' Academy ol Management Feview. 1988, Vol. 13, No. 3, 471-482.

The Empowerment Process:Integrating Theory and Practice

JAY A. CONGERRABINDRA N. KANUNGO

McGill University

Despite increasing attention on the topic of empowerment, our under-standmg of the construct and its underlying processes remains limited.This article addresses these shortcomings by providing an analyticaltreatment of the construct and by integrating the diverse approachesto empowerment found in both the management and psychologyliteratures. In addition, the authors identify certain antecedent condi-tions of powerlessness and practices that have been hypothesized toempovver subordinates.

There has been a growing interest in the con-cept of empowerment and related managementpractices among both management researchersand practitioners (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Block,1987; Burke, 1986; House, in press; Kanter, 1979;McClelland, 1975; Neilsen, 1986). This interest isdue to several reasons. First, studies on leader-ship and management skills (Bennis & Nanus,1985; House, in press; Kanter, 1979, 1983; McClel-land, 1975) suggest that the practice of empower-ing subordinates is a principal component ofmanagerial and organizational effectiveness.Second, analysis of power and control withinorganizations (Kanter, 1979; Tannenbaum, 1968)reveals that the total productive forms of organi-zational power and effectiveness grow withsuperiors' sharing of power and control withsubordinates. Finally, experiences in team build-ing within organizations (Beckhard, 1969; Neil-sen, 1986) suggest that empowerment techniquesplay a crucial role in group development andmaintenance.

A review of the literature cited above clearlyattests that empowerment is an emerging con-struct used by theorists to explain organizationaleffectiveness. The construct also has been widely

used by other social scientists who have dealtwith issues of the powerlessness of minoritygroups (e.g., women, blacks, and the handi-capped). Because of the widespread popularityof empowerment as a construct, we believe itrequires critical examination.

Despite the recognized role of empowermentin management theory and practice, our under-standing of the construct is limited and oftenconfusing. For example, most management the-orists have dealt with empowerment as a set ofmanagerial techniques and have not paid suffi-cient attention to its nature or the processes un-derlying the construct. This may reflect the prag-matic or practice orientation of theorists, and theresult may be an inadequate understanding ofthe notion of empowerment and its theoreticalrationale for related practices. As a construct,empowerment has not received the same analyti-cal treatment from management scholars as theconstruct of power (or control). In many cases,scholars have assumed that empowerment is thesame as delegating or sharing power with subor-dinates and, hence, that the construct requiresno further conceptual analysis beyond the powerconcept. We believe that this approach has seri-

471

ous flaws, as we will discuss in our article. Inaddition, the contexts most appropriate for em-powerment and the actual management prac-tices that foster empowerment are poorly under-stood and catalogued. Our objective is to addressthese shortcomings by providing an analyticaltreatment of the empowerment construct. Wehave made an attempt to integrate the diverseapproaches to empowerment found in both themanagement and psychology literatures. Indoing so, this article provides a framework forstudying empowerment and demonstrates itsrelevance to management theory and practice.

The Constructs oiPower and Empowerment

In order to critically analyze the notion of em-powerment in management practice, the rootconstructs of power and control from which theempowerment construct is derived must be con-sidered. Essentially, control and power are usedin the literature in two different ways and, con-sequently, empowerment can be viewed in twodifferent ways.

Empowerment as a Relational Construct. Inthe management and social influence literature,power is primarily a relational concept used todescribe the perceived power or control that anindividual actor or organizational subunit hasover others (Bacharach & Lawler, 1980; Crozier,1964; Dahl, 1957; Hinings, Hickson, Pennings, &Schneck, 1974; Kotter, 1979; Parsons & Smelser,1956; Pfeffer, 1981). Taking its emphasis from so-cial exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Emerson, 1962;Homans, 1974; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), this litera-ture interprets power as a function of the depen-dence and/or interdependence of actors. Powerarises when an individual's or a subunit's perfor-mance outcomes are contingent not simply ontheir own behavior but on what others do and/orin how others respond (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959).The relative power of one actor over another is aproduct of the net dependence of the one on theother (Pfeffer, 1981). Therefore, if Actor A dependsmore on Actor B than B depends on A, then Bhas power over A.

At the organizational level, the principalsources of an actor's power over an organizationhave been argued to be the actor's ability toprovide some performance or resource that isvalued by the organization or the actor's abilityto cope with important organizational contingen-cies or problems (Pfeffer, 1982). For example, Cro-zier (1964) demonstrated that maintenance work-ers in a French factory had control over a criticalorganizational contingency—the breakdown ofmachinery—which was their source of power.Salancik and Pfeffer (1974) found that in universi-ties the degree of department power was relatedto the number of contracts and grants obtained.

