting Hypothesis Hlb(09.Table 4.10: Job-Satisfaction. Means and Standard DeviationsGroup Means* Z-means SD Z-SDEmpowered 8.13 -1.43 3.87 2.68Control 9.08 -.70 3.18 2.25Dis-empowered 13.00 2.24 5.13 3.81* Lower score means higher job-satisfaction84Table 4.11: ANOVA Summary for Job-Satisfaction Source df MS F PBetween GroupsWithin GroupsTotal2130132161.388.7018.53 .0001Baron and Kenny (1986) have suggested that ANOVA provides only a limited test ofmediation, and that a series of regressions should be used instead. In order to investigatewhether the intra-psychic variables had a mediating effect on the dependent variable ofjob-satisfaction, three separate regressions were performed: (1) the mediator wasregressed on the independent variable; (2) the dependent variable was regressed on theindependent variable; and (3) the dependent variable was regressed on both theindependent and the mediating variables. Mediation is considered to occur if theindependent variable affects the mediator in the first regression, the independent variableaffects the dependent variable in the second regression, and the mediator affects thedependent variable in the third equation, with the effect of the independent variable onthe dependent variable being less in the third regression than in the second. Thisreasoning is similar to that presented by James and Brett (1984).As recommended, three regressions equations were performed. In the first equation, theintra-psychic mediator variable, which is a composite index created by aggregating theintra-psychic variables, was regressed on level of empowerment (r.2= .21, p < .001, 13=-.46, p < .001). The second equation regressed job-satisfaction on level of empowerment(r; = .19, p < .001, 13 = .44, p < .001). In the third equation job-satisfaction was regressed85on both empowerment and on the intra-psychic mediator index (r.2= .50, p < .001) andboth the independent variable of empowerment (ft = .15, p < .05) and the intra-psychicmediating variable ((3= -.62, p < .001) were significant. Regression results are presentedin Table 4.12.There is sufficient evidence to suggest that the intra-psychic variables mediate therelationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable of job-satisfaction. First, the unstandardized coefficient of the independent variable decreasesfrom when it is in the equation alone (b =1.82) to when the intra-psychic mediator is alsoin the equation (b = .62). We can be reasonably certain that this is not a spuriousdifference because the unstandardizetl beta coefficient changes by more than two standarddeviations. Hence, we can conclude that the unique impact of the level of empowermenton job-satisfaction is indeed smaller when the intra-psychic variable is included in theequation. This suggests that in the reduced regression equation part of the independentvariable's impact stems from the missing variable, the intra-psychic variable. Second,since we know that temporally the empowerment manipulation occurred beforehand andcaused a change in the mediators between Ti (pre-manipulation) and T2 (post-manipulation), we can conclude that the intra-psychic variables had a mediating effect onthe dependent variable of job-satisfaction.Another method for assessing the relative importance of variables is to consider theincrease in R2 when a new variable is entered into an equation that already contains otherindependent variables. A large change in R2 indicates that a variable provides uniqueinformation about the dependent variable that is not available from the other independentvariables in the equation (Norusis, 1990:B-94).Table 4.13 shows the results of the hierarchical regression that was executed as an86additional test for mediation. Significant change in le is the indicator for a mediatoreffect. In this regression adding the intra-psychic variables to the equation after level ofempowerment led to a le change of .31 which was significant at the p < .001 level. Inother words, after the intra-psychic variables were added the change in the varianceexplained was significantly different compared to when only the treatment variable wasregressed on the dependent variable of job-satisfaction. Again, this suggests that theinfluence of the intra-psychic variable was above and beyond that of the independentvariable of treatment effect.Table 4.12: Regression Analysis for MediationDV:IVs: 13Intra-psychicb^SE R2 R #Job-Satisfactionb^SE^R2 REquation 1• ManipulationTreatment-.46** -1.52** .256 .21** .21**Equation 2• ManipulationTreatment.44** 1.82** .322 .19** .20**Equation 3• ManipulationTreatment• Intra-psychic.15*-.62**.62*-.78**.293.088.50** .50*** = p<.05** = p<.001# = standardized coefficientsb = non-standardized coefficients87Table 4.13: Hierarchical Regression Analysis for MediationDV^ Job-satisfactionIV^R2^AR2^AF• Manipulation^.19**Treatment• Intra-psychic^.50**^.31^78.49**** = p<.001SummaryThe model tested in this research was partially supported. The MANOVA on the intra-psychic variables (self-efficacy, self-esteem, and locus of control) showed that they wereall strongly influenced in the predicted directions; the empowered group scored higheston all the mediator scales and the dis-empowered group scored lowest. However, theMANOVA on the eight dependent performance measures was not significant, suggestingthat the empowerment manipulation did not have an effect on these variables.Nevertheless, an ANOVA on the dependent variable of job-satisfaction was significant,indicating that the manipulation did influence how participants perceived their simulatedjob, with the empowered group being most satisfied and the dis-empowered group beingleast satisfied. It is interesting to note that the conservative post-hoc analyses suggestedthat the dis-empowered manipulation was more powerful than the empoweredmanipulation, since dis-empowered group means differed from control group means toa greater extent. There tended to be a much smaller difference between empoweredgroup means and control group means.88With regard to the mediating effect, no attempt was made to investigate the influence ofthe intra-psychic variables on the performance measures, since there were no significanteffects on these variables. However, the mediating influence of the intra-psychicvariables was found with regard to the dependent variable of job-satisfaction.89CHAPTER 5DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONSThis discussion will begin with a short summary of the results and their implications. Anoverview of the possible reasons for the lack of significance of the relationship betweenthe empowerment manipulations and the performance measures, based on theorganizational behaviour literature, will follow. Experience with the research materials,the subject populations, and the hindsight provided by having seen the results, providesan opportunity to explore the unanticipated contextual factors that may have beenimportant in this research. Potential reasons for the lack of significance includemotivation, instrument psychometric properties, the performance-satisfaction relationship,the attitude-behaviour relationship, and the relationship between time and behavioralresults. Next, limitations of the study, directions for future research, and revisions to thecurrent model will be explored. Concluding remarks including theoretical contributionsas well as practical implications for managers will also be offered.OverviewThe primary purpose of this study was to investigate the multi-level process model ofempowerment developed in Chapters 1 and 2. To examine this multi-level processmodel, three intra-psychic mediators and nine dependent variables (eight performancevariables and one indicator of job satisfaction) were measured. The manipulation of theempowerment process was achieved by manipulating levels of information, responsibility,and active belief. The results clearly show that the intra-psychic variables (self-efficacy,self-esteem, and locus of control) were strongly influenced by the empowerment90manipulations, primarily for the dis-empowered group. In addition, as predicted, themediating effect of the intra-psychic variables influenced job satisfaction. However, nostatistically significant results were found in relation to the other eight dependentmeasures of job performance.ImplicationsThus, the empirical results provide only partial support for the multi-level process modelof empowerment presented here. Empowerment at work is not the equivalent of themicro level constructs (such as self-efficacy or motivation), nor can it be characterizedby simply describing changes within the organization; rather, it is a multi-level construct.In addition, as suggested here and by others (e.g., Kieffer, 1984; Thomas & Velthouse,1990; Wolff, 1985; Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988), the empirical results of this studyindicate that empowerment can be conceived of as a process. As long as there are noorganizational structural or value constraints (which were controlled in this study), theempowerment process can begin with increases in enriched information, responsibility,and active belief. However, as this study suggests, the process of empowerment occursonly via changes within the individuals' psyche, at least for situations similar to thosestudied here. That is, changes within the individual are the mediators for theempowerment process. For this process to occur all three levels (macro, meso, andmicro) must be active in a positive manner. The macro level elements of organizationalstructure and values can not be constraining, preferably, they will be enabling. At themeso level, changes occurring in the degree and amount of responsibility, information,and active-belief that a person receives from his/her surroundings can have a positiveinfluence. After this, changes occur at the micro level, within the individual's psyche,before work outcomes may be observed. The significant results on the outcome measure91of job satisfaction indicate that manipulating empowerment influences at least some workoutcomes. The particular work outcome of job satisfaction found here is an importantone for the well-being of organizational members as well as for the organization itself.However, it must be kept in mind that the post-hoc analysis indicated that themanipulations had a stronger effect on the dis-empowered group, rather than on theempowered group, both on the intra-psychic variables and on the dependent variable ofjob-satisfaction.These findings extend our current understanding of empowerment in several ways. First,this study suggests the importance of intra-psychic factors as mediators in theempowerment process, rather than only as outcomes. Second, we now know that theseintra-psychic variables may be activated by changes in levels of information,responsibility, and active-belief found in a person's environment. Third, these changesin the levels of information, responsibility, and active-belief have a significant influenceon job satisfaction, at least in contexts similar to the one simulated in this study. In otherwords, these results support the view that empowerment is a process and not a state. Inaddition, these findings suggest that the multi-level process model of empowermentproposed in Chapter 2 is a viable model of empowerment and that the uniquemethodology used here is a valuable technique for studying the empowerment process.These findings also suggest that the four "M" (micro, meso, macro, and misnomer)categorization of the empowerment literature developed in Chapter 1 is a meaningfulframework. This framework can be used for identifying if future work recognizes andincludes the micro, meso, and macro aspects of empowerment and steers away frommisusing the construct.As a result of the empirical findings the multi-level process model can also contribute to92the implementation of the empowerment process. First and foremost attention needs tobe given to avoiding dis-empowering situations, since the results of this study suggest thatthey may have a stronger influence than empowering situations. The process modelinvestigated here focuses attention on three factors: information, responsibility, and activebelief (assuming no inhibiting influences of structure and values, which should beexamined in future research). This suggests that empowerment interventions need to andcan be designed to match specific organizational conditions and needs. Designers needto ask what organizational information needs to be conveyed to an organization'smembers, what responsibilities should be shared, and how active belief can be providedin a meaningful and consistent manner throughout the organization. Since a significantamount of these elements are not at any specific job level, many (but not all) of theimplementation aspects will be similar across a single organization.In addition, this model suggests that rather than focusing only on work performanceoutcomes, intra-psychic factors such as self-efficacy can be used as indicators for thesuccess or failure of empowerment process. Identifying changes in the intra-psychicvariables suggests that the empowerment process has been activated. These interimindicators may be important for sustaining interest in continuing with the empowermentprogram, which as suggested here takes time. In addition, focusing on individual intra-psychic outcomes draws attention to the importance and significance of the individual inthe organization, one of the important features of active belief. Nevertheless, specialattention must be given to the implication of influencing intra-psychic variables such asself-esteem, locus of control, and self-efficacy. It is important to recognize that themodel does not suggest that these variables be manipulated globally.Self-esteem is considered by many to be a relatively stable personality trait (Tharenou,1979), suggesting that it is not malleable. However, Simpson & Boyle (1975) suggest93that self-esteem should be viewed as consisting of specific types: global, specific, and taskspecific. As a result, certain predictions for change will be observed only when usingspecific measures. This study focused on only a specific level of self-esteem—organizational based self-esteem (Pierce et al., 1989). As a result changes at theglobal level were not measured and there is no reason to believe that they had beenmanipulated.A similar situation holds true for locus of control since locus of control is also consideredto be relatively stable. Nevertheless, this study focused on two specific arenas: thepersonal and interpersonal locus of control. In addition, Rotter's (1966) originaldiscussion of locus of control was based on elements similar to those considered for self-efficacy (Kirsch, 1986), and overall, self-efficacy is considered to be more transient andspecific. Bandura (1982:122) writes: " perceived self-efficacy is concerned withjudgments of how well one can execute [specific] courses of action." In other words,one's self-efficacy changes depending on the task at hand and these judgments areinfluenced by a variety of situational conditions. Indeed, research has shown that self-efficacy can be influenced (for a review see Gist, 1987). The fact that changes in theparticipants' intra-psychic variables were observed is not surprising since the focus wasquite specific. In other words, this work does not suggest that manipulating theempowerment components will lead to global changes in the intra-psychic parameters.We can not expect to influence global traits", but only the specific relevant componentsof intra-psychic variables such as the ones studied here.This work also serves as a reminder of the need to consider the influence and interactionof different levels when studying organizational phenomena. House and Rousseau (1992)lament the lack of work simultaneously examining micro and macro influences on13 For ethical reasons we should be alert that the manipulations or interventions do notsubject the individual to undue stress in any way.94organizational behaviour. They suggest that "micro and macro researchers, havingchosen their preferred level, view the effects of forces from other levels of analyses as'exogenous' causes, or even error variance" (p.7). In this process model ofempowerment, all levels are treated as endogenous components which contribute bothequally and significantly to empowerment.Despite the significant findings with regard to the three mediators and the dependentvariable of job satisfaction, the empirical findings did not support the hypothesis that theprocess of empowerment influences work performance (at least as measured by the workperformance measures in the in-basket tasks used here). One approach to science(Popper, 1974) would suggest that the multi-level process model of empowerment mustbe rejected. However, other outlooks (Duhem, 1962; Lakatos, 1970) would counsel toconsider viable alternatives in hopes of stimulating additional related research. Revisionsof the model will be approached by using a motivation-based explanation for the findings.In addition, since measurement problems may have contributed to these results, they willbe addressed from four possible perspectives: (1) Instrument psychometric properties, (2)The performance-satisfaction relationship, specifically using the Job Characteristics Model(Hackman & Oldham, 1980), (3) The attitudes and behaviour relationship, and (4) Timeconstraints. Overall, the partial support for the model tested here suggests that alternativemodels may be viable. Such models will be offered in conjunction with directions forfuture research.Discussion of FindingsMotivation and Work PerformanceA potential area that may help to explain the lack of performance results could beinadequacies in the manipulation. Of the seven manipulation check items, the only non-95significant