A520.5.3.RB - Forrestor's Empowerment

In Forrestor’s article he explains six ways in which organizations and their leaders have managed to give empowerment a bad name, including precipitous empowerment mandates, overreliance on a narrow psychological concept of empowerment, one-size-fits-all empowerment, neglecting the needs of power sharers, a piece-meal approach, and distortions of accountability.

Precipitous empowerment mandates revolve around organizations removing or implementing new stages of responsibility for employees without sufficient time to allow employees to become adjusted. When talking about overreliance on a narrow psychological concept of empowerment, this concept is when organizations attempt to tell employees what they are, what they could be, what they want or need when it comes to their job. This may create a false sense of power and responsibility. The one-size-fits-all approach to empowerment is fairly self-explanatory. It explains the fact that not all employees respond to the same empowerment techniques. Neglecting the needs of power sharers is about organizations trying too hard to empower front-line managers while neglecting the ones in the middle. Middle level managers have more responsibility and have more influence on those below them, so why are they often left out of the plan? Organizations often try piece-meal approaches or cookie-cutter approaches to empowerment and get results opposite the ones that they wanted. Organizations need tailored, creative ways to empower employees because it is something that needs to be taken seriously due to the consequences. Distortions of accountability relates to employees being given greater responsibilities with the same amount of accountability as employees with lesser responsibilities. These employees cannot be protected from the consequences of their actions.

On the other end of the spectrum, the article explains six ways to potentially save organizations from these pitfalls, which include enlarging power, being sure of what you want to do, differentiate among employees, support power sharers, build fitting systems, and focus on results. These somewhat align with the five dimensions mentioned in the text, Developing Management Skills, which can be expanded upon. Self-efficacy deals with a person having the competence and ability to perform a task. Each employee must be trained appropriately and have the ability to do the jobs that are delegated to them. The second dimension, self-determination, relates to employees having a choice in what tasks they do and don’t do. The third dimension, which is personal consequence, is related to the results of the task they take on. Basically, effort produces results and no one will be there to correct mistakes. The fourth dimension, meaning, revolves around employees having tasks that give them a purpose. They are able to produce goals from their jobs and do them successfully because they align with the employee’s standards and ideals. The final dimension, trust, is perhaps the most important as it allows employees to complete tasks because they trust they will be treated fairly and valued as people.