At the interpersonal level, the principal sourcesof actor power over others are argued to be(a) the office or structural position of the actor,(b) the personal characteristics of the actor (e.g.,referent power, French & Raven, 1959), (c) theexpertise of the actor, and (d) the opportunity forthe actor to access specialized knowledge/infor-mation (Bacharach & Lawler, 1980). Dependingon what resources actors control, their bases ofpower have been identified as legal (control ofoffice), coercive (control of punishment), remu-nerative (control of material rewards), norma-tive (control of symbolic rewards), and know-ledge/expertise (control of information) (Bach-arach & Lawler, 1980; Etzioni, 1961; French &Raven, 1959).

Implied in these theories are the assumptionsthat organizational actors who have power aremore likely to achieve their desired outcomesand actors who lack power are more likely tohave their desired outcomes thwarted or redi-rected by those with power. This orientation hasled theorists to focus on the source or bases ofactor power and on the conditions that promotesuch dependence (Hills & Mahoney, 1978; Kotter,1977, 1979; Lodahl & Gordon, 1972; Pfeffer, 1981;Salancik & Pfeffer, 1974, 1977). This focus alsohas led to the development of strategies and tac-tics of resource allocation for increasing thepower of less powerful parties and reducing thepower of more powerful ones (Bucher, 1970;Kotter, 1977, 1979;Mowday, 1978;Pettigrew, 1972;

472

Pfeffer, 1981; Plott & Levine, 1978; Salancik &Pfeffer, 1974; Selznick, 1949).

If we consider empowerment in terms of thisrelational dynamic, it becomes the process bywhich a leader or manager shares his or herpower with subordinates. Power, in this context,is interpreted as the possession of formal author-ity or control over organizational resources. Theemphasis is primarily on the notion of sharingauthority. Burke's (1986) position is representative:"To empower, implies the granting of power—delegation of authority" (p. 51). The MerriamWebster's Dictionary similarly describes the verbto empower as "to authorize or delegate or givelegal power to someone." In the managementliterature, this idea of delegation and the decen-tralization of decision-making power is centralto the empowerment notion (Burke, 1986; House,in press; Kanter, 1983). As a result, we find thatmost of the management literature on empower-ment deals with participative management tech-niques such as management by objectives,quality circles, and goal setting by subordinatesas the means of sharing power or delegatingauthority.

This manner of treating the notion of empower-ment from a management practice perspectiveis so common that often employee participationis simply equated with empowerment (Likert,1961, 1967; McGregor, 1960). However, becausethis line of reasoning does not adequately addressthe nature of empowerment as experienced bysubordinates, it raises important questions. Forexample, does the sharing of authority and re-sources with subordinates automatically em-power them? Through what psychological me-chanisms do participative and resource-sharingtechniques foster an empowering experienceamong subordinates? Are participation and thesharing of organizational resources the onlytechniques for empowerment? Are the effects ofan empowering experience the same as theeffects of delegation, participation, and resourcesharing?

Empowerment as a Motivational Construct. Inthe psychology literature, power and control are

used as motivational and/or expectancy belief-states that are internal to individuals. For in-stance, individuals are assumed to have a needfor power (McClelland, 1975) where power con-notes an internal urge to influence and controlother people. A related but more inclusive dis-position to control and cope with life events alsohas been proposed by several psychologists whohave dealt with the issues of primary/secondarycontrol (Rothbaum, Weisz, & Snyder, 1982),internal/external locus of control (Rotter, 1966),and learned helplessness (Abramson, Garber,& Seligman, 1980). Individuals' power needs aremet when they perceive that they have power orwhen they believe they can adequately copewith events, situations, and/or the people theyconfront. On the other hand, individuals' powerneeds are frustrated when they feel powerlessor when they believe that they are unable tocope with the physical and social demands ofenvironment.

Power in this motivational sense refers to anintrinsic need for self-determination (Deci, 1975)or a belief in personal self-efficacy (Bandura,1986). Under this conceptualization, power hasits base within an actor's motivational disposition.Any managerial strategy or technique thatstrengthens this self-determination need or self-efficacy belief of employees will make them feelmore powerful. Conversely, any strategy thatweakens the self-determination need or self-efficacy belief of employees will increase theirfeelings of powerlessness.