finding was for the motivation item. The six significant manipulation checkitems indicated that participants responded to the manipulation, by treatment group, in theexpected directions. On the motivation item (item 7, Appendix 10) participants reportedbeing moderately unmotivated to do their best during the three sessions (the overall meanof 5.23 was on a seven point scale from 1, "Highly motivated to do my best," to 7, "Notat all motivated to do my best"14). In addition, the number of individuals requestingfeedback (n=55) as well as the number of people who chose to come to the final half-dayworkshop (n=26) were compared across conditions, and no differences were found. Thissuggests that regardless of the conditions, participants did not report strong motivationaldrives to perform well.The lack of significant differences between the three experimental groups on the eightperformance measures, as well as the lack of treatment group differences on themotivation measure, were particulary intriguing in light of the fact that work performancedifferences had been found between the treatment groups in the pilot study. For thisreason it is important to recognize how the pilot and the experimental samples differed.Unlike the main study, which utilized a sample of MBA students, the pilot study samplewas comprised primarily of Ph.D. students. Some may assume that individuals whochoose to pursue and are admitted to doctoral studies are those who have superiorcognitive skills. This would suggest that the performance of the MBAs may have beenconstrained by ability. However, the previous chapter reported that ability (as measuredby a proxy, i.e. years of work experience) was not a significant factor in the work14 Other indicators suggest that the participants were quite motivated to do well. Forexample, despite the fact that this program took place during a very busy period of the semester(in particular the week of the last sessions) the majority of the participants made a concertedeffort to be present at all three sessions and to arrive on time. In addition, on several occasionsparticipants asked the administrators questions which suggested that they were seekinginformation on how they could do better in the next session.96performance measures. As a result, the argument that ability differences may be thecause for difference in results between the two samples is untenable, at least given theavailable data.A second difference between the pilot and main study participants was the way they wererecruited and why they agreed to take part in the study. As mentioned, the pilot samplewas comprised of Ph.D. students, all of whom were doing the author a personal favourby participating. For these participants there was no other visible motive to participatein this study. Even when they were reminded of the opportunity to take part in the finalwork-shop and to receive their personal feedback, they all declined to do so. Thus, itseemed that in the absence of a strong personal motive, their work performance was morereadily influenced by the simulation's manipulations.For the MBA participants, motivation stemmed from different sources. The study waspromoted to the MBA population as an opportunity to tackle management experiences,to receive feedback, and as an overall opportunity to enhance managerial skills andabilities. Indeed, when asked in the manipulation check (Appendix 10) what they thoughtof the simulations, it is clear that they were primarily motivated to take part in this studyfor practical experience and for the opportunity of receiving individual feedback.Comments such as these were typical:"I am looking forward to the feedback sessions." "...tells me if I am goodfor this kind of managerial work." "A good chance to have insight ofmyself as if I was a manger." "I hope to learn from my responses.""Can't wait for the results." "I'm interested in the feedback." "Lookingforward to feedback." "I will reserve judgement until I see some take awayfrom this project."Current knowledge on motivation points to the importance of considering the distinctionbetween the pilot and the study's sample and provides us with a theoretical explanation97for the lack of difference in motivation levels between the treatment groups, as well asfor the difference in work performance outcomes between the pilot study and the actualstudy. Pinder (1984) suggests that motivation needs to be conceptualized as includingform, direction, intensity, and duration. Citing Katerberg and Blau (1983), he suggeststhat "one must take into account the specific goals toward which motivation energy isdirected in order to fully understand it [work motivation]" (Pinder, 1984:9). It wouldseem that once the MBAs were motivated to take part in this program for their ownutility, they were focused on performing as well as they could (regardless of thecircumstances) so they might receive a good and realistic evaluation. Thus, the directionof the MBAs' motivation seemed to be to receive maximum personal benefit from theexercise. This would suggest that their focus on obtaining an indication of their workperformance strengths and weaknesses was stronger than their motivation to participatein and be swayed by the actual simulation. In other words, while the Ph.D. pilot sampleparticipants were motivated to help a colleague, the MBA experimental sampleparticipants were motivated to find out how well they could perform as a manager. Giventhe equal levels of motivation in all three experimental groups in the main study and thedirection in which they were motivated, it is not too surprising that no significantdifferences were found on the performance measures. Overall, participants receivedaverage performance scores with standard variances.Measurement IssuesInstrument Psychometric PropertiesOne simple interpretation for the non-significant results on the dependent measure maybe that, unlike the other four measures (Self-efficacy, Self-esteem, Locus-of-control, andJob satisfaction), the instrument measuring work performance was not psychometricallyadequate. However, evidence about the psychometric properties of this in-basket taskdoes not support this interpretation. The OPD in-basket exercise selected for this98simulation was carefully chosen from among several potential in-baskets. The OPD in-basket has good psychometric properties with a high inter-rater reliability of .93 (which,as mentioned in Chapter 3 was improved in this study to .98). In addition, it has acriterion-related validity with supervisory performance ratings of .27 (which is at the highend of a range of reported tests on similar measures, from -.25 to .36; Schippmami et al.,1990). Assessment centre ratings were correlated reasonably highly with workperformance measures (Nowak, 1992), between the in-basket and managers' ratings on:interpersonal dimensions (.27), administrative dimensions (.45), communication (.49),and the overall managers' rating (.39). These psychometric properties suggest that themeasurement tool was both reliable and valid. Therefore, inadequate reliability andvalidity of the work performance instrument are unlikely to be the cause of the lack ofsignificant findings on the work performance measure. Thus it seems appropriate to ruleout psychometric inadequacy as an explanation for the non-significance of the workperformance measures.The Performance-Satisfaction RelationshipThere is a large literature on the performance-satisfaction relationship that can be usedas a backdrop for the current findings, i.e., a strong satisfaction effect and noperformance effect. In addition, work on the Job Characteristic Model (Hackman &Oldham, 1980) provides a potent research analogy for the current results.The lack of correspondence between performance and satisfaction in this study is not newto the field. Considerable work has been invested in studying the performance-satisfaction relationship and reviews from as early as the 1950s conclude that there is nosimple significant relationship between the two constructs (March & Simon, 1958).Indeed, subsequent empirical reviews found very low correlations between measures ofperformance and satisfaction. For example, Vroom (1964) reported a median correlation99of .14 and, more recently, Iaffaldano and Muchinsky (1985) found a mean correlation of.15. Thus, it is hard to conclude that there is a strong positive relationship between thetwo constructs (Silvers, 1992). (Overall, the correlation between the performance andthe satisfaction measures used here was .02.) Hence the results found in this study arenot unusual. In fact, both performance and satisfaction were viewed as dependentvariables with no suggested causality between them (rather, both were predicted to beaffected by the process of empowerment).The Job Characteristics Model (JCM; Hackman & Oldham, 1980), one of the mostpopular models in the task-design literature (Silvers, 1992), has found a lack ofrelationship between these two constructs that is similar to the pattern of findings reportedhere. Job characteristics are consistently and positively related to worker satisfaction, butnot to work performance (Brass, 1985). Considering the similar findings it is interestingto note that methodological criticism directed towards the JCM points to impropermeasurement (for comprehensive reviews see Griffin, 1987; Roberts & Glick, 1981).These concerns may shed light on the empowerment performance-satisfaction findingshere.Overall, the multi-level process model of empowerment proposed here goes beyond theJCM by suggesting that we not stop at developing or re-designing specific jobs. Hence,providing task-related variety, identity, significance, autonomy, and feedback may beineffective if other variables (Griffin, 1987) are ignored. It may be at least as important(possibly more so) to provide a frequent and open flow of information, within theorganization; information that entails knowledge that is beyond specific jobs, roles, ortasks. In addition, the Hackman and Oldham (1975, 1980) model does not consider thesignificance of active belief; rather it focuses only on feedback from the job. Thisdistinction is also true for how responsibility has been considered here versus the morespecific job conceptualization found in the JCM. These differences suggest that the JCM,100while aware of the organizational context, is most appropriate for specific job re-designsituations. However, as the multi-level process model of empowerment presented heresuggests, it is not appropriate to focus solely on micro issues even if the dependentvariables are at the micro level. Rather, more global factors such as general informationand responsibility need to be considered. However, despite these contributions, the multi-level empowerment model shares the concerns of the JCM, making it easy to understandthe performance-satisfaction pattern found here.Like the current results, JCM results rarely find a significant relationship regardingperformance and satisfaction. Reviews of the JCM research often express concern aboutthe compatibility of measures of job characteristics and job outcomes. For example,Roberts and Glick (1981) suggest that in the JCM model, confusion exists over thedifferent types of relationships, as well as over distinctions between objective aspects ofthe job and subjective perceptions.Overall, the lack of a performance-satisfaction relationship, as well as the measurementfindings cited in reference to the popular JCM model, may indicate that there is anunderlying problem with how behaviours (work performance) and attitudes (satisfactionand the mediators's) are conceptualized in this study. Both the empowerment processmodel and the JCM model depend on the more general relationship between attitudes andbehaviours. Thus, a brief discussion of these underpinnings seems warranted.15 Ajzen (1988:4) defines attitude as the "disposition to respond favourably or unfavourablyto an object, person, institution, or event." This definition clarifies why job satisfaction(evaluation of job), self-esteem, and self-efficacy (evaluations of self) can be considered asattitudes. However, with regard to locus of control (perceptions about the causal relationshipbetween actions and outcomes) the connection is not as clear unless we consider Allport's(1935:810) definition. Allport suggests that an attitude is a "mental and neural state ofreadiness, organized through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon theindividual's response to all objects and situations...." Using this definition, locus of control canbe viewed as an attitude since the view a person holds of relations between action and outcomeswill exert a directive influence upon the individuals response to a situation.101Attitudes and BehaviourThe attitude and behaviour literature, based primarily on the Fishbein and Ajzen Theoryof Reasoned Action, indicates that "it is considerably more likely that attitudes will beunrelated or slightly related to overt behaviours than that attitudes will be closely relatedto actions" (Wicker, 1969:68). Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) suggest a theory for why sucha relationship exists. The underlying model of their theory is presented in Figure 5.1.CI .A.-G-tittacie■Acrarsaz-d. tame.belaman:viamarSquib' e3ctive■31:1CAZRYLFigure 5.1: Theory of Reasoned Action (adapted from Ajzen, 1988:118)This theory conceptualizes attitude as the amount of affect or evaluation for or againstsome object. Attitudes differ from a person's beliefs (which consist of the informationa person has about the object), and from behavioral intention (which is the person'sdecision to act in a certain way). One's behaviours are only the overt observable acts ofthe individual. As depicted, the Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) model suggests that beliefsand subjective norms (a person's perception about whether others think s/he shouldengage in the behaviour) influence attitudes which, in turn, influence intentions, whichcan lead to behaviours. This model can be stated algebraically as follows:B BI = wiAB + w2SNwhere B is behaviour, BI is behaviourial intention, AB is attitude, SN is subjective norm,102and w1 and w2 are the weights indicating relative importance. Attitudes are a functionof beliefs (bi) and evaluations (e1) of these beliefs and can be represented as: Ebiei.Subjective norms are a function of how the person perceives social pressure in relationto engaging in this behaviour (i.e., normative beliefs, bi) and the person's motivation (m)to comply with their opinion and can be represented as: Ebimj.When examining why attitudes and behaviours may not closely correspond, Fishbein andAjzen (1975) recommend focusing on several measurement issues. First they suggest thatto find a relationship between attitude and behavioral change, both need to be measuredat the same level of specificity. Ideally, the target and the action measured for theattitudinal component correspond with the target or action element of the behaviour entity(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). For example, as with most attitude-behaviour research, themediators in this study were measured at a global level of general self-perceptions of thejob; they may not necessarily correspond to how the individual will actually perform ona specific performance (behaviourial) measure. In addition, Fishbein and Ajzen (1975)suggest that, to understand the attitude-behaviour relationship, we need to distinguishbetween habitual behaviours versus those under volitional control. Thus, we mightspeculate that MBA students, having spent considerable time as students, have beenconditioned to do their best under all "test-type" situations, regardless of any external orinternal inhibiters such as the difficulty of the test, the character of the instructor, or anylack of self-confidence they feel in the topic area (i.e., self efficacy)16. Thus, becauseof the simulation setting, what normally may be a volitional behaviour in a true workenvironment may have been perceived by students as yet another test situation in which16 In addition, students have a strong view regarding the importance of doing well on testsand as Ajzen (1988:109) suggests, "people are more likely to perform a specific behaviour ifthey view its performance favourably, and they are unlikely to perform it if they view itsperformance unfavourably." Thus, the participants, all of whom were students, could not"allow" themselves to perform poorly, regardless of the situation.103one always does one's best. This interpretation implies that an empowerment interventionin the workplace may be most effective for volitional rather than habitual behaviours.More recently, Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) point to the fact that people often do notdistinguish between behaviours and events that may be the outcomes of these behaviours.Thus, some of the performance measures used here may not be the actual performancebehaviours that were influenced: rather, they may be outcomes that are influenced by amyriad of other factors. In other words, the definition and measurement of the specificperformance constructs here may have been contaminated (i.e., problems with bothcontent and construct validity). For example, the Judgement dimension includes severalunderlying factors. It was defined by the developer as:The ability to make decisions of high quality and to consider alternativecourses of action based upon the available information. Individuals whoscored high on this dimension made decisions on the in-basket exercise thatappeared to be the most logical and appropriate given the availableinformation. These individuals tended to make decisions and take actionsthat resolved conflicts and solved problems in the most efficient andexpedient manner (e.g., disapproved vacation requests, investigated possibleethical conflicts, etc.). Those with low scores tended to take actions andmake decisions that, although possible, were not as strongly justified orlogically related to the available facts and information (Nowak, 1988:16).As we can see from this description, behaviours related to this dimension are outcomesthat stem from other behaviours. The scoring key' indicates that, indeed, otherbehaviours and events are used to evaluate participants' score including:°Decisiveness (e.g., "Did Carter decide not to direct Nelson to return themoney or any software to Dahl's son at this timer)°Problem solving (e.g., Was some action taken to account for1' At the developer's request a copy of the complete scoring key is not provided; instead,a few examples will be quoted.104Washington's inability to cover for Cunningham during theaudit?"18)°Time-management (e.g., "Was a decision made to meet with Watsoninstead of attending the Strategic Planning Committee meeting onOctober 9th?")-Action orientation (e.g., "Was some action taken to investigate or addressthese productivity problems?"°Ethical norms (e.g., "Was Rhodes informed about the possible ethicalissues involved?")This confusion between dimension relevant behaviours and outcomes from otherbehaviours may have contributed to the lack of significance in the work performanceresults. Overall, Ajzen and Fishbein (1977) report that the lack of correspondencebetween action and/or target elements is typical of most studies, including those fryingto predict work-related behaviours from attitudes towards work and effort on the job.The authors recognize that "it may sometimes be quite difficult to determinecorrespondence in a given instance" (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977:911). Nevertheless, toguarantee proper measurement of work-empowerment outcomes, the measured behaviourmust be influenced primarily by the empowerment process and not by other behavioursor outcomes. Clearly, then, more work is necessary to tease out the relationship betweenthe process of empowerment and specific work-outcomes.The last issue presented here is not as directly related to the simulation study; however,it serves as an important point to keep in mind when designing potential empowermentinterventions. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) indicate that the stability of intention is animportant consideration for predicting behavioral change. The greater the number ofintervening steps, the weaker the intention-behaviour relationship. Since the process ofempowerment is one which requires considerable time, implementers need to be aware18 To take action on this item participants had to first recognize that Washington's suggestionto cover for Cunningham was not feasible (i.e., problem recognition), then to identify and shiftthrough the possible solutions (problem analysis), and only subsequently could any judgementsbe made.105of competing interventions or other circumstances which may occur during the changeprocess. The longer the length of the intervention the more intervening, and possiblyconflicting, factors can intercede the process. For example, if an organization is in theprocess of implementing an extensive empowerment process when downsizing occurs,intentions will be influenced by the news as well as the beliefs and subjective normsassociated with such tidings. These beliefs and subjective norms may influence thebehaviourial intentions diametrically to the influences resulting from the empowermentprocess.Time as a Constraining FactorChapter 1 noted the empowerment process is one which needs time. For this reason, thesimulation was designed to span three weeks. By extending the time of the simulation,more extraneous intervening factors can appear; however, a process such asempowerment requires time for the beliefs and attitudes to translate to behavioralintention and then to behaviours. As Senge (1990:63) suggests: "it is a fundamentalcharacteristic of complex human systems: 'cause' and 'effect' are not close in time andspace." He suggests that the sooner we come to terms with the fact that "delays betweenactions and consequences are everywhere in human systems" (p.89), the more likely itwill be to see successful program implementation. Failure to anticipate delays can leadto "overshooting" (Senge, 1990) or "undershooting."Both overshooting and undershooting are a result of not waiting long enough to observethe result. Overshoots occur when, due to a lack of patience, more and more resourcesand effort are invested in the direction of the hoped-for outcome. It is considered to beovershooting since, had more time been allowed to elapse, the results would haveoccurred regardless of the additional efforts. It is also conceivable that the additionaleffort may even harm the process by producing instability and oscillation. Undershooting106occurs when, as a result of impatience, the intervention program is terminated before ithas come to fruition. As was suggested earlier and by others (e.g., Bowen & Lawler,1992; ICizilos, 1990) part of the difficulty in implementing empowerment programs is thelength of time necessary before results can be seen. If the program is prematurelyterminated, all benefits may be lost. Thus, despite the tendency in the field oforganizational behaviour to take on the short-term (Staw, 1984), it will be important toconsider longitudinal studies for further investigation of the process of empowerment.The results of the study presented here, in combination with the Fishbein and Ajzen(1975) model of behavioral change, suggest that the effects of empowerment onbehavioral outcomes may take some time to surface. In this study this time lag can bespecifically observed by investigating the results on the Job satisfaction measure. Asindicated in Chapter 4, the manipulation affected individuals' attitudes regarding how theyperceive themselves in the context of work (the intra-psychic measure). In addition, thejob satisfaction measure also picked up on attitudinal change. Moreover, within the jobsatisfaction measure, two items also captured behavioral intent (items 2 and 4 inAppendix 11).Behavioral intentions can be closely linked to overt actions. They are considered to beimmediate determinants of behaviours and, as such, can predict them (Ajzen, 1988; Ajzen& Fishbein, 1980). To be assured that the behavioral intention items were significantlyaffected, the items were analyzed separately. An analysis of variance by treatment groupwas significant (F(2,130)=20.23, p < .001). A post-hoc Scheffe test indicated that themean of the dis-empowered group was significantly lower compared to both theempowered and the control group means. This suggests that the dis-empowered groupwas significantly less interested in continuing with the job; on the contrary, they preferredto quit and reported that they would not take a similar job again (p < .01). Means and107standard deviations are reported in Table 5.1 and results of the ANOVA are presentedin Table 5.2.Table 5.1: Job satisfaction Behavioral Intention. Descriptive StatisticsZ-Means* SDEmpowered -.776 1.12Control -.364 1.14Dis-empowered 1.239 2.19*The lower the score the more interested in remaining with the job.Table 5.2: Anova Summary for Job satisfaction Behavioral IntentionSource df MS F pBetween Groups 2 48.15 20.23 .001Within Groups 130 2.37Total 132 ,As a result of this analysis, we can suggest that behavioral intentions were influenced bythe manipulation. However, the lack of behavioral performance results implies that notenough time had elapsed between the attitudinal and behavioral intention changes and themeasurement of work performance behaviours. In addition, however, the behavioralintention items (items 2 and 4 in Appendix 11) seemed to refer primarily to exiting theorganization.March and Simon (1958) have made a distinction between two types of employeedecisions: (1) whether to participate in the organization or to leave, and (2) whether to108produce or to refuse to produce at the demanded rate. The behavioral intention measurein this study focused on the decision of whether to remain in the organization. Thus, itmay have had little relationship to work performance. Instead, the findings suggest thatturnover and tenure are important dependent variables when empowerment is investigated.However, it is too early to definitively conclude that empowerment does not affect Marchand Simon's (1958) second type of decision: whether to produce at the demanded rate.For example, the constraining factor here may have been ability. As Ajzen (1988) pointsout, skill and abilities can constrain the positive relationship between behavioral intent andactual behaviour. In other words, it is possible that beliefs, attitudes, and behavioralintentions will be influenced by the process of empowerment, and yet the individual willnot be able to translate resulting intentions to actual behaviour because of skill and abilitylimitations. This last point, however, does not apply to the current study since, aspresented in Chapter 4, the issue of ability constraints was investigated and a constraintwas not found. Nevertheless, as mentioned in the context of empowerment andperformance, ability is an important consideration to always keep in mind, as is the needto be aware of competing interventions which may occur during the empowermentprocess.The time limitation of this study may have constrained the opportunity to observeperformance outcomes for an additional reason. Early performance-satisfaction theorists,primarily those belonging to the human relations school, suggested that satisfaction causesperformance (e.g., Mayo, 1945). Even though it was also suggested that performancecauses satisfaction (Lawler & Porter, 1967) and that no meaningful relationship betweenthe two constructs exists (Silvers, 1992), we should consider the implications of the firstpoint of view. If, as Organ (1977) suggests, the "satisfaction causes performance" pointof view has been prematurely discarded, we need to consider that changes in thesatisfaction measure found in this study may have been a step towards change on the109performance measures which would suggest the possibility that satisfaction precedesperformance (see Figure 5.2). In other words, using the Fishbein & Ajzen (1975) model,not enough time had elapsed for the job satisfaction attitude to influence the workbehaviours which were measured here. In sum, had more time elapsed, significant resultson the performance measures may have been achieved.Irdonnation S.'-Ruponsibilly Locus of Control Satisfaction Parionnertc•Aces' litsIld EstatanFigure 5.2: Satisfaction Preceding PerformanceThe explanations suggested above have focused primarily on measurement issues.However, the non-significant results on the performance measures may also indicate thatthe work performance aspect of the multi-level process model of empowerment is notvalid. The tested model suggested that both satisfaction and performance are relevantoutcomes. However, the results found here may illustrate that performance is not anappropriate outcome for this process. In other words, when engaging in theempowerment process, anticipating work performance outcomes may not be an applicableexpectation. In addition, since no significant results were found on the performancedependent variables one must also consider the possibility that the model presented hereis not viable. Nevertheless, considering that partial support was found for the modelthere is room to investigate research alternatives and revised models. These alternativesand revisions will be offered next.In this section, possible explanations for the lack of a significant relationship between the110empowerment level and the performance measures were suggested. As with all non-significant results it is hard to identify the exact cause for such an outcome. However,future research will be able to empirically investigate and shed more light on this issue.In the following section both limitations and future investigation will be discussed. Thisdiscussion will also include model modifications. These changes will all build on theoriginal three stage model investigated here.Limitations of the Study, Directions for Future Research,and Revised ModelsOverall, executives and management scholars tend to be primarily interested in "bottom-line" outcomes (Staw, 1984). Yet, it is quite possible that the process of empowermentmay influence factors other than the prevailing direct bottom-line indicators. Thisconsideration, in conjunction with the view that now is a time of "re-engineering" (aprocess that questions traditional assumptions and procedures), would suggest a focus onnew performance dimensions (Gleclunan et al., 1993). For example, work performanceoutcomes such as risk-taking behaviour, creativity, and group performance (rather thanthe individual performance measured in this study), could be among those that we maywish to consider. In addition, decreases in destructive deviant behaviours as well asturnover and tenure may be important (see Figure 5•319)•It is important to emphasize that the non-significant results found here in relation to workperformance may indicate that, overall, performance is not a viable outcome in relationto empowerment—an important consideration for both researchers and practitioners. Itis imperative that appropriate outcome variables be recognized before costly19 As presented in the previous section the performance-satisfaction link is unclear. For thisreason the revised models depict these dependent variables as separate entities with no causalrelations between the two constructs.111Information Sell-efficacy SatisfactionResponsibility Locus ofCor»trolActive BeliefSeil-esteem Filsic-taidnp^np.Group.TurnoverTenure^9Figure 5.3: Possible Performance Variablesempowerment programs are implemented. As Rappaport (1987:121) suggests,empowerment is a "pervasive positive value in American culture." As such, and becauseof its increasing popularity in practitioner publications (e.g., Allard, 1992; Fisher, 1991;Kingston, 1992; Port & Carey, 1991; Woodruff, 1992), it is easy to be tempted to wantto do the right thing or the "in" thing. However, caution and discretion with regard toexpected outcomes is important, not only because of the expense involved in suchprograms, but also to avoid creating false expectations that an extensive program ofchange will affect certain outcomes (such as initiative or productivity). The unfulfilledanticipations of the empowerment program may, in turn, lead to costly confusion andpotential resentment, and thus could conceivably escalate the original problems which ledto the attempt to implement an empowerment program. In addition, prematureexpectations can lead to ethical problems similar to the ones suggested by Pinder (1977)with regard to application of motivation theories. Among the most concerning issues isthe potential negative impact on the "usual 'guinea-pigs'—the lower participants oforganizations.. .[since] changes in reporting relationships, status systems, workingprocedures.. .can be threatening for the individuals involved (Pinder, 1977:389).112An additional reason to investigate the appropriateness of certain performance outcomesis based on Fishbein and Ajzen's (1975) theory of reasoned action, which suggests thatwe need to distinguish between habitual and volitional behaviours. As mentioned earlier,we should expect volitional rather than habitual behaviours to be changeable. Thissuggests that relevant work performance outcomes must first be classified as being eitherhabitual or volitional. Idealistically, people who are aware or are made aware of theirhabits may make them volitional. In other words, before changes can be expected weneed to insure that behaviours are at the volitional level, even if this necessitates anadditional intervention (see Figure 5.4). However, this idea requires its owninvestigation, especially in the context of the empowerment process. Without it we runthe risk of disregarding the empowerment process due to the unnecessary observation ofinappropriate outcome variables or of behaviours that have not yet been brought to anappropriate level of awareness.MformationResponsibilityActive BeliefSeif-efficacyLocus ofControlSelf-esteemAwarenessInterventionSatisfactionPerfonnanoeFigure 5.4: Awareness Intervention113This study was a simulation with MBA participants and, as such, care must be taken ingeneralizing the results to field settings (Campbell & Stanley, 1966). For this reason itis strongly advised that this model be tested in an organizational context, preferably asa quasi-experiment. Such an endeavour might re-examine commonly used dependentvariables in the context of empowerment and include additional, more creative or relevantdependent variables (e.g., risk-taking behaviour). In addition, this study did notempirically investigate the influence of different organizational structures and values.However, in a field setting these factors may vary significantly between locations andtheir enabling or constraining influence needs to be realized.As suggested earlier, the fact that this study was a simulation probably had an effect onparticipants' motivation. This unanticipated factor may have inadvertently influenced theresults on the performance measures so that no significant differences were found,regardless of empowerment level. A field study will enable an examination ofempowerment with committed organizational members which may reduce the problem ofparticipant's direction of motivation. Nevertheless, the lesson learned here can beextrapolated to field settings by investigating and recognizing the directionality ofemployees' motivation to be part of the organization and more specifically, to be part ofthe empowerment process.Intonation