In fact, the Oxford English dictionary definesthe verb empower as "to enable." In contrastto the earlier definition of empowerment as dele-gation (of authority and resource sharing), ena-bling implies motivating through enhancing per-sonal efficacy. In the management literature onpower and empowerment, often both meaningsare fused together, and their relationships to eachother are not clear. For instance, Whetten andCameron (1984) alluded to power as both gain-ing control over limited resources and as a signof personal efficacy. Likewise, Neilsen (1986) con-sidered empowerment both as giving subordi-

473

nates resources and as increasing their sense ofself-worth. However, Burke (1986) recognized thedistinctiveness of the two meanings, but like mostmanagement researchers preferred to use em-powerment in the sense of delegation rather thanin the sense of enabling.

We propose that empowerment be viewed asa motivational construct—meaning to enablerather than simply to delegate. In McClelland's(1975) research, empowerment also is viewed asan enabling, rather than a delegating, process.Enabling implies creating conditions for height-ening motivation for task accomplishment throughthe development of a strong sense of personalefficacy. We argue that delegating or resourcesharing is only one set of conditions that may(but not necessarily) enable or empower subordi-nates. The process of delegation is too constrictivein scope to accommodate the complex nature ofempowerment. Thus, there are various otherconditions of empowering besides delegation orparticipation. Therefore, empowerment is de-fined here as a process of enhancing feelingsof self-efficacy among organizational membersthrough the identification of conditions that fosterpowerlessness and through their removal by bothformal organizational practices and informaltechniques of providing efficacy information.

The Empowerment ProcessThe need to empower subordinates becomes

critical when subordinates feel powerless. Thusit is important to identify conditions within orga-nizations that foster a sense of powerlessnessamong subordinates. Once these conditions areidentified, empowerment strategies and tacticscan then be used to remove them. However, re-moving external conditions is not always poss-ible, and it may not be sufficient for subordi-nates to become empowered unless the strate-gies and tactics directly provide personal effi-cacy information to them. Bandura (1986) sug-gested several sources from which individualsdirectly receive information about their personalefficacy, and these sources should be used indeveloping empowerment strategies. Conceivedthis way, the process of empowerment can be

viewed in five stages that include the psychologi-cal state of empowering experience, its anteced-ent conditions, and its behavioral consequences.The five stages are shown in Figure 1.

The first stage is the diagnosis of conditionswithin the organization that are responsible forfeelings of powerlessness among subordinates.This leads to the use of empowerment strategiesby managers in Stage 2. The employment ofthese strategies is aimed not only at removingsome of the external conditions responsible forpowerlessness, but also (and more important) atproviding subordinates with self-efficacy infor-mation in Stage 3. As a result of receiving suchinformation, subordinates feel empowered inStage 4, and the behavioral effects of empower-ment are noticed in Stage 5.

The Empowering Experience

To conceptualize empowerment in motiva-tional terms, we prefer to use Bandura's self-efficacy notion (1986). Translated in terms ofBandura's model, empowerment refers to a pro-cess whereby an individual's belief in his or herself-efficacy is enhanced. To empower meanseither to strengthen this belief or to weaken one'sbelief in personal powerlessness. Personal effi-cacy is sometimes postulated to stem from inter-nal need-states such as the intrinsic need for self-determination (Deci, 1975), the competence mo-tive (White, 1959), the need for power (McClel-land, 1975), and the need for self-actualization(Maslow, 1954). However, we prefer not to adoptthe content or need theory approach to explainthe phenomenon of empowerment. We assumethat everyone has an internal need for self-determination and a need to control and copewith environmental demands. Differences in thestrength of this need among individuals can beexplained by analyzing the underlying motiva-tional process. We therefore follow the processtheory approach to empowerment as a motiva-tional phenomena by relating it to expectancy(Lawler, 1973) and self-efficacy theories (Bandura,1977, 1986).

According to expectancy theory, an indi-vidual's motivation to increase his or her effort in

474

0

CO

TA

GE

CO

ing

toL

ead

D)

ults

in

Dow

eri

Ul ^0 ccn 0

vior

al

0

1

•o0

erie

nc

X0

en

effe

ct[t

eor

dino

-QIn

itiat

ic

"o

leni

ng.^

0

0 6w -C

pers

iof

be

0ocD

tlef

foex

pis

hco

mpl

o00

t

c

"0

bell

ves

Dbj

ecti

task

(

Du

lal

eifi

,9

per;

nU -a R o o

Ul0O

0 Ul

O 31!