SO-efficacy p. SatisfactionResportsliility p. Locus ofControlActive BeliefSelf-esteerePerformanceFigure 5.5: The Role of Motivation114The influence of motivation's directionality suggests that motivation may be amoderator2° of the empowerment process. Viewing motivation as having a moderatingeffect differs from past work which suggests that empowerment is similar to motivation(e.g., Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Future research might tease out if and howmotivation directionality acts as a moderator in the process of empowerment. Forexample, does motivation directionality affect only work performance outcomes, assuggested by the results of this study, or will it also affect job satisfaction or even themediating intra-psychic variables? (See Figure 5.6.) This latter option suggests that themediation relations are contingent on the directionality of motivation (i.e., themoderator), thereby implying a moderated mediation model (James & Brett, 1984:314).For now, of these three possibilities it seems most likely that the directionality ofmotivation primarily influences work performance outcomes, since significant differenceswere found between the three manipulation groups on the mediators and on the dependentvariable of satisfaction but not on the performance measures.As outlined in Chapter 1, the process of empowerment takes time. For this reason, thesimulation was designed to take place over three weeks. This period was sufficient toinfluence the mediating variables as well as the dependent variable of job satisfaction.However, this time-frame may not have been long enough for the effects ofempowerment to appear in work performance. Overall, as previously mentioned, caremust be taken in designing and implementing empowerment programs so that"undershooting" does not occur. How much time needs to elapse before we can expectto see results is an important question that future research could, and should, address (seeFigure 5.6).20 A moderator variable delineates when certain effects will occur and what their directionand strength will be. This differs from a mediating variable which actually accounts for therelationship between the independent and dependent variables by explaining how or why this IV-DV effect occurs (Baron & Kenny, 1986)115InformationResponsibilityActive BeliefSelf-efficacyLocus ofControlSelf-esteemSatisfaction/ Performance? ^ .Figure 5.6: A Matter of Time?One last issue that would greatly benefit from further investigation is the distinctionbetween empowerment and dis-empowerment. Results reported in Chapter 4 indicatedthat the average levels of the dis-empowered group for self-esteem, locus of control(mediators) and job-satisfaction (dependent variable) measures differed from the averagelevels of both the empowered and the control groups on these measures'. Theempowered group's average levels differed significantly only from the dis-empoweredgroup's average levels, not from the control group's average levels on all three mediatormeasures (self-esteem, locus of control, and self-efficacy) and on the dependent variablemeasure of job satisfaction. This finding implies that the dis-empowerment treatmentmay have had a stronger effect than the empowerment treatment. Such a finding mayindicate that overcoming elements of dis-empowerment might be a primary concern andthat implementing empowerment might be of a secondary concern. In other words,before a process of empowerment can work, all elements of dis-empowerment may needto be eradicated first. This reasoning is similar to elements in Herzberg's Two-Factor21 The average level on the intra-psychic measure of self-efficacy differed from theempowered group's mean, but not from the control group's.116(Herzberg, 1968) formulation with regard to satisfaction and dis-satisfaction. To date,such a distinction has not been recognized in the writings on empowerment.At this point, establishing the relationship between empowerment and dis-empowermentremains an open question. Bobko (1985) warns organizational scholars of the implicitbipolarity assumptions prevalent in both measurement and theory construction. Hesuggests that removing these assumptions may pave the way for new constructconceptualizations. These new constructs may be able to simultaneously embraceopposite characteristics—a novel yet powerful idea for the domain of empowerment whichmay suggest the need for further conceptualization of the construct. However, withoutfurther research, it is too early to identify if empowerment and dis-empowerment areequivalent mirror images of each other or if they are part of a more intricate constructstructure. Nevertheless, practitioners may benefit by already considering the possibilitythat dis-empowering elements may suppress the chances for successful empowermentprograms. For example, if an organization provides organizational members with moreresponsibility but insufficient information or active belief, an enhancement program maynot be successful.Overall, in this last section several options for future research were considered. Theseresearch alternatives were offered based on the fact that current results indicated thatrevisions to the current model may be necessary. Combining the different suggestionspresented here results in the following revised model of empowerment (see Figure 5.7).The major change from the original model is to break performance outcomes away fromsatisfaction, and to suggest that issues of motivation and awareness may be necessary forempowerment interventions to affect performance.117InfomudionResponsibilityActive BeliefSell-ealcaoy•^Locus ofControlSelf-esteemSatisfactionUniquePerformanceOutcomesAwarenessinterventionFigure 5.7: The Revised Multi-Level Process Model of EmpowermentContributions and ConclusionsThe impetus for this dissertation was the recognition of the need to clarify theincreasingly popular term of empowerment (Simon, 1990), to learn if and howempowerment influences organizational outcomes (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Thomas& Velthouse, 1990), and to explore how empowerment could be implemented.Specifically, this dissertation was designed: first, to develop a better understanding of theempowerment construct and, second, to empirically test the causal relations in theproposed multi-level process model of empowerment. As part of the process of constructdevelopment, a multi-level classification of work in the area was constructed and a newdefinition of empowerment was offered. The classification framework will be a usefultool for avoiding confusion caused by different levels of analysis. It also helps identifywork that may not even be relevant to the construct i.e., work that falls under themisnomer category. This framework can facilitate the recognition of how newdevelopments are related to previous work and thus, decrease the prevailing confusion118in the area of empowerment research.Overall, the empirical findings suggest the importance of information, active belief, andresponsibility for the process of empowerment, as well as the significance the intra-psyche has in the process. This research is particularly timely since there has been ascarcity of work conceptualizing and investigating empowerment as a process (Price,1990). In addition, these results point to the importance of viewing empowerment as amulti-level process spanning the three levels of analysis (Micro, Meso, and Macro)presented in Chapter 1. Now, with the empirical indications that empowerment can beconceived as a process, we can focus on "managing" empowerment rather than onlyhoping to "have" empowerment.This dissertation is a first attempt to empirically investigate the direction of causality withregard to empowerment in the work-place. The application of in-basket simulations usedhere provided experimental methods that allowed for control and the manipulation ofvariables that could test causal hypotheses (Emory, 1985). Although empowerment isvery popular, it's business applications have outpaced any logical attempts to analyze itseffectiveness. Thus, this study should provide interventionists with cause for caution:Empowerment is not a panacea for all organizational ills. If these results are directlyapplicable, empowerment interventions can foster increased satisfaction and even moreso, dis-empowerment may foster decreased satisfaction. However, more must be doneto increase performance.This empirical investigation documented the importance of distinguishing between workperformance versus job satisfaction outcomes in the context of work-empowerment. Thisfinding should clarify the importance of choosing relevant outcomes (and correctmeasures for them) when implementing empowerment programs. Moreover, the findings119regarding motivation suggest that before designing such programs, it is critical torecognize the direction of employees' work motivation. Furthermore, this studyhighlights the importance of examining the effects of the empowerment changes over aconsiderable length of time. These findings and their implications have been incorporatedin a revised model of the empowerment process which is offered for future research. Inaddition, the results of the study suggest the importance of identifying and eradicating dis-empowering elements which may be critical to the success of the empowerment process.In addition, even before we find answers to all the questions raised here for futureresearch, we already know that, at least in this case, empowerment affected jobsatisfaction. This, in and of itself, is a contribution, since a positive influence on jobsatisfaction has a significant role in organizational life. For example, we know that jobsatisfaction is related to work job stress (Norbeck, 1985) and it has already beenestablished that stress and mental health are important organizational outcomes that needto be considered (Ivancevich et al., 1990; Staw, 1984; Staw & Oldham, 1978).Overall, this dissertation has contributed to developing a better understanding of anorganizational process, which as Staw (1984) suggests, is as important as learning abouthow to improve organizational outcomes. It is hoped that the theoretical development ofempowerment in the workplace, as well as the empirical test of the model in a controlledenvironment, will reduce the misuse and abuse of the term and contribute to a betterunderstanding of how to implement the empowerment process.120BIBLIOGRAPHYAbramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., and Teasdale, J. D. (1978) "Learned helplessness:Critique and reformulation." Journal of Abnormal Psychology 87:49-74.Ajzen, I. (1988) Attitudes. Personality. and Behaviour Suffolk, England: Open University Press.Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M. (1977) "Attitude-Behaviour relations: A theoretical analysis andreview of empirical research." Psychological Bulletin 84(5): 888-918.Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social BehaviourEnglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.Allard, C. (1992) "Power sharing" Air Canada enRoute August 20(8): 33-46.Allport, G. W., (1935) "Attitudes." In Murchinson (Ed.) A Handbook of Social PsychologyWorcester, MA: Clark University Press. pp. 798-844.Argyris, C. (1982) Reasoning. Learning. and Action: Individual and Organizational SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Ansari, M. A., and ICapoor, A. (1987) "Organizational context and upward influence tactics."Organizational Behaviour and human Decision Processes 40: 39-49.l3alcazar, F. E., Seekins, T., Fawcett, S. B., and Hopkins, B. L. (1990) "Empowering peoplewith physical disabilities through advocacy skills training." American Journal ofCommunity Psychology 18(2), 281-298.Bandura, A. (1977) "Self-efficacy: Towards a unifying theory of behaviour change.Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.Bandura, A. (1982) "Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency." American Psychologist, 37,122-147.l3andura, A. (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive View.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Baron, R, M., and Kenny, D. A. (1986) "The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations." Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 51(6): 1173-1182.Bass, B. M. (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations New York, NY: The FreePress.121Beer, V. (1991) "Guerilla tactics for employee empowerment" Performance ImprovementQuarterly 4(4):62-70.Berlew, D. E., and Hall, D. T. (1966) "The socialization of managers: Effects of expectationson experience." Administrative Science Quarterly. 11:207-223.Bobko, P. (1985) "Removing assumptions of bipolarity: Towards variation and circularity."Academy of Management Review 10(1):99-108.Bowen, D. E., and Lawler III, E. E. (1992) "The empowerment of service workers: What,why, how, and when" Sloan Management Review Spring:31-39.Brass, D. J. (1985) "Technology and the structuring of jobs: Employee satisfaction,performance, and influence." Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes35: 216-240.Bray, D. W., Campbell, R. J., and Grant, D. E. (1974) Formative Years In Business NewYork, NY: Wiley.Bray, J. H., and Maxwell, S. E. (1985) Multivariate Analysis of Variance Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications.Britt, J. A. (1992) "Empowerment in organizations: Usage, critical elements, and theory."Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation Proposal. The University of California at LosAngeles.Campbell, D. T., and Stanley, J. C. (1966) "Experimental and quasi-experimental designs forresearch and teaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Cook, T. D., and Campbell, D. T. (1979) Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issuesfor Field Settings Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.Conger, J. A. (1989) "Leadership: The art of empowering others." The Academy ofManagement Executive. M(l), 17-24.Conger, J. A., and Kanungo, R. N. (1988) "The empowerment process: Integrating theory andpractice." Academy of Management Review 13(3), 471-482.Conrad, G. (1992) Partner of Andersen Consulting, Munich and associate director ofManufacturing 2000 a research project sponsored by major multinationals. InterviewGlobe and Mail June 16 p.B28.Cook, J. D., Hepworth, S. J., Wall, T. D., and Warr, P. B. (1981) The Experience of Work: 122A Compendium and Review of 249 Measures and their Use. New York, NY: AcademicPress.Coopersmith, S. The Antecedents of Self-Esteem San Francisco, CA; Freeman.Crooks, L. A. (1968) "Issues in the development and validation of in-basket exercises forspecific objectives." Research Memorandum. Educational Testing Service. November.Culbert, S. A., and McDonough, J. J. (1985) Radical Management: Power Politics and ThePursuit of Trust. New York, NY: The Free Press.Cummings, L. L., and Anton, R. (1988) "The logical and appreciative dimensions ofaccountability" Discussion Paper #100 Strategic Management Research Center. TheUniversity of Minnesota.Cummings, T. G. (1990) "The role of executive appreciation in creating transorganizationalalliances." in Srivastva, S., Cooperrider, D. L., and Associates AppreciativeManagement and Leadership: The Power of Positive Thought and Action inOrganizations. San Francisco, CA; Jossey-Bass Publishers.Daft, R. L. (1989) Organization Theory and Design (3rd Ed) St Paul, MN: West PublishingCompany.Dahl, R. A. (1957) "The concept of power." Behavioral Science 22:2201-215.DeCharms, R. (1968) Personal Causation  New York: Academic Press.Derr, C. B. (1986) Managing the New Careerists: The Diverse Career Success Orientations ofToday's Workers. San Francisco, CA; Jossey-Bass Publishers.Deutsch, M. (1973) The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes. NewHavenm, CT: Yale University Press.Dillman, D., A. (1978) Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method New York,NY: John Wiley & Sons.Drucker, P. (1989) The New Realities New York, NY; Harper & Row.Duhem, P. (1962) The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory Translated by Wiener, P. P. NewYork: Atheneum.Eden, D. (1984) "Self-fulfilling prophecy as a management tool: Harnessing pygmalion."Academy of Management Review 9(1):64-73.123Eden, D. (1990) "Consultant as messiah: Applying expectation effects in managerialconsultation." Consultation 9(1):37-50.Eden, D., and Kinnar, J. (1991) "Modelling Galetea: Boosting self-efficacy to increasevolunteering." Journal of Applied Psychology 76(6):770-780.Eden, D., and Shani, A. B. (1982) "Pygmalion goes to boot camp: Expectancy, leadership, andtrainee performance." Journal of Applied Psychology 67:194-199.Edwards, D. (1992) Private conversation. May.Fawcett, S. B., Seekins, T., Whang, P. L., Muiu, C., and Balcazer, Y. S. (1983-4) Preventionin Human Services 3, Winter-Spring, 145-171.Feschuk, S. (1993) "Jargon cops fire erasers" The Globe and Mail Friday, January 1: Page B1 .Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. (1975) Belief. Attitude. Intention and Behaviour: An Introductionto Theory and Research Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.Fisher, A. B. (1991) "Morale crisis" Fortune Magazine November 18 pp.70-80.Florin, P., and Wandersman, A. (1990) "An introduction to citizen participation, voluntaryorganization, and community development: Insights for empowerment through research."American Journal of Community Psychology 18(1), 41-54.Frederiksen, N., Saunders, D. R., and Wand, B. (1957) "The in-basket test" PsychologicalMonographs 71: Whole no. 438.Galbraith, J. (1977) Organization Design Reading, Mass.: Addison-WesleyGist, M. E., Stevens, S. K., and Bavetta, A. G. (1991) "Effects of self-efficacy and post-training intervention on the acquisition and maintenance of complex interpersonal skills."Personnel Psychology 44: 837-861.Gleckman, H., Carey, J., Mitchell, R., Smart, T., and Roush, C. (1993) "The technologypayoff" Business Week June 14: 57-68.Gouldner, A. W. (1963) "The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. in Hollander E.P., and Hunt R. G. (Eds.) Current Perspectives in Social Psychology New York, NY:Oxford University Press.Gorbachev, M., S. (1992) "Book Excerpt: My Final Hours." in Time: The WeeklyNewsmagazine 139(19):44-47.124Graves, R. (1960) The Greek Myths:1 New York, NY:Penguin Books.Griffin, R. W. (1987) "Toward an integrated theory of task design" Research in OrganizationalBehaviour 9:79-120.Gruber, J., and Trickett, E. J. (1987) "Can we empower others? The paradox of empowermentin the governing of an alternative public school" American Journal of CommunityPsychology 15(3), 353-371.Hackman, J. R., and Oldham, G. R. (1975) "Development of the job diagnostic survey."Journal of Applied Psychology V.60 pp159-170.Hackman, J. R., and Oldham, G. R. (1980) Work Redesign Reading, MA: Addison-WesleyPublishing Co.Handy, C. (1990) The Age of Unreason Boston, MA; Harvard Business School PressHakstian, A. R., Woolsey, L. K., and Schroeder, M. L. (1986) "Development and applicationof a quickly-scored in-basket exercise in an organizational setting." Educational andPsychological Measurement 46: 385-396.Harlos, K. P. (1992) "An examination of several in-basket scoring strategies and their effect onreliability and validity." Unpublished Masters Thesis. The University of BritishColumbia, Department of Psychology.Hegar, R. L. (1989) "Empowerment-based practice with children." Social Service ReviewSeptember, 372-383.Herzberg, F. (1968) "One more time: How do you motivate employees?" Harvard BusinessReview January-February V48: 53-62.Hess, R. (1983-4) "Thoughts on empowerment" Prevention in Human Services, 3, Winter-Spring, 227-230.Hoffman, C. (1978) "Empowerment movements and mental health: Locus of control andcommitment to the united farm workers."  Journal of Community Psychology 6, 216-221.Holmes, J. G., and Rempel, J. K. (1989) "Trust in close relationships." in Hendrick, C. (Ed)Close Relationships, Review of Personality and Social Psychology V. 10 Newbury Park,CA: Sage Publications pp187-220.House, J. S. (1981) Work Stress and Social Support Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.125House, R. J., and Rousseau, D. (1992) "On the bifurcation of OB or If it ain't meso it ain'tOB." Presented at the Annual Meso Conference. Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.Iaffaldano, M. T., and Muchinsky, P. M. (1985) "Job satisfaction and job performance: Ameta-analysis." Psychological Bulletin 97:251-273.Ivancevich, J. M., Matteson, M. T., Freedman, S. M ., and Phillips, J. S. (1990) "Worksitestress management interventions" American Psychologist 45(2):252-261.James, L. R., and Brett, J. M. (1984) "Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation." Journalof Applied Psychology, 69,307-321.Jussim, L. (1986) "Self-fulfilling prophecies: A theoretical and integrative review."Psychological Review 9(4):429-445.Kanter, R. M. (1979) "Power failure in management circuits." Harvard Business ReviewJuly/August.Kanter, R. M. (1989) "The new managerial work." Harvard Business Review November-December, 85-92.Katz, R. (1980) "Time and work: Toward an integrative perspective." Research inOrganizational Behaviour V.2 pp. 81-127.Katz, R. (1983-4) "Empowerment and synergy: Expanding the community's healing resources."Prevention in Human Services, 3, Winter-Spring, 201-225.Kelley, H. H., and Thibaut, J. W. (1978) Interpersonal Relations: A theory ofinterdependence." New York, NY: John Wiley.Kieffer, C. H. (1983-4) "Citizen Empowerment: A developmental perspective" Prevention inHuman Services 3, Winter-Spring, 9-36.Kingston, A. (1992) "Power to the people" The Globe and Mail Report on Business MagazineJuly.Kirsch, I. (1986) "Early research on self-efficacy: What we already know without knowing weknew" Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 4(3):339-358.1Cizilos, P. (1990) "Crazy about empowerment?" Training December:47-56.Krone, R. M. (1991) Essays For Systems Managers Bend, OR: Spencer Publishers.Lakatos, I. (1970) "Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes" in126Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge London:Cambridge University Press.Lawler, E. E., and Porter, L. W. (1967) "The effects of performance on job satisfaction"Industrial Relations 8:23.Mayo, E. (1945) The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization Boston, MA: HarvardUniversity.March, J. G. (1966) "The power of power." In Easton, D., (Ed) Varieties of Political Theorypp. 39-70 Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.March, J. G., and Simon, H. A. (1958) Organizations New York, NY: Wiley & Sons, Inc.McAuley, I. (1992) Private Conversation May 15.McClelland, D. C. (1970) "The two faces of power."riongi_of_bl A^ffairs'on Af *r 24:29-47.Meirav, U. and Heiblum, M. (1990) "Quantum electronics" The World and I. June:294-301.Metcalf, H. C., and Urwick, L. (eds) (1941) Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papersof Mary Parker Follett London, England: Pitman.Merron, D., Fisher, D., and Torbert, W. R. (1987) "Meaning making and management action."Group and Organizational Studies 12(3): 274-286.Moore, T. (1992) Care of the Soul: A Guide to Cultivating Depth and Sacredness in EverydayLife New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.Murrell, K. L. (1985) "The development of a theory of empowerment: Rethinking power fororganization development." Organization Development Journal Summer, 34-38.Neter, J., Wasserman, W., and Kutner, M. H. (1990) Applied Linear Statistical Models (3rded.) Homewood, IL.: Irwin.Norusis, M. J. (1990) SPSS/PC+ Statistics 4.0 Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.Norbeck, J. S. (1985) "Types and sources of social support for managing job stress in criticalcare nursing" Nursing Research 34(4):225-231.Nord, W. R. (1983) "Dreams of humanization and the realities of power." in Allen, R. W., andPorter, L. W. (Eds) Organizational Influence Processes Glenview, IL.: Scott, Foressmanand Company.127Nowack, K. M. (1988) "OPD in-basket software and administration manual" OrganizationalPerformance Dimensions Bryn Mawr, PA.Nowak, K. M. (1992) "Assessment center performance and basic skills." Presented at theSociety of Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference. San-Francisco, CA.Nunnally, J. C. (1978) Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.) New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Organ, D. (1977) "A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction-causes-performancehypothesis" Academy of Management Review 2:46-53.Organizational Performance Dimensions (1992) In-basket Simulation Scoring Key.Ozer, E. M., and Bandura, A. (1990) "Mechanisms governing empowerment effects: A self-efficacy analysis." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58(3):427-486.Paulhus, D. L. (1992) Personal Conversation. December 3rd.Paulhus, D. L., and Christie, R. (1981) "Spheres of control: An interactionist approach toassessment of perceived control. In Lefcourt, H. M. (Ed) Research with the Locus ofControl Construct (Vol 1): Assessment methods (pp. 161-188). New York, NY:Academic Press.Paulhus, D. L., and Van Se1st, M. (1990) "The spheres of control scale: 10 Yr of research."Personality and Individual Differences 11(10): 1029-1036.Pfeffer, J. (1992) Managing with Power: Politics and Influence in Organizations. Boston, MA:Harvard Business School Press.Pfeffer, J. (1981) Power In Organizations Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co.Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., and Dunham, R. B. (1989) "Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation" Academy ofManagement Journal 32(3), 622-648.Pinder, C. C. (1977) "Concerning the application of human motivation theories in organizationalsettings." Academy of Management Review July:384-397.Pinder, C. C. (1984) Work Motivation: Theory. Issues. and Applications. Dallas, TX.: Scott,Foresman and Company.Popper, K. (1974) The Philosophy of Karl Popper Schilpp, P. A., (ed) La Salle, II.: OpenCourt.128Port, 0., and Carey, J. (1991) "Questing for the best." Business Week Special Issue—Quality:8-16Prestby, J. E., Wandersman, A., Florin, P., Rich, R. C., and Chavis, D. (1990) "Benefits,costs, incentive management and participation in voluntary organizations: A means tounderstanding and promoting empowerment." American Journal of CommunityPsychology. 18(1), 117-150.Price, R. H. (1990) "Wither participation and empowerment?"  American Journal of CommunityPsychology. 18(1), 163-167.Pritchard, T. (1992) "Blood, sweat and gears: GM reinvents the factory" The Globe and MailJune 16.Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., and Hinings, C. R. (1988) Writers on Organizations (3rd ed),London, England; Penguin Books.Rappaport, J. (1983-4) "Studies in empowerment: Introduction to the issue." Prevention inHuman Services 3, 1-9.Rappaport, J. (1987) "Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory forcommunity psychology." American Journal of Community Psychology 15, 121-148.Roberts, K. H., and Glick, W. (1981) "The job characteristics approach to task design: Acritical review." Journal of Applied Psychology 66: 193-217.Robinson, J. P., and Shaver, P. R. (1973) Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes SurveyResearch Center: Institute for Social Research.Rosenberg, M. (1965) Society and the Adolescent Self-Image Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.Rosenthal, R. A., and Jacobson, L. (1968) Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectationand Pupil Intellectual Development New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Rossi, P. H., Wright, J. D., and Anderson, A. B. (1983) Handbook of Survey ResearchAcademic Press, Inc.Rotter, J. B. (1966) "Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control ofreinforcement" Psychological Monographs, 80(1) (Whole no. 609): 1-28.Salancik, G., R., and Pfeffer, J. (1977) "Who gets power — And how they hold on to it: Astrategic-contingency model of power. Organizational Dynamics 5:3-21.129Schermerhorn, J. R. Jr., Hunt, J. G., and Osborn, R. N. (1991) Managing OrganizationalBehaviour 4th ed) New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Schippmann, J. S., Prien, E. P., and Katz, J. A. (1990) "Reliability and validity of in-basketperformance measures." Personnel Psychology 43: 837-859.Scott, W. R. (1992) Organizations: Rational. Natural. and Open Systems (3rd Ed) EnglewoodCliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Seeman, M. (1959) H() ^meaning of alienation." American Sociological Review 24, 783-791.Senge, P. M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and PracIce of the Learning Organization. New York, NY: Doubleday Currency.Shafritz, J. M., and Hyde, J. M. (1987) Classics of Public Administration  (2ed ed) Chicago,IL: The Dorsey Press.Shalley, C. E. (1991) "Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretionon individual creativity." Journal of Applied Psychology 76(2): 179-185.Sherer, M, Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., and Rogers, R. W.(1982) "The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation." Psychological Reports 51:663-671.Sherer, M., and Adams, C. H. (1983) "Construct validation of the self-efficacy scale."Psychological Reports 53: 899-902.Shipper, F., and Manz, C. C. (1992) "Employee self-management without formally designatedteams: An alternative road to empowerment." Organizational Dynamics Winter: 48-61.Silvers, R. C. (1992) "Thinking, feeling, and doing on the job: Work design, informationprocessing, and job-related outcomes." Unpublished Dissertation. Stanford University.Simon, B. L. (1990) "Rethinking empowerment" Journal of Progressive Human Services1(1):27-39.Simpson, C. K., and Boyle, D. (1975) "Esteem construct generality and academic performance"Educational and Psychological Measurement 35:897-904Slocum, J., Cron, W. L., Hansen, R. W., and Rawlings, S. (1985) "Business strategy and themanagement of the plateaued performer." Academy of Management Journal 28:133-154.Snow, C. S., Miles, R. E., and Coleman, Jr. H. J. (1992) "Managing 21st century networkorganizations." Organizational Dynamics Winter:5-20.130Spreitzer, G. M. (1991) "When organizations dare: The dynamics of individual empowermentin the workplace." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation Proposal. The University ofMichigan.Srivastva, S., Fry, R. E., and Cooperrider, D. L. (1990) "Introduction: The call for executiveappreciation" in Srivastva, S., Cooperrider, D. L., and Associates AppreciativeManagement and Leadership: The Power of Positive Thought and Action inOrganizations. San Francisco, CA; Jossey-Bass Publishers.Staw, B. M. (1984) "Organizational Behaviour: A review and reformulation of the field'soutcome variables." American Review of Psychology 35:627-666.Staw, B. M., and Oldham, G. R. (1978) "Reconsidering our dependent variables: A critique andempirical study." Academy of Management Journal 21(4): 539-559.Stewart, T. A. (1989) "New ways to exercise power" Fortune November 6, 52-64.Swift, C. (1983-4) "Foreword empowerment: An antidote for folly" Prevention in HumanServices 3, Winter-Spring, xi-xv.Tannenbaum (1968)Tabachnick, B. G., and Fide11, L. S. (1989) Using Multivariate Statistics (2nd Edition) NewYork, NY: Harper & Row, Publishers.Tett, R. P., and Jackson, D. N. (1990) "Organization and personality correlates of participativebehaviours using an in-basket exercise." Journal of Occupational Psychology 63: 175-188.Tharenou, P. (1979) "Employee self-esteem: A review of the literature." Journal of VocationalBehaviour 15:316-346.Thier, M. J. (1992) Personal Communication June 19.Thomas, K. W., and Velthouse, B. A. (1990) "Cognitive elements of empowerment: An"Interpretive" model of intrinsic task motivation." Academy of Management Review15(4), 666-681.Thomas, K. W., Tymon, W. G., and Velthouse, B. A. (1991) "An "interpretive" perspectiveon empowerment: A program of research and applications." in Herd, A. M. & Ferris,W. P. (eds) Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Meeting Eastern Academy ofManagement.Tipton, R. M., and Worthington, Jr., E. L. (1984) "The measurement of generalized self-131efficacy: A study of construct validity." Journal of Personality Assessment 48(5): 545-548.Toffler, A. (1970) Future Shock London; Bodley Head.Tone, D. A. (1986) "Empowerment: Structured conceptualization and instrument development."Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Cornell University.Tse, D. K., Lee, K., Vertinslcy, I., and Wehrung, D. A. (1988) "Does culture matter? A cross-cultural study of executives' choice, decisiveness, and risk adjustment in internationalmarketing." Journal of Marketing 52: 81-95.Tymon, W. G. (1988) "An empirical investigation of a cognitive model of empowerment."Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Temple University.Vogt, J. F., and Murrell, K. L. (1990) Empowerment in Organizations: How to SparkExceptional Performance San Diego, CA: University Associates, Inc.Vroom, V. H. (1964) Work and Motivation New York, NY: Wiley Press.Wells, J. (1992) "Winning Colours" The Globe and Mail Report on Business Magazine July.Walter, G. A., and Marks, S. E. (1981) Experimental Learning and Change, New York, NY:Wiley & Sons.Walton, R. E., and McKersie, R. B. (1965) A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations: AnAnalysis of a Social Interaction System. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Co.Weiss, H. M., and Knight, P. A. (1980) "The utility of humility: Self-esteem, informationsearch, and problem-solving efficiency." Organizational Behaviour and HumanPerformance 25: 216-223.White, R. W. (1959) "Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence." PsychologicalReview 66, 297-333.Whitmore, E. (1990) "Empowerment in program evaluation: A case example" Canadian SocialWork Review 7 (2), 215-229.Wicker, A. W. (1969) "Attitudes vs. actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioralresponses to attitude objects." Journal of Social Issues 25: 41-78.Wolff, T. (1985) Invited address to Division 27 of the American Psychological Association,August.132Wolf, W. B. (1974) The Basic Barnard: An Introduction to Chester I. Barnard and His Theoriesof Organization and Management. Ithaca, NY: Humphery Press Inc.Woodruff, D. (1992) "Where employees are management" Business Week SpecialIssue—Reinventing America: 66.Yonemura, M. (1986) "Reflections of teacher empowerment and teacher education." HarvardEducational Review 556(4), 473-480.Zimmerman, M. A. (1990) "Taking aim on empowerment research: On the distinction betweenindividual and psychological conceptions." American Journal of Community Psychology18(1), 169-177.Zimmerman, M. A., and Rappaport, J. (1988) "Citizen participation, perceived control, andpsychological empowerment." American Journal of Community Psychology. 16(5), 725-750.133APPENDICES134Appendix 1 - Notice of Upcoming ProgramMASTERING MANAGEMENT:THE MBA MANAGERIAL EFFECTIVENESS WORKSHOPMany MBA students have expressed an interest in having more of anopportunity to participate in hands-on management issues. We arepleased to announce such an opportunity!We have acquired a program that simulates organizational settingsand requires problem solving and managerial decisions on topicssuch as: planning and organizing, managerial control, and timemanagement. Participants will work through a set of organizationalsituations and be debriefed by experts in the field of managerialeffectiveness. The benefit of this program lies in the opportunity totackle management experiences and to receive constructive feedbackto enhance your managerial skills and abilities.Together with the Professional Development Programs Office, weintend to offer this opportunity at no charge to MBA students.Please note that currently there are no plans to repeat thisworkshop.We believe this Program offers an excellent opportunity to exploremanagement problems, issues, and solutions in realistic settings.Within the next few weeks you will receive information on when,where, and how this program will be run. Enrolment is limited andapplications will be processed on a first come, first serve basis.135NAME: ^••••ersPHONE NUMBER: ^SESSION DATES:IC xa.r 001 3471,0.4 0,01•047 440.Fee 22 to 25 4•4. 