U

n

».. Do -c

gDE

0

eadi

nio

ns 1

0CJ

00to

logi

ca

0

tUl

aD0

snes

s

«_00

pow

"o

ove

0OC

ions

ndit

00

mpu

n

ed

w

0Dl

a0)

goaBa>(0to

Ul

0U

"D

0

niz

0O)

0

cg1a3

E0"m

Ul

-a

0c

X I

.._

0

D

0

ICD

475

a given task will depend on two types of expecta-tions: (a) that their effort will result in a desiredlevel of performance and (b) that their perfor-mance will produce desired outcomes. Bandura(1986) referred to the former as the self-efficacyexpectation and the latter as the outcome expec-tation. When individuals are empowered, theirpersonal efficacy expectations are strengthened.However, their outcome expectations are not nec-essarily affected. They develop a sense of per-sonal mastery or a "can do" attitude regardlessof hopes for favorable performance outcomes.Empowering means enabling, and it implies rais-ing subordinates' convictions in their own effec-tiveness (successfully executing desired be-havior) rather than raising subordinates' hopesfor favorable performance outcomes. Even un-der conditions of failure to gain desired outcomes,individuals may feel empowered if their efficacybelief is reinforced by their leader's recognitionof their performance (i.e., "We may have lost tocompetition, but I'm proud of your performance.We will do better next time.").

Behavioral Effects

Empowerment as an enabling process affectsboth initiation and persistence of subordinates'task behavior. As Bandura (1977) pointed out:

The strength of peoples' conviction in their owneffectiveness is likely to affect whether theywould even try to cope with given situations. . . .They get involved in activities and behave as-suredly when they judge themselves capable ofhandling situations that would otherwise beintimidating. . . . Efficacy expectations deter-mine how much effort people will expend andhow long they will persist in the face of obstaclesand aversive experiences, (pp. 193-194)

The behavioral outcomes are of special signifi-cance to organizational leaders. Empowermentprocesses may allow leaders to lessen the emo-tional impact of demoralizing organizationalchanges or to mobilize organizational membersin the face of difficult competitive challenges.These processes may enable leaders to set higherperformance goals, and they may help employ-ees to accept these goals. Empowerment prac-

tices also may be useful in motivating subordi-nates to persist despite difficult organizational/environmental obstacles.

Context Factors Leading to Powerlessness

Management theorists have argued that spe-cific contextual factors contribute to the loweringof self-efficacy or personal power among organi-zational members (Block, 1987; Conger, 1986;Kanter, 1979, 1983). Block (1987) described howbureaucratic contexts and authoritarian manage-ment styles encouraged powerlessness by foster-ing dependency, the denial of self-expression,negative forms of manipulation, and less mean-ingful organizational goals. According to Con-ger (1986), conditions that lowered self-efficacywere found during major reorganizations, instart-up ventures, and in firms that had authori-tarian managers and demanding organizationalgoals. Kanter (1977, 1983) argued that organiza-tional communication systems, network formingarrangements, access to resources, and job de-sign could contribute to employee powerlessness.She noted primarily that

people held accountable for the results producedby others, whose formal role gives them the rightto command but who lack informal politicalinfluence, access to resources, outside status,sponsorship, or mobility prospects, are renderedpowerless in the organizations. . . . They lackcontrol over their own fate and are dependenton others above them. (p. 186)

Examples of first-line supervisors, certain staffpositions, women, and minorities were cited.

In Table 1, we identify the principal contextualfactors that contribute to the lowering of self-efficacy beliefs in organizational members. Theseare organized into four categories: (a) organiza-tional, (b) supervisory style, (c) reward systems,and (d) job design.

In terms of organizational factors, we hypothe-size that organizations that experience majorchanges or transitions have an increased likeli-hood of their employees experiencing powerless-ness. These transitions may be spurred on byfinancial emergencies, loss of key personnel, la-bor problems, significant technological changes,

476

Table 1Confexf Facfors Leading to PotentialLowering of Seli-Eificacy Belief

Organizational Factors

Significant organizational changes/transitionsStart-up venturesCompetitive pressuresImpersonal bureaucratic climatePoor communications/network-forming systemsHighly centralized organizational resources

Supervisory Style

Authoritarian (high control)Negativism (emphasis on failures)Lack of reason for actions/consequences

Reward Systems

Noncontingency (arbitrary reward allocations)Low incentive value of rewardsLack of competence-based rewardsLack of innovation-based rewards

lob Design

Lack of role clarityLack of training and technical supportUnrealistic goalsLack of appropriate authority/discretionLow task varietyLimited participation in programs, meetings, decisions

that have a direct impact on job performanceLack of appropriate/necessary resourcesLack of network-forming opportunitiesHighly established work routinesHigh rule structureLow advancement opportunitiesLack of meaningful goals/tasksLimited contact with senior management

acquisition or merger activity, major changes inorganizational strategy, rapid growth, and/or theintroduction of significant new products or newmanagement teams. In any case, these eventsinduce significant alterations in organizationalstructures, communication links, power and au-thority relations, and the organization's goals,strategies, and tactics. In these cases, existingorganizational norms and patterns of action arelikely to change (Nadler, 1980). As the organiza-tion seeks new guidelines for action, its goals