740.STAGE 1tek 104 74.Mgrht. 07.7 70 440.S asSimula [ionIt^hri476^734• ..S JO6741^777111,0?011am SOOPlease^detach^on^dotted^line^andreturn^completed^SeCnon^to^theEnYe100113 Pro•nded In the MBA Office3 IFIrri. 1021. the 'Cl Office illm.^1551Man 1 to 4 f•-• 04.Or on Craig .inder's door (Rm. 5521.STAGE 21.4This section of :he brochure can bekept tor yOur records.mgrnt 170 7. • }0.1,10 • . S70 30.101Simulationft^!In00..1.1 ND • 70'7 M 4 a* S.a4/70 a to 11 ■■••STAGE 3I IvoMgmt. 70^• 7,4 oa • 4 OW 4 M.0 . 7-74.• 76Simulation I 00' / SO am 4M 4M NM Sa0^?as(2 MISIGNATURE: ^NThe MBAManagerialEffectivenessWorkshopAppendix 2 - Notice of ProgramMASTERING MANAGEMENT:THE MBA MANAGERIAL EFFECTIVENESS 'NOARS1.0/Many MBA students have expressed an .nteresthaving more of an opportunity to parocioate inhands-on management issueS. We are pleased toannounce such an opporturetY!We have a research project that simulates argent:-anonal settings and requires Proolem solving andmanagerial decisions on too•Cs v.:Cm as: planningand organizing, managerial control. and :one mana-gement. Participants will work :nrougn a set oforganizational situations and be leohefed byexperts and well known consultants 'n :me area otmanagerial electiveness. The benefits st this Pre-gram lies in the opportunity to entrance lour per-formance on selection and performance Instrum-ents. tackle management experienCes and to receiveConstructive feedback to enhance tour managerialskills and abittties.Together with the Professional Cevelooment Pro-grams and the Masters Programs Offices. weintend to otter this Opportunity at no charge to MBAstudents. Please note that there.currently if nocommitment to repeat this work51100. In otherwords, this is the only ome current students willhav• trie Opportunity to gain COnetcleraolt insightinto Mot basic managerial styles -n a simulateddecision eteaCIOn as well as pracocrg .vith the in-basket instrument, which 4 freQuentIV used forhiring and promotion purposes.The program conststs of nue* sessions and a work•shoo The fen two weekly sessions wit take nomore than an hour to complete and .t.e tnird session(which will be done in the Mira ...text will beapproximately two hours. The nal, lay deem/tongand elfecoveness workshop will Sc offered at COn•yerNent dates towards the and at :na semesterCommitment to the first three sessions is eeeee tial.If you are umaple to agree to this. please do notapply. The success of this Mastering ManagementProgram is dependent on full oarhoioation through-out ALL of the first three sessions.Workshop ;servo:pants may choose between eight[IMO slots for sacs of the first three stages andbetween two time slots for the final stage. If youare interested in taking part in MIS program, pleaseidentify your preferred time stets on me followingpage. Include rout phone numPer and return thismeet to the Study Abroad and !immerge Office. theMasters' Programs Office. or to Craig Pinder'soffice IHA 5521 by RelleUaaY 15, 1993.We believe this Program otters an excellent oppor-tunity to explore management problems issues. andsolutions in realistic settings. Enrolment 4 limitedand applications m.11 be processed on a first Come.first serve basis. If you require further informationplease contact Ethel Davis at 322-8422. CatherineVertesi at 322-3273. or Craig Pinder at 822-3374.For your own senedule please note yOur COMmatedTonle and dates *Mow:DateStage I ^Stage 2 ^Stage 3 ^MasteringManagement:71- '3=;,,z^' c-3"^!....^! w ,f^11.-^121^1=.C4w ,1L.-.=•-s2 --0-ig 7 ;^1 f^f9 2 1 .5- 2-^7.-t 4.,7- i^t1^m 2.1^tti^z; .,'-.I 117 i2.2.:1^; ; ;t4,i 7L,f17!^?7: 3 3 I^i^;? 1 f71P.3:Ifi.i'iig2I2f1?-a 23iC Cr-,35 31; 3;136Appendix 3 Opening DescriptionDuring the next three sessions you will take part in several tasks which simulatemanagerial activity. In each session you will receive a series of different items andproblems recreating a variety of typical managers' tasks. In order to be successful, youneed to put yourself in the manager's shoes. In other words, try to respond as you wouldin this particular manager's specific situation. Use your own experience and judgementas the basis for your responses.During the next two sessions you will be J. Carter, Manager of the PC SoftwareDevelopment Department in General Software Products. You have three group managersunder you. In each of the three groups there are between three and seven programmers.Your boss is the VP of Software Development, who reports to the CEO of the company.In addition, there is a Software Steering Committee. Please start by answering thequestions listed below. Since this work will later be used for your own developmentalpurposes, please respond as you would in such a situation, and not as you think one"should." Remember, you are to use your own experience and judgement as the basisfor your responses.Please think about the messages you receive in organizations and indicate the extent towhich you agree or disagree with each of the statements...MEDIATING ITEMS (Appendices 4, 5, and 6) WERE PLACED HERE137Appendix 4Pierce et al. (1989) Organization-based Self-esteem ScaleThe following items are measured on a 5-point scale.Please think about the messages you receive in organizations and indicate the extent towhich you agree or disagree with each of the statements.1. I count around here.2. I am taken seriously around here.3. I am important around here.4. I am trusted around here.5. Around here there is faith in me.6. I can make a difference around here.7. I am valuable around here.8. I am helpful around here.9. I am efficient around here.10. I am cooperative around here.138Appendix 5Paulhus and Van Selst's (1990) Spheres of Control ScalerModified version:Personal Control1. In this organization I can usually achieve what I want when I work hard for it.2. In this organization once I make plans I am almost certain to made them work.3. In this organization I can learn almost anything if I set my mind to it.4. My major accomplishments in organizations such as this one are entirely due to myhard work and ability.5. In this organization I usually do not set goals because I have a hard time followingthrough on them. *6. In organizations such as this, bad luck has sometimes prevented me from achievingthings. *7. In this organization almost anything is possible for me if I really want it.8. Most of what will happen in my career is beyond my control. *9. In this organization I find it pointless to keep working on something that is too difficultfor me. *Interpersonal Control1. In my organizational relationships, the other person usually has more control over therelationship than I do. *2. In organizations I have no trouble making and keeping friends.3. In organizational settings I am not good at guiding the course of a conversation withseveral others. *4. In organizations I can usually develop a close personal relationship with someone Ifind appealing.5. In organizational settings I can usually steer a conversation toward the topics I wantto talk about.6. In organizations when I need assistance with something, I often find it difficult to getothers to help. *7. In an organization if there is someone I want to meet I can usually arrange it.8. In an organizational setting, I often find it hard to get my point of view across toothers. *9. In organizational setting, in attempting to smooth over a disagreement I sometimesmake it worse. *10. In organizations I find it easy to play an important part in most group situations.22 * indicates items which are reversed in scoring.139Appendix 6Sherer et al. (1982) Self-Efficacy Scaler1. When I make plans, I am certain I can make them work.2. One of my problems is that I cannot get down to work when I should. *3. If I can't do a job the first time, I keep trying until I can.4. When I set important goals for myself, I rarely achieve them. *5. I give up on things before completing them. *6. I avoid facing difficulties. *7. If something looks too complicated, I will not even bother to try it. *8. When I have something unpleasant to do, I stick to it until I finish it.9. When I decide to do something, I go right to work on it.10. When trying to learn something new, I soon give up if I am not initially successful.*11. When unexpected problems occur, I don't handle them well. *12. I avoid trying to learn new things when they look too difficult for me. *13. Failure just makes me try harder.14. I feel insecure about my ability to do things. *15. I am a self-reliant person.16. I give up easily. *17. I do not seem capable of dealing with most problems that come up in life. ** indicates items which are reversed in scoring.140Appendix 7Sample of In-basket itemSERVCOM ROUTING SLIPDATE:^October 3FROM:^D. MarinoTO:^P. AndrewsAction ( 1 File [ ] Read and Return flComment [ ] See Me [ ] See Remarks Below (I/REMARKS:I understand that S. Lee was interviewed by one of the big television journal magazines.I don't know which one (I think it was 60 Minutes) about discrimination at ServcomCorporation. Based on previous encounters with Lee, I doubt that anything good wassaid about our company.As you know, Lee has been a union steward for the last two years and has always beencritical of management. We don't need any adverse publicity of this sort, particularlyin light of our previous EEOC complaints. I thought you should know about this.141Appendix 8REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIALITY and CONSENTAs part of this program on managerial effectiveness, you will be exposed to a series ofmanagerial tasks. These tasks are adaptations of a real manager's tasks. It is veryimportant that until the first three sessions are completed by all participants, you maintainconfidentiality about all of the information you will receive.Since there are several time slots for each session it is important that you do not discussany of the information with others until AFTER 30/3/93.Please note that the data you provide will also be used for research purposes; however,all such material will be kept confidential. As mentioned, you will be taking part in threemanagerial simulations for a total time of under four hours. If you participate in all threesimulations you will be eligible to take part in a managerial effectiveness workshop. Inaddition, should you be interested, you will also receive individual feedback on yourperformance during the simulation as well as a summary of the purposes and results ofthe research component of this project. The benefit of this program lies in theopportunity to tackle management experiences and to receive constructive feedback toenhance your managerial skills and abilities. If you have any questions please contactProfessor Craig Pinder at 822-8374 (HA. 552).I ^  (please print name) agree tomaintain the confidentiality of the information I will encounter during this managerialeffectiveness program. I will not discuss this information with any other UBC studentsuntil the study is over (30/3/93). I also consent to having the information collectedduring the managerial simulations to be used for research purposes. I understand thatsuch information is confidential and will not be used for other purposes or be transferredto other sources.^ (Signature)(Date)142Appendix 9PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATIONName (Please print):Phone Number:Sex: (Please circle the appropriate answer)Male / FemaleAge:Year (Please circle the correct answer):1st year MBA / 2nd year MBA / Evening MBA / Other (Please specify)Ethnic group (Please circle the correct answer):Hispanic / Asian / Native Indian / White / Black / Other (Please specify)Is English your native language? If not: (1) what language is, (2) where are you from,and (3) how many years have you lived in North America?How many years have you worked full time?How many years have you worked part time?Please indicate the highest position/title you achieved at work:143Appendix 10Post Experiment Manipulation CheckThe purpose of this last set of questions is to identify what you thought and feltthroughout this managerial development program. Please answer these questions astruthfully as you can. If you would like to add additional comments, please feel free todo so. Please be sure to write your responses in a clear and legible manner.For the next few statements, please circle the answer that best describes what you think.1) In my organizational role as J. Carter I felt that the information I had access to was:1^2^3^4^5^6^7Restricted^ Sufficient2) As J. Carter I felt that I had:1^2^3^4^5^6^7Sufficient^ Insufficientresponsibility responsibility3) In my organizational role as J. Carter I felt:1^2^3^4^5^6^7Trusted & respected Not trusted &respected4) I felt that I was working with people that were behind me and supportive of myefforts and work:1^2^3^4^5^6^7Supportive^ Not supportive1445) As J. Carter I felt:1^2^3^4^5^6^7Empowered^ Not empoweted6) I found General Holding Company (which both Servcom and General Software arepart of) to be an organization I would:1^2^3^4^5^6^7Like to work for Not like to work for7) During the three sessions of the managerial effectiveness program I was:1^2^3^4^5^6^7Highly motivated Not at all motivatedto do my best to do my best8) Overall, what did you think of the three management simulation sessions you wereexposed to? Please explain.9) During the time between the first session of this program and today, did you tellanybody about the content of these exercises, or did anybody tell you about it?If so, what was the information that was exchanged? (Please note that you are stillrequested not to talk about the management simulation program until 30/3/93.)145Appendix 11Tymon's (1988) General Job Satisfaction ScalePlease indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements:1. I am generally satisfied with the kind of work I do on this job.Agree^ Disagree1^2^3^5^6^72. I frequently think of quitting this job.Agree^ Disagree1^2^3^4^5^6^73. Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with this job.Agree^ Disagree1^2^3^4^5^6^74. Knowing what you know now, if you had to decide all over again whether to take thejob you now have, what would you decide?1) I would definitely take the job again.2) I would probably take the job again.3) I am not sure if I would take the job again.4) I would probably not take the job again.5) I would definitely not take the job again.146Appendix 12OPD's In-basket Dimension Means, S.D.s, and Scoring Ranges.DIMENSION SCORENG RANGEMEAN S.D. LOW MODERATE HIGHINITIATIVE 4.9 2.2 0-2 3-8 9-I2SENSITIVITY 4.9 2.8 0-2 3-8 9-15PLANNING 26.2 8.8 0-16 .17-35 36-45DELEGATION 11.2 5.7 0-4 5-17^18-29FOLLOW-UP 8.1 3.9 0-3 4-12^13-21PROBLEM-ANALYSIS 23.1 10.4 0-12 13-33^34-64 •.TUDGE.MENT 217 8.8 0-14 15-32^33-60DECISIVENESS4.