and rules may no longer be clearly defined. Re-sponsibilities and power may shift dramatically.Uncertainty may be experienced by a large partof the organization. Certain functional areas,divisions, or acquired companies may experi-ence disenfranchisement because they perceivetheir responsibilities as being diminished or sub-ordinated to others. Therefore, transitions pro-duce a period of disorientation (Tichy & Devanna,1986). As a result, major organizational changesmay seriously challenge employees' sense of con-trol and competence as they deal with the uncer-tainty of change and accept new responsibilities,skills, and guidelines for action and behavior.

Start-up ventures can present similar condi-tions of uncertainty that lead to lowered feelingsof self-efficacy for employees. During the initialstart-up phase, there may be uncertainty sur-rounding the market potential for the company'sproducts and services. This can translate intolowered efficacy feelings among organizationalmembers regarding their competence in direct-ing and managing the organization. With acompany's success and accompanying growth,other conditions of powerlessness may befostered. As Greiner (1972) pointed out, employ-ees who are accustomed to informal organiza-tional systems and relations may find the organi-zation and its systems becoming increasinglyformalized and impersonal. As control systemsgrow in importance, they may diminish em-ployees' sense of autonomy and responsibility.As the company grows, managers' responsibili-ties may increase, requiring them to attain skilllevels beyond their existing competencies. Prob-lems may arise with role clarity and adequatetraining for employees. Furthermore, as the firmgrows, entrepreneurial executives may be reluc-tant to relinquish control to subordinates.

Bureaucratic organizations are characterizedby patriarchal management/employee contracts(Block, 1987) and direct member behavior throughestablished rules and routines. These factors in-hibit self-expression and limit autonomy. Asnoted earlier. Block (1987) and Kanter (1983) ar-gued that bureaucracy and "segmentalism" cre-ate serious inequities in the distribution of organi-

477

zational power and lead to a diminished senseof self-efficacy for employees.

Authoritarian management styles can stripcontrol and discretion from subordinates, therebyheightening the sense of powerlessness for em-ployees (Block, 1987; Conger, 1986). As Kanter(1979) suggested, a satisfactory degree of discre-tion is important for fostering empowerment onthe job, and this discretion is something auto-cratic managers often remove.

The literature on reward systems (e.g., Kanter,1979; Kanungo, 1987; Lawler, 1971, 1977; Vroom,1964) and job design (e.g., Hackman, 1978; Hack-man & Lawler, 1971; Hackman, Oldham, lanson,& Purdy, 1975) also describes conditions thatlower the self-efficacy of organizational mem-bers. When organizations do not provide rewardsthat are valued by employees and when rewardsare not offered for employee competence, initia-tive, and persistence in innovative job behavior,employees' sense of powerlessness increases(Sims, 1977; Szilagyi, 1980). Furthermore, whenjobs provide very little challenge and meaningand when they involve role ambiguity, roleconflict, and role overload, employees' beliefs inpersonal efficacy suffer. We argue that these con-textual factors should be the focal points for diag-nosis and the interventions aimed at rectifyingsources of powerlessness among employees.

Empowerment Management Practices

Organizational theorists have proposed oridentified a number of management practicesthat heighten a sense of self-efficacy. At the or-ganizational level, it has been suggested thatorganizations design selection and training pro-cedures to ensure requisite technical, linguistic,and social influence skills (House, in press; Mc-Clelland, 1975) and that company policies andcultures emphasize self-determination, collabo-ration over conflict/competition, high perfor-mance standards, nondiscrimination, and meri-tocracy (House, in press). In addition, organi-zations that provide multiple sources of looselycommitted resources at decentralized or locallevels, that structure open communications sys-tems, and that create extensive network-forming

devices are more likely to be empowering(Kanter, 1983).

Leadership and/or supervision practices thatare identified as empowering include (a) ex-pressing confidence in subordinates accompan-ied by high performance expectations (Burke,1986; Conger, 1986; House, 1977, in press; Neil-sen, 1986), (b) fostering opportunities for subordi-nates to participate in decision making (Block,1987; Burke, 1986; Conger, 1986; House 1977, inpress; Kanter, 1979; Neilsen, 1986; Strauss, 1977),(c) providing autonomy from bureaucratic con-straint (Block, 1987; Kanter, 1979; House, in press),and (d) setting inspirational and/or meaningfulgoals (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Block, 1987; Burke,1986; McClelland, 1975; Tichy & Devanna, 1986).It also has been suggested by House (in press)that leaders/managers should be selected on thebasis of their inclination to use power in a pos-itive manner.

It is argued that reward systems that empha-size innovative/unusual performance and highincentive values foster a greater sense of self-efficacy (Kanter, 1979). lobs that provide taskvariety, personal relevance, appropriate auton-omy and control, low levels of established rou-tines and rules, and high advancement pros-pects are more likely to empower subordinates(Block, 1987; Kanter, 1979; Oldham, 1976; Strauss,1977).

These practices can be viewed from the differ-ent perspectives of formal/organizational mecha-nisms or individual/informal techniques. Forexample, when organizations engage in partici-pation programs, they establish formal systemsthat empower organizational members throughthe sharing of formal power and authority. Butin order for this sharing of power to be effectiveat the individual level, employees must perceiveit as increasing their sense of self-efficacy—something a manager can accomplish throughmore informal practices.

Sources of Self-Efficacy Information

In order to be effective, the empowerment prac-tices outlined above must directly provide infor-mation to employees about their personal effi-

478

cacy. Bandura (1977, 1986) identified four sourcesof such information: enactive attainment, vicari-ous experience, verbal persuasion, and emo-tional arousal state. Examples of empowermenttechniques under each efficacy information cate-gory are presented below.

Information in personal efficacy through enac-tive attainment refers to an individual's authen-tic mastery experience directly related to the job.When subordinates perform complex tasks or aregiven more responsibility in their jobs, they havethe opportunity to test their efficacy. Initial suc-cess experiences (through successively moder-ate increments in task complexity and responsi-bility along with training to acquire new skills)make one feel more capable and, therefore,empowered. For example, managers can struc-ture organizational change programs in such away that initial objectives are sufficiently attain-able and subordinates are able to execute themsuccessfully (Beer, 1980).

The feeling of being empowered also can comefrom the vicarious experiences of observing sim-ilar others (i.e., co-workers) who perform suc-cessfully on the job. During job training, model-ing techniques often are used to empower em-ployees. Very often, a supervisor's exemplarybehaviors empower subordinates to believe thatthey can behave in a like manner or that theycan at least achieve some improvement in theirperformance. For example, Bennis and Nanus(1985), in their study of leaders, described howWilliam Kieschnick, president of ARCO, learnedto be an innovative risk taker through the model-ing of leaders he served under (p. 204). Vicari-ous efficacy information, however, is not as effec-tive in empowering subordinates as enactiveattainment experience. But as Bandura (1986)suggested, modeling effects can have a signifi-cant impact on efficacy expectation:

People convinced vicariously of their inefficacyare inclined to behave in ineffectual ways that,in fact, generate confirmatory behavioral evi-dence of inability. Conversely, modeling influ-ences that enhance perceived self-efficacy canweaken the impact of direct experiences of fail-ure by sustaining performance in the face ofrepeated failures, (p. 400)

Words of encouragement, verbal feedback,and other forms of social persuasion often areused by leaders, managers, and group mem-bers to empower subordinates and co-workers(Conger, 1986). According to Bandura (1986),"People who are persuaded verbally that theypossess the capabilities to master given tasks arelikely to mobilize greater sustained effort than ifthey harbor self-doubts and dwell on personaldeficiencies when difficulties arise" (p. 400). Dealand Kennedy (1982) described how Mary KayAsh, president of Mary Kay Cosmetics, used an-nual sales meetings as forums for praising andencouraging the exceptional performance of or-ganizational members. However, the effect thatpersuasion has on strengthening personal effi-cacy expectations is likely to be weaker than ef-fects developed from one's own accomplish-ments.

Finally, one's personal competence expecta-tions are affected by one's emotional arousalstate. Emotional arousal states that result fromstress, fear, anxiety, depression, and so forth,both on and off the job, can lower self-efficacyexpectations. Individuals are more likely to feelcompetent when they are not experiencing strongaversive arousal. Empowerment techniques andstrategies that provide emotional support for sub-ordinates and that create a supportive and trust-ing group atmosphere (Neilsen, 1986) can bemore effective in strengthening self-efficacybeliefs. An example of such behavior is found inKidder's Soui of a New Machine (1981) in which aData General manager, Tom West, provided ef-fective emotional and group support that ensuredthe completion of an extremely difficult computerproject. On many occasions, employees' stress,anxiety, and tension on the job can be reducedby managers clearly defining employees' roles,reducing information overload, and offering themtechnical assistance to accomplish job tasks. Theimpact that depression and self-doubt have onsubordinates as a result of their failure on thejob could be lessened by their attributing thisfailure to external and unstable factors such astask difficulty, inadequate support systems, andso forth, rather than attributing it to their efforts

479

or abilities (Weiner, 1985). These techniques as-sist in the empowering process by reducing thenegative effects of aversive emotional arousalon the development of self-efficacy beliefs.