■■=sem■■■■'28.1 9.3 0-18 19-37•^41■••■••••=m38-44'Norms are based on 834 first-line supervisors, managers, and executives in diverse industry groupsincluding aerospace, manufacturing, health care, finance, education, communications, and retail.147Appendix 13'Session 1General Software Products, Ltd.In this booklet you are asked to take the role of a Personal Computer (PC) Softwaredepartment manager in General Software Products Ltd., one of the companies owned byGeneral Holding Corporation. You are requested to respond to several letters and memosthat have been left in your in-basket. General Holding Corp. is a large company whichcompetes in the computer industry and its headquarters are located in Toronto, Canada.Please act as if you are J. Carter, department manager in General Software Products Ltd.General Software develops a wide variety of software products. Its organizational chartis given in the figure below. You, J. Carter, have just been promoted from the positionof Computer Games Group manager. (This new promotion represented a naturalprogression for someone fast tracking through management levels at General SoftwareProducts) [Despite being pleased with your promotion, you are concerned that therewere no prior indications that management was pleased with your work.] {Your newposition as PC Software Department manager also carries with it the membership on thefirm's Software Steering Committee.) [Your new position as PC Software Departmentmanager also carries with it the possibility of membership on the firm's Software SteeringCommittee. However, to your dismay, there are rumours that you will not be appointedto the Committee.] {[This Committee meets with the firm's Chief Executive Officer,David Brown, to discuss key strategic policy decisions.]) The previous departmentmanager for PC Software, Sam White, < {died suddenly of a heart attack three weeksago) > [was fired] and {as many predicted, including yourself,) [to your surprise] youwere appointed to the position.ORGANIZATION CHART HERE24 Manipulation items are presented in the following order: {empowered}, < control > , and[dis-empowered].148Today is Wednesday, June 5th. Even though you have already talked with Pat Morganon issues specific to this job, you have now just arrived at your new office for the firsttime. It is 5:45 p.m. and you must leave promptly at 8:20 p.m. to catch the 9:30 p.m.plane to San Francisco for important meetings. You will not be back until Friday, June14. As you walk in you remember the CEO's words when he called shortly after youwere notified of your new appointment. ([In his brief conversation with you heexpressed]) {his delight that you were available for this promotion and expressed hisbelief that you will fit in quickly. In addition, he also offered his assistance, should anybe needed.) [his concern that he had to transfer you to this position, before you had achance to gain the necessary experience. He also directed you that should the job bemore than you could handle to please let him know as soon as possible].The letters and memos were left in the in-basket on your desk by Nancy, your secretary.Please read through the set of materials carefully and decide which actions you believeare appropriate in each situation. Your responses should be both novel and appropriate.Carefully specify every action you wish to take in the form of a memo or letter. You areto use your own experience and judgement as the basis for your decisions and responsesin the role of J. Carter. Blank sheets have been provided for this purpose. Be sure toindicate to whom each letter or memo is addressed. Please make sure that when yourespond to a given memo you attach all relevant materials with the provided paper clips.Your assistant will take care of the final drafting of the correspondence so please be surethat your handwriting is clear. At the end of some situations there are also severaladditional questions to answer. Please answer these questions after you have written yourrelevant letter or memo.Your meetings in San Francisco will take up most of your time between now and June14th so you will not have much of an opportunity to take care of these matters while youare there. You have therefore decided to handle these items to the extent possible beforeyou leave your office at 8:20 p.m.149General Software Products, Ltd.MemorandumFrom:^NancyDate: June 5These are the letters and memoranda that require your immediate attention. Frompast experience I would say that all of these items fall under your jurisdiction. I am sorrythat I will not be around tonight to help you before you leave for San Francisco.However, if you need my assistance on anything, I can be contacted at 320-5906.Have a nice trip and see you when you return on the 14th.NancyTo: J. CarterGeneral Software Products, Ltd.MemorandumFrom:^NancyDate: June 5These are the letters and memoranda that require your immediate attention. Frompast experience I would say that all of these items fall under your jurisdiction. I am sorrythat I will not be around tonight to help you before you leave for San Francisco.Have a nice trip and see you when you return on the 14th.NancyGeneral Software Products, Ltd.MemorandumTo: J. Carter^ From:^NancyDate: June 5These are the letters and memoranda that require your immediate attention. Frompast experience I would say that all of these items fall under your jurisdiction. I am sorrythat I will not be around tonight to help you before you leave for San Francisco, but I'vemade other plans. See you when you return on the 14th.NancyTo: J. Carter150May 14, 1991Mr. Sam White, ManagerPC Software DepartmentGeneral Software Products, Ltd.Dear Sam:Last week the VP of Marketing at Tak On's called me to see whether General SoftwareProducts might be interested in a joint venture in the area of Databases. I am not surprised atthis suggestion because they must still be hurting from the major losses they incurred in theirfailed venture in the area of word-processing. Tak On is General Software Products' closestcompetitor and we haven't been in a joint venture with them in quite some time.However, remember that Tak On helped us out with our spreadsheet products in the late1980s and we have had good relations with their management for many years. So far they havealways competed with us fairly.The proposed joint venture sounds quite promising. We would share the developmentefforts of the new database package with Tak On and market this new product under a singlenew brand name. All costs, revenues, and profits would be shared equally and both firms wouldput up half of the estimated initial investment of $100,000. Talc On said they needed ourparticipation in the joint venture in order to obtain the needed investment capital and to sharethe risks of new software development. They also had heard that we have been considering anindependent entry into the database market and believe a cooperative joint venture would makeboth companies better off than a competitive battle for this new market.Our analysis shows that a joint venture would yield a 20% return on investment for bothfirms. Tak On has already acquired experience and hired one of the best programmers in the151database field. We have the necessary production capacity and we would be helping Tak On toget back on its feet after the difficult period it has been facing.Alternatively, we can enter this market alone as we have been planning. In a competitiveventure against Tak On, however, there is uncertainty about how much of the market we couldcapture. If Tak On doesn't have the resources to make a strong independent entry, we shouldgain a large market share. In this case we would earn a 25% return on our somewhat higherinvestment. On the other hand, Tak On might focus its energy on this new market because wehad rejected their offer of a joint venture. Under this scenario, we could get only a small shareof the market and perhaps only 10% return on investment. Because of Tak On's situation, webelieve the chances are two out of three that we could get a larger market share in a competitiveventure and there is a one-third chance of getting a small market share.Talc On has asked us to decide on their offer of a joint venture by June 12. Please letme know your thinking on this question so a formal reply can be made.Yours truly,Alan SummersVP MarketingGeneral Software Products, Ltd.added as a hand written comment:{I rely on your input on this matter, somehow, you always seems to make the correct decisionsin matters of this kind.} [We will be making our decision regardless, however, the CEO wantsus to gather input from all involved.]152Put an X on each scale below to indicate how you perceive this situation:Ia.^Situation is very risky toGeneral Software Products I^I^I^1^I^1 Situation is not risky to GeneralSoftware Productsb.^I can exert great controlover the outcome of thissituationI can exert no control over theoutcome of this situationc.^Suppose the chances of achieving a high market share after entering the market alone wereunknown. What is the lowest chance of achieving a high market share that you would requireto enter the database market alone?Answer:^out of 100d. Accept whatever outcomesoccur from the decisione. Gain as much additionalinformation as possiblef. Decide among the optionscurrently availableg. Make decision inconsultation with mysuperiorTry to influence situation throughbargaining and spending resourcesUse the available information tomake the decisionTry to develop new options beforedecidingMake decision by myself withoutconsulting my superiorSuppose your recommendation is adopted by your organization and the outcome is unfavourable. Put anX on each scale below to indicate how you perceive the situation:h.^My organization wouldhold me responsible HI1111 My organization would not holdme responsiblei.^I can still develop plans tomodify the unfavourableoutcomeIIIIHI I cannot develop plans to modifythe unfavourable outcome153(Emp and Control)General Software Products, Ltd.MemorandumTo: J. CarterPC Software DevelopmentFrom:^Pat MorganVP Software DevelopmentDate: June 3Sorry, so far I have not been successful in finding the information you wanted regardingperformance appraisals. However, I asked Bob Davis to take a look into it and see if hecan find the answer for you in our personnel manual.(Dis)General Software Products, Ltd.MemorandumTo: J. CarterPC Software DevelopmentFrom:^Pat MorganVP Software DevelopmentDate: June 3Look you really shouldn't be asking me for information on performance appraisals. Itis all somewhere in the personnel manual.154General Software Products, Ltd.MemorandumFrom: D. RhodesDate: June 3Carter, I just want you to know that you may hear some negative remarks fromsomebody here. However, I would like you to rest assured that I am completely behindyou and have assured them that you are the best person we could have found for this job.I hope that my conversation with them was the end of this subject, but just in case it isn'tI want to make sure that you know where I stand.General Software Products, Ltd.MemorandumTo: J. CarterTo: J. Carter From: D. RhodesDate: June 3Carter, I just want you to know that you may hear some negative remarks fromsomebody here. However, I would like you to rest assured that I have already spokenwith them.General Software Products, Ltd.MemorandumTo: J. Carter From: D. RhodesDate: June 3Carter, I just want you to know that you may hear some negative remarks fromsomebody here. I would suggest that you make sure they don't have any reason to repeattheir comments again.155General Software Products, Ltd.MemorandumFrom: Pat MorganDate: June 4I have just found out that we have some "slack" money in our budget. As a result I cangive you $10,000 for you to allocate at your discretion.General Software Products, Ltd.MemorandumTo: J. CarterFrom: Pat MorganDate: June 4I have just found out that we have some "slack" money in our budget. As a result, Iwould like to suggest that you forward some suggestions on how your department coulduse some additional funds. I can go up to $10,000.General Software Products, Ltd.MemorandumTo: J. CarterFrom: Pat MorganDate: June 4I have some "slack" money in our budget and want you to send some of your people totrade shows and conferences. I will be forwarding their names and the dates they willbe away within the next few days.To: J. Carter156May 30, 1991J. Carter, ManagerPC Software DepartmentGeneral Software Products500 West Dearborn StreetToronto, Ont. M6S 1W4Dear J. Carter:Congratulations on your new appointment. {I am sorry to greet you with a problem soearly in your new position, but} we have a pressing situation in the word-processing group thatrequires {your expertise and recommendation} <a solution > [a solution NOW].Six months ago the group began negotiating a contract to develop a new word-processingpackage for artists. During this period we have been investigating two alternative designs forthe package. One design is the standard one we have used successfully in several word-processors. The technology for producing this standard package is well-known and we are sureto make a return of about 25% on our investment because the market for this design is large andstable. The vast majority of the programmers as well as the adjunct marketing people in theword-processing group recommend going with this standard design.However, a couple of very knowledgeable people from the steering committee supporta new design they have extensively researched, but there is little experience in developing andmarketing the new design even though the costs in producing both designs are roughly the same.They argue the market for the standard design is not expanding and the PC department needsto produce innovative products. The new design has its problems also. The major uncertaintiesseem to be whether this design will allow the package to run under the OS/2 operating systemand whether the market will accept the new design. Advocates of both designs agree that thenew design has a much greater potential than the standard design. If it is accepted in the marketand is viable under OS/2, the new design could lead to a 40% return on investment. If not, thenew design would yield only a 10% return, well below our Division's average return of 20%.157Both groups also agree that the chances of success for this new design are 50-50.The urgency on this issue is caused by the wholesaler's requirement that we complete thecontract (with the design specified) no later than June 10, 1991. Starting production later thanthis date would jeopardize Christmas sales. The wholesaler has no preference on the twodesigns because its fees are fixed.Shall we go with the standard design that has the support of the majority of ourprogrammers and marketing people, or with the new design even though it has few advocates?{Since you are the expert, I are waiting until I receive your recommendation on this matter.}[Please come up with a solution on this issue as soon as possible and submit it to me for reviewwell before the next committee meeting.]Yours truly,Susan LeeHead of Software Steering CommitteeGeneral Software Products Ltd.158Put an X on each scale below to indicate how you perceive this situation:a.^Situation is very risky toGeneral SoftwareProductsHIHH Situation is not risky to GeneralSoftware Productsb.^I can exert great controlover the outcome of thissituationI can exert no control over theoutcome of this situationc.^Suppose the chances of a success with the new design were unknown. What is the lowest chancethat the word-processing package is accepted in the market that you would require to use the newdesign?Answer: - out of 100d. Accept whatever outcomesoccur from the decisione. Gain as much additionalinformation as possiblef. Decide among the optionscurrently availableg. Make decision inconsultation with mysuperiorTry to influence situation throughbargaining and spending resourcesUse the available information tomake the decisionTry to develop new options beforedecidingMake decision by myself withoutconsulting my superiorSuppose your recommendation is adopted by your orgni7.ation and the outcome is unfavourable. Put anX on each scale below to indicate how you perceive the situation:h.^My organization wouldhold me responsible HI My organization would not holdme responsiblei.^I can still develop plans tomodify the unfavourableoutcomeIIIHII I cannot develop plans to modifythe unfavourable outcome159(Emp. and Control)TO:^Sam WhiteFROM: Pat MorganSUBJECT: R. Daviscc:^J. CarterI have heard from some reliable sources that Ron Davis, software engineer, hasan outside job offer on which he is going to give a firm answer next week. I don't thinkanyone else knows this yet. I understand he has been offered more money than we canoffer now based upon present wage and salary policy. As you know, Ron has been withus for only two years and holds a computer science undergraduate degree.I know that you and J. Carter feel that Ron is one of the most valuable men in thesoftware division and I thought I would let you know about this for whatever action youmight want to take.************************************************************TO:^J. CarterFROM: Pat MorganSUBJECT: R. DavisI have heard from some reliable sources (which I am not at liberty to disclose) thatRon Davis, software engineer, has an outside job offer on which he is going to give afirm answer next week. I understand he has been offered more money than we can offernow based upon present wage and salary policy. As you know, Ron has been with usfor only two years and holds a computer science undergraduate degree.Despite your opinion of him, I feel that Ron is one of the most valuable men inthe software division and I thought I would let you know about this so that you can tryand do something before it is to late for any action. However, before you do anything,make sure you clear it with me. I want to be clear that we should not lose this guy!160(Emp. and Control)Attention:^J. CarterI am writing to you because Mr. White would have never understood. Threemonths ago, he reached into the ranks and promoted me. He said I was doing a greatjob. But I don't see it that way. I enjoyed my three years as a programmer here more.It's not the same with the group any more. They don't ask me out for drinks onFriday night. I got dropped from their bowling invitations. The pay and responsibilitydifference doesn't seem worth it. Also my replacement is slow and it's hard to stand byand watch him do in a week what I did in a day. I'm tempted to criticize instead ofhelping him.I know the job is tough, but I think I would like a change - or advice. I wouldreally appreciate you getting back to me soon.Ben Barker*******************************************************Attention:^J. CarterI am writing to you because there really isn't anybody else. I know Mr. Whitewould have understood, however, as we both know, he is gone. Three months ago, hereached into the ranks and promoted me. He said I was doing a good job. But I don'tsee it that way. I enjoyed my three years as a programmer here more.It's not the same with the group any more. They don't ask me out for drinks onFriday night. I got dropped from their bowling invitations. The pay and responsibilitydifference doesn't seem worth it. Also my replacement is slow and it's hard to stand byand watch him do in a week what I did in a day. I'm tempted to criticize instead ofhelping him.I know the job is tough. I don't expect you to understand, but thought you shouldknow.^ Ben Barker161TO:^J. CarterFROM:^Terry 0' ConnerSUBJECT: Lunch BreaksIt has come to my attention that many of our employees are abusing lunch time.They are taking too long a lunch break, some by up to double the allowable time.I have talked with the group managers who think it is better we leave things asthey are. However, I felt it important to receive your input on this. Do you thinkanything should be done about this?***************************************************TO:^J. CarterFROM:^Terry 0' ConnerSUBJECT: Lunch BreaksIt has come to my attention that many of our employees are abusing lunch time.They are taking too long a lunch break, some by up to double the allowable time.I have talked with the group managers who think it is better we leave things asthey are. What should we do about this?