ConclusionsAlthough empowerment has been discussed

by several management scholars, little empiri-cal work has been performed. This may be be-cause of an inadequate conceptualization of theprocess. The process we have described mayprovide a useful framework for researchers. Ourdiscussion suggests some important new direc-tions for research on empowerment. First, theeffectiveness of the model should be tested.Specifically, the concept of self-efficacy shouldbe further operationalized and tested. BecauseBandura's (1986) research was conducted mainlyin therapeutic settings, direct links to organiza-tional contexts should be drawn. Researchersalso should investigate and validate the proposedantecedent conditions of powerlessness and the

appropriate intervention strategies. In addition,they should investigate and test the effect em-powerment has on specific behaviors, such asinitiation and persistence.

Finally, a more direct link between empower-ment practices and leadership should be studied.Empowerment may prove to be a vital form ofinfluence for leaders attempting to induce andmanage organizational change. Field researchdirected at this aim could contribute significantlyto our understanding of effective leadership.

Although we have focused on the positive ef-fects of empowerment, it is conceivable that suchmanagement practices may have negative ef-fects. Specifically, empowerment might lead tooverconfidence and, in turn, misjudgments onthe part of subordinates. Because of this sense offalse confidence in positive outcomes, organiza-tions might persist in efforts that are, in actuality,tactical or strategic errors. It is important thatfuture researchers investigate the possibilities ofsuch effects and discern whether or not a systemof checks and balances could be developed.

ReferencesAbramson, L. Y., Garber, J., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1980)

Learned helplessness in humans: An attributional anal-ysis. In J. Garber & M. E. P. Seligman (Eds.), Humanhelplessness: Theory and applications (pp. 3-34). New York:Academic Press.

Bacharach, S. B., & Lawler, E. J. (1980) Power andpoiifics inorganizafions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bandura, A. (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory ofbehavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1986) Social foundations of thought and action:A social-cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs, NI: Prentice-Hall.

Beckhard, R. (1969) Organizafion development: Strategiesand models. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Beer, M. (1980) Organizational change and development.Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.

Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985) Leaders. New York: Harper &Row.

Blau, P. M. (1964) Exchange and power in social life. NewYork: Wiley.

Block, P. (1987) The empowered manager. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Bucher, R. (1970) Social process and power in a medicalschool. In M. Zald (Ed.), Power in organizations (pp. 3—48).Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Burke, W. (1986) Leadership as empowering others. In S.Srivastra(Ed.), Executive power (pp. 51-77). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Conger, J. (1986) Empowering leadership. Working paper,McGill University, Montreal.

Crozier, M. (1964) The bureaucratic phenomenon. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Dahl, R. A. (1957) The concept of power. Behavioral Science,2, 201-215.

Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1982) Corporate cultures. Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley.

Deci, E. L. (1975) Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.

Emerson, R. M. (1962) Power-dependence relations. AmericanSocioiogicai Review, 27, 31—41.

Etzioni, A. (1961) A comparative analysis of complex organi-zations. New York: Fress Press.

French, J., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959) The basis of social power.InD. Cartwright(Ed.), Sfudies in sociai power (pp. 150-167).

480

Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for SocialResearch.

Greiner, L. (1972) Evolution and revolution as organizationsgrow. Harvard Business Review, 50(4), 37-46.

Hackman, J. R. (1978) The design of work in the 198O's.Organizational Dynamics, 7(1), 3-17.

Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971) Employee reactions tojob characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology Mono-graph, 55, 259-286.

Hackman, J. R., Oldham, G. R., Janson, R., & Purdy, K. (1975)New strategy for job enrichment. California ManagementReview, 17(4), 57-71.

Hills, F. S., & Mahoney, T. A. (1978) University budgets andorganizational decision making. Adminisfra/ive ScienceOuarteily, 23, 454-465.

Hinings, C. R., Hickson, D. J., Pennings, J. M., & Schneck,R. E. (1974) Conditions of intra-organizational power.Administrative Science Ouarterly, 14, 378-397.

Homans, A. (1974) Social behavior: Its elementary forms.New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

House, R. J. (1977) A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. InJ. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cuttingedge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univer-sity Press.

House, R. J. (in press) Power and personality m complexorganizations. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.),Research in organizational behavior: An annual review ofcritical essays and review^s. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Kanter, R. M. (1979) Power failure in management circuits.Harvard Business Review, 57(4), 65-75.