***************************************************TO:^J. CarterFROM:^Terry 0' ConnerSUBJECT: Lunch BreaksIt has come to my attention that many of our employees are abusing lunch time.They are taking too long a lunch break, some by up to double the allowable time.I have talked with the group managers who think it is better we leave things asthey are. They felt that you wouldn't do anything about this. However, I wanted to giveyou a chance. Should I ignore all of this or will you do something about this.162TO:^J. CarterJust thought you'd want to know that one of your employee's is copying softwarepackages from our computer and selling them to high school kids. I have reason tobelieve that one of the Group Managers knows about this and may have even suppliedthem with software manuals.Since I think you are the right address to be telling this to, I haven't told anybodyelse about this. I feel very strongly about this issue, so please let me know if there isanything I can do to help you with this.*************************************TO:^J. CarterJust thought you'd want to know that one of your employee's is copying softwarepackages from our computer and selling them to high school kids. I have reason tobelieve that one of the Group Managers knows about this and may have even suppliedthem with software manuals.Is this practice going to be allowed to continue?*************************************TO:^J. CarterJust thought you'd want to know that one of your people is copying softwarepackages from our computer and selling them to high school kids. I have reason tobelieve that one of the Group Managers knows about this and may have even suppliedthem with software manuals.Oh, by the way, I also informed the CEO about this.163General Software Products, Ltd.MemorandumTo: J. CarterPC Software DevelopmentFrom:^P. MorganVP Software DevelopmentDate: May 31, 1991Thanks for your Computer Games Department progress report. Your format was notquite our usual style, however, I like it and am considering recommending that othersfollow your example. Would you be willing to coach them?((in pen "keep up the good work!")********************************************General Software Products, Ltd.MemorandumTo: J. CarterPC Software DevelopmentFrom:^P. MorganVP Software DevelopmentDate: May 31, 1991Thanks for your Computer Games Department progress report.*********************************************General Software Products, Ltd.MemorandumTo: J. CarterPC Software DevelopmentFrom:^P. MorganVP Software DevelopmentDate: May 31, 1991Even though your report was not written in the standard format, I read it this time. Yourformat isn't a bad idea, but around here we prefer working the standard way. So nexttime, please make sure that you are following standard procedure -- we can not haveeverybody coming up with changes! From now on, just focus on what you are asked todo.164Appendix 14Packet 1165REOUEST FOR CONFIDENTIALITY and CONSENTAs part of this program on managerial effectiveness, you will be exposed to a series ofmanagerial tasks. These tasks are adaptations of a real manager's tasks. It is veryimportant that until the first three sessions are completed by all participants , you maintainconfidentiality about all of the information you will receive.Since there are several time slots for each session it is important that you do not discussany of the information with others until AFTER 30/3/93.Please note that the data you provide will also be used for research purposes; however,all such material will be kept confidential. As mentioned, you will be taking part in threemanagerial simulations for a total time of under four hours. If you participate in all threesimulations you will be eligible to take part in a managerial effectiveness workshop. Inaddition, should you be interested, you will also receive individual feedback on yourperformance during the simulation as well as a summary of the purposes and results ofthe research component of this project. The benefit of this program lies in theopportunity to tackle management experiences and to receive constructive feedback toenhance your managerial skills and abilities. If you have any questions please contactProfessor Craig Pinder at 822-8374 (H.A. 552).^  (please print name) agree tomaintain the confidentiality of the information I will encounter during this managerialeffectiveness program. I will not discuss this information with any other UBC studentsuntil the study is over (30/3/93). I also consent to having the information collectedduring the managerial simulations to be used for research purposes. I understand thatsuch information is confidential and will not be used for other purposes or be transferredto other sources.^ (Signature)(Date)166PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATIONName (Please print):Phone Number:Sex: (Please circle the appropriate answer)Male / FemaleAge:Year (Please circle the correct answer):1st year MBA / 2nd year MBA / Evening MBA / Other (Please specify)^Ethnic group (Please circle the correct answer):Hispanic / Asian / Native Indian / White / Black / Other (Please specify)^Is English your native language? If not: (1) what language is, (2) where are you from,and (3) how many years have you lived in North America?How many years have you worked full time?How many years have you worked part time?Please indicate the highest position/title you achieved at work:167During the next three sessions you will take part in several tasks which simulatemanagerial activity. In each session you will receive a series of different items andproblems recreating a variety of typical managers' tasks. In order to be successful, youneed to put yourself in the manager's shoes. In other words, by to respond as you wouldin this particular manager's specific situation. Use your own experience and judgementas the basis for your responses.During the next two sessions you will be J. Carter, Manager of the PC SoftwareDevelopment Department in General Software Products. You have three group managersunder you. In each of the three groups there are between three and seven programmers.Your boss is the VP of Software Development, who reports to the CEO of the company.In addition, there is a Software Steering Committee. Please start by answering thequestions listed below. Since this work will later be used for your own developmentalpurposes, please respond as you would in such a situation, and not as you think one"should." Remember, you are to use your own experience and judgement as the basisfor your responses.Please think about the messages you receive in organizations and indicate the extent towhich you agree or disagree with each of the statements using the 5 point scale. Forexample, if you completely agree with the statement circle 5 and if completely disagreecircle 1.Disagree Agree1. I count around here. 1 2 3 4 52. I am taken seriously around here. 1 2 3 4 53. I am important around here. 1 2 3 4 54. I am trusted around here. 1 2 3 4 55. Around here there is faith in me. 1 2 3 4 56. I can make a difference around here. 1 2 3 4 57. I am valuable around here. 1 2 3 4 58. I am helpful around here. 1 2 3 4 59. I am efficient around here. 1 2 3 4 510. I am cooperative around here. 1 2 3 4 511. When I make plans, I am certain I can make themwork.1 2 3 4 5168Disagree^Agree12. One of my problems is that I cannot get down to work 1 2 3 4 5when I should.13. If I can't do a job the first time, I keep trying until I^1 2 3^4 5can.14. When I set important goals for myself, I rarely^1 2 3 4 5achieve them.15. I give up on things before completing them.^1 2 3 4 516. I avoid facing difficulties.^ 1^2 3^4 517. If something looks too complicated, I will not even^1 2 3 4 5bother to try it.18. When I have something unpleasant to do, I stick to it^1 2 3 4 5until I finish it.19. When I decide to do something, I go right to work on 1 2 3 4 5it.20. When trying to learn something new, I soon give up if 1 2 3 4 5I am not initially successful.21. When unexpected problems occur, I don't handle them 1 2 3 4 5well.22. I avoid trying to learn new things when they look too^1 2 3 4 5difficult for me.23. Failure just makes me try harder.^ 1 2 3 4 524. I feel insecure about my ability to do things.^1 2 3 4 525. I am a self-reliant person.^ 1 2 3 4 526. I give up easily.^ 1^2 3 4 527. I do not seem capable of dealing with most problems^1 2 3 4 5that come up in life.169As J. Carter, please answer the following questions on a scale of 1 to 7. Circle 7 if thestatement is totally accurate and 1 if the statement is totally in-accurate.In-accurate Accurate1 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71. In this organization I can usually achievewhat I want when I work hard for it.2. In this organization once I make plans Iam almost certain to make them work.3. In this organization I can learn almostanything if I set my mind to it.4. My major accomplishments inorganizations such as this one are entirelydue to my hard work and ability.5. In this organization I usually do not setgoals because I have a hard time followingthrough on them.6. In organizations such as this, bad luck hassometimes prevented me from achievingthings.7. In this organization almost anything ispossible for me if I really want it.8. Most of what will happen in my career isbeyond my control.9. In this organization I find it pointless tokeep working on something that is toodifficult for me.10. In my organizational relationships, theother person usually has more control overthe relationship than I do.11. In organizations I have no trouble makingand keeping friends.12. In organizational settings I am not good atguiding the course of a conversation withseveral others.170In-accurate Accurate1 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 713. In organizations I can usually develop aclose personal relationship with someone Ifind appealing.14. In organizational settings I can usuallysteer a conversation toward the topics Iwant to talk about.15. In organizations when I need assistancewith something, I often find it difficult toget others to help.16. In an organization if there is someone Iwant to meet I can usually arrange it.17. In an organizational setting, I often find ithard to get my point of view across toothers.18. In organizational setting, in attempting tosmooth over a disagreement I sometimesmake it worse.19. In organizations I find it easy to play animportant part in most group situations.Please return this packet to your envelope andwait for instructions before starting "Packet 2."171Appendix 15Packet 2Please answer the questions on thefollowing two pages only in relation tothe in-basket which you have justcompleted.172Please respond to the following questionsas J. Carter in all three in-baskets.Think about the messages you received in all the organizations you worked in as J. Carter(i.e., all three in-baskets) and indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree witheach of the statements using the 5 point scale. For example, if you completely agree withthe statement circle 5 and if completely disagree circle 1.Disagree Agree1. I count around here. 1 2 3 4 52. I am taken seriously around here. 1 2 3 4 53. I am important around here. 1 2 3 4 54. I am trusted around here. 1 2 3 4 55. Around here there is faith in me. 1 2 3 4 56. I can make a difference around here. 1 2 3 4 57. I am valuable around here. 1 2 3 4 58. I am helpful around here. 1 2 3 4 59. I am efficient around here. 1 2 3 4 510. I am cooperative around here. 1 2 3 4 511. When I make plans, I am certain I can make themwork.1 2 3 4 512. One of my problems is that I cannot get down to workwhen I should.1 2 3 4 513. If I can't do a job the first time, I keep trying until Ican.1 2 3 4 514. When I set important goals for myself, I rarelyachieve them.1 2 3 4 515. I give up on things before completing them. 1 2 3 4 516. I avoid facing difficulties. 1 2 3 4 517. If something looks too complicated, I will not evenbother to try it.1 2 3 4 5173Disagree Agree18. When I have something unpleasant to do, I stick to ituntil I finish it.1 2 3 4 519. When I decide to do something, I go right to work onit.1 2 3 4 520. When trying to learn something new, I soon give up if 1 2 3 4 5I am not initially successful.21. When unexpected problems occur, I don't handle themwell.1 2 3 4 522. I avoid trying to learn new things when they look toodifficult for me.1 2 3 4 523. Failure just makes me try harder. 1 2 3 4 524. I feel insecure about my ability to do things. 1 2 3 4 525. I am a self-reliant person. 1 2 3 4 526. I give up easily. 1 2 3 4 527. I do not seem capable of dealing with most problemsthat come up in life.1 2 3 4 5As J. Carter, please answer the following questions on a scale of 1 to 7. Circle 7 if thestatement is totally accurate and 1 if the statement is totally in-accurate.In-accurate Accurate1 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71. In this organization I can usually achievewhat I want when I work hard for it.2. In this organization once I make plans Iam almost certain to make them work.3. In this organization I can learn almostanything if I set my mind to it.4. My major accomplishments inorganizations such as this one are entirelydue to my hard work and ability.174In-accurate Accurate1 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 75. In this organization I usually do not setgoals because I have a hard time followingthrough on them.6. In organizations such as this, bad luck hassometimes prevented me from achievingthings.7. In this organization almost anything ispossible for me if I really want it.8. Most of what will happen in my career isbeyond my control.9. In this organization I find it pointless tokeep working on something that is toodifficult for me.10. In my organizational relationships, theother person usually has more control overthe relationship than I do.11. In organizations I have no trouble makingand keeping friends.12. In organizational settings I am not good atguiding the course of a conversation withseveral others.13. In organizations I can usually develop aclose personal relationship with someone Ifind appealing.14. In organizational settings I can usuallysteer a conversation toward the topics Iwant to talk about.15. In organizations when I need assistancewith something, I often find it difficult toget others to help.16. In an organization if there is someone Iwant to meet I can usually arrange it.17517. In an organizational setting, I often find ithard to get my point of view across toothers.18. In organizational setting, in attempting tosmooth over a disagreement I sometimesmake it worse.19. In organizations I find it easy to play animportant part in most group situations.20. I am generally satisfied with the kind ofwork I do on this job.21. I frequently think of quitting this job.22. Generally speaking, I am very satisfiedwith this job.In-accurate Accurate1 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 7Agree Disagree1 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 723. Knowing what you know now, if you had to decide all over again whether to takethe job you now have, what would you decide?1) I would definitely take the job again.2) I would probably take the job again.3) I am not sure if I would take the job again.4) I would probably not take the job again.5) I would definitely not take the job again.176YOU HAVE NOW COMPLETEDYOUR ROLE AS J. CARTERPLEASE TURN THE PAGE ANDASSUME YOUR OWNIDENTITY TO COMPLETE THISPACKET.NameThe purpose of this last set of questions is to identify what you thought and feltthroughout this managerial development program. Please answer these questions astruthfully as you can. If you would like to add additional comments, please feel free todo so. Please be sure to write your responses in a clear and legible manner.For the next few statements, please circle the answer that best describes what you think.1) In my organizational role as J. Carter I felt that the information I had access to was:1^2^3^4^5^6^7Restricted^ Sufficient2) As J. Carter I felt that I had:1^2^3^4^5^6^7Sufficient^ Insufficientresponsibility responsibility3) In my organizational role as J. Carter I felt:1^2^3^4^5^6^7Trusted & respected Not trusted &respected4) I felt that I was working with people that were behind me and supportive of myefforts and work:1^2^3^4^5^6^7Supportive^ Not supportive1785) As J. Carter I felt:1^2^3^4^5^6^7Empowered^ Not empzmaed6) I found General Holding Company (which both Servcom and General Software arepart of) to be an organization I would:1^2^3^4^5^6^7Like to work for Not like to work for7) During the three sessions of the managerial effectiveness program I was:1^2^3^4^5^6^7Highly motivated Not at all motivatedto do my best to do my best8) Overall, what did you think of the three management simulation sessions you wereexposed to? Please explain.9) During the time between the first session of this program and today, did you tellanybody about the content of these exercises, or did anybody tell you about it?If so, what was the information that was exchanged? (Please note, that you arestill requested not to talk about the management simulation program until the30/3/93.)179HOW DID WE DO? Now, after you have completed the Effectiveness Workshop we would liketo ask you for some feedback. We would appreciate if you could take afew moments and let us know:1. Overall, how would you evaluate the Effectiveness Workshop?Deficient 1^2^3^4^5^ExcellentAdditional Comments: 2. Overall, how would you evaluate the three simulations sessions ofthe Mastering Management Program?Deficient 1^2^3^4^5^ExcellentAdditional Comments: 3.^In your opinion, how can we improve the overall program?Appendix 16Evaluation ForrniTHANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.180


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items