Kanter, R. M. (1983) The change masters. New York: Simon& Schuster.

Kanungo, R. N. (1987) Reward management: A new look. InS. L. Dolan & R. S. Schuler (Eds.), Canadian readings inpersonnel and human resource managements (pp. 261-275). St. Paul: West.

Kidder, T. (1981) Soui o/a new machine. Boston: Little, Brown.

Kotter, J. P. (1977) Power, dependence, and effective man-agement. Harvard Business Review, 55(4), 125-136.

Kotter, J. P. (1979) Power in management. New York: Ama-com.

Lawler, E. E., Ill (1971) Pay and organizational effectiveness;A psychological view. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lawler, E. E., Ill (1973) Motivation in work organizations.Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Lawler, E. E., Ill (1977) Reward systems. In J. R. Hackman &L. J. Suttle (Eds.), Improving life at work: Behavioral sci-ence approaches to organizational change (pp. 163-226).Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.

Likert, R. (1961) New patterns of management. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Likert, R. (1967) The human organization. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Lodahl, J., & Gordon, G. (1972) The structure of scientific fieldsand the functioning of university graduate departments.American Sociological Review, 37, 57-72.

Maslow, A. H. (1954) Motivation and personality. New York:Harper.

McClelland, D. C. (1975) Power: The inner experience. NewYork: Irvington Press.

McGregor, D. (1960) The human side of enterprise. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Mowday, R. (1978) The exercise of upward influence inorganizations. Administrative Science Ouarterly, 23, 137-156.

Nadler, D. (1980) Concepts for the management of organiza-tional change. New York: Organizational Research &Consulting, Inc.

Neilsen, E. (1986) Empowerment strategies: Balancing au-thority and responsibility. In S. Snvastra (Ed.), Executivepower (pp. 78-110). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Oldham, G. R. (1976) The motivational strategies used bysupervisors' relationships to effectiveness indicators.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15,66-86.

Parsons, T., & Smelser, N. J. (1956) Economy and society.New York: Free Press.

Pettigrew, A. M. (1972) Information control as a power re-source. Socioiogry, 6, 187-204.

Pfeffer, J. (1981) Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA:Pitman.

Pfeffer, J. (1982) Organizations and organizational theory.Marshfield, MA: Pitman.

Plott, C. R., & Levine, M. E. (1978) A model of agenda influ-ence on comniittee decisions. American Economic Review,68, 146-160.

Rothbaum, F. M., Weisz, J. R., & Snyder, S. S. (1982)Chang-ing the world and changing self: A two process model ofperceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 42, 5-37.

Rotter, J. B. (1966) Generalized expectancies for internal ver-sus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Mono-graphs, 80 (1, Whole No. 609).

Salancik, G. R., 8f Pfeffer, J. (1974) The bases and use ofpower in organizational decision making: The case of auniversity. Administrative Science Ouarteriy, 19, 453-473.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977) Who gets power—and

481

how they hold on to it: A strategic-contingency model ofpower. Organizational Dynamics, 5(3), 3-21.

Selznick, P. (1949) TV A and the grass roots. Berkeley: Univer-sity of California Press.

Sims, H. P. (1977) The leader as a manager of reinforcementcontingencies. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leader-ship: The cutting edge (pp. 121-137). Carbondale: South-em Illinois University Press.

Strauss, G. (1977) Managerial practices. In J. R. Hackman &L. J. Suttle (Eds.), Improving life at work: Behavioral sci-ence approaches to organizational change (pp. 297-363).Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.

Sziiagyi, A. D. (1980) Causal inferences between leader re-ward behavior and subordinate goal attainment, ab-senteeism, and work satisfaction. Journal of OccupationalPsychology, 53, 195-204.

Tannenbaum, A. S. (1968) Controlin organizations. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Thibault, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959) The social psychologyof groups. New York: Wiley.

Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986) The transformationalleader. New York: Wiley.

Vroom, V. H. (1964) Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

Weiner, B. (1985) An attributional theory of achievement mo-tivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.

Whetten, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (1984) Developing man-agement skills. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

White, R. W. (1959) Motivation reconsidered: The concept ofcompetence. Psychological Review, 66, 297-333.

Jay A. Conger (D.B.A., Harvard University) is Assis-tant Professor of Organizational Behavior, Faculty ofManagement, McGill University. Correspondence re-garding this article can be sent to him at: McGillUniversity, Faculty oi Management, 1001 SherbrookeStreet West, Montreal, Ouebec, Canada, H3A 1G5.

Rabindra N. Kanungo (Ph.D., McGill University) is Pro-fessor of Organizational Behavior, Faculty of Manage-ment, McGill University.

482