Empowering employees is more that offering a few trinkets of appreciation and turning a backside to fundamental principles. Improving employee empowerment requires consistent positive affect of behavior that builds trust and commitment to organizational expectations. Through proper management techniques employee empowerment can lead to a higher functioning organization.
Empowering employees has a number of benefits for companies that seek to make improvements within their organizational approaches. Employee empowerment has been seen as a way to increase motivation, morale, satisfaction, commitment and innovation (Ford & Fottler, 1995). These elements work together to create a stronger organizational approach to employee management.
According to Thomas and Velthouse (1990) empowerment is associated with intrinsic task motivation. Such task motivation reflects four cognitive approaches which include meaning, competence, choice and impact. Through positive affect in these areas employees are able to create higher levels of positive orientation and empowerment.
Meaning: The work should have meaning to the employee and the organization.
Competence: The employee should feel as though they are gaining mastery over their work.
Choice: The employee should feel their line of employment and their work tasks are of interest to them and a personal choice.
Impact: The employee should feel their work is making a difference.
Importantly, the empowerment requires a level of organizational fairness. The perceptions of fairness are influenced by the equity of reward distribution and interpersonal respect (Lind & Tyler, 1998). Employees who view the reward process as unfair and who are not treated appropriately will not be empowered to work harder, solve problems or engage the organization.
The concept of fairness can often be perceptual by nature. Such perceptions abound when employees feel that they have not been treated with ethical appropriateness associated with common understandings of civility and dignity (Greenberg, 1990). It is these socialized understandings the contribute greatly to the level of willingness to be proactive within the workplace.
Despite these benefits there are a number of barriers that impact the
success of employee empowerment approaches. These barriers are often
related to the trust and fear between management and labor (Andrews,
1994). Without strong work relations and social equity there is a lack
of trust that management will follow through with expectations and fear
associated with management styles that impact the feelings of fairness
among employees.
Even small negative events can add up overtime to reduce empowerment (Abelson, 1985). Employees who have been treated unfairly, inappropriately, or have witnessed failures of management will accumulate such instances to make an impression of their work environment. Encouraging these detractors from empowerment within the workplace over time can even create a culture lacking of empowerment that impacts the financial abilities of the organization.
Detractors are not just one-off instances of unfair treatment. Such actions drains motivational energy which further creates ineffectiveness in managerial effectiveness and innovation within their departments (Spreitzer, 1995). The longer such detractors exist the more ineffective the manager will become in his/her approaches. On an organizational scale this can have large financial consequences.
Through trust organizations can improve labor management relationships and overall organizational effectiveness. Trust impacts the overall outcome of individual cooperation and group cohesiveness (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987). It is through this group cohesiveness with shared senses of behavior and understanding that a positive organizational culture can be built.
Empowerment is not a workplace concept that can be implemented and pulled at the whim of executives. It must be fostered throughout the organization, management techniques, and organization culture. Those managers who detract from an empowerment strategy should be removed and replaced by those who can realize higher levels of worker performance as well as organizational development.
Abelson, R. (1985). A variance explained paradox: when a little is a lot. Psychological Bulletin, 97.
Alexander, S. & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of
procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Social
Justice Research, 1.
Andrews, G. (1994). Mistrust, the hidden obstacle to empowerment. Human Resource Magazine, 39 (9).
Ford, R. & Fottler, M. (1995). Empowerment: a matter of degree. Academy of Management Executive, 9.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: yesterday, today and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16.
Kane, K & Montgomery, K. (1998). A framework for understanding
disempowerment within organizations. Human Resource Management, 37
(3/4).
Line, D. & Tyler, T. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.
Spreitzer, G. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38
Thomas, K. & Velthouse, B. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: an interpretive model of task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15.
Showing posts with label management principles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label management principles. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Friday, January 4, 2013
The Bounded Rationality of Stakeholder Theory
Stakeholder Theory is an organizational management perspective that attempts to defined the nature and purpose of firms/corporations within society. According to its founder Milton Friedman, the purpose of a firm is embedded almost exclusively in the production of wealth for shareholders (Friedman, 1970). Since this time, the concept of stakeholder has been expanded to include the idea that other entities have a particular stake, or interest, in the organization and can influence its success or failure.
The theory defines who are the stakeholders in an organization and their rights and obligations to the shareholders as well as society in general. The root of the theory is based off of the premise that its purpose is the, "identification of moral or philosophical guidelines for the operation and management of the corporation" (Donaldson & Preston, 1995). The theory helps to foster the understanding that the needs of the owners should be realized first before other considerations. However, other ethical aspects of managing an organization in society are important considerations of how companies should operate; the definition of stakeholder has been expanded to include them.
This management perspective helps bridge a gap with classical economic theorists who see the system as separate economic components competing against each other while ignoring the perspective of the management of the firm. The classical approach makes the assumption that all participants in the system are rational and independent (unbounded rationality) while management theorists believe that the imperfect information and lack of participant's mental abilities would bind them together for decision making into firms and organizations (bounded rationality) (Simon, 1955).
Thus the firm became a resource entity where operational abilities and knowledgecan minimize costs and improve upon market influence (Amit and Schoemaker, 1993). It is believed that organizations have the capacity to create market efficiencies through tying together the skills of labor and management into a social function that furthers the interest of its members. In essence, a person joins the firm for resource attainment and hedges their skills which creates more productivity than working alone.
In order for the firm to be effective it must hedge the skills and development of employees to create efficiencies. When these efficiencies are difficult to obtain and employees/managers are capable of a "free ride" the collective benefits will be lessened (Hardin, 1982). The same risks apply when an organization's culture detracts from employee development, unions become obstructionists, or political corruption encourage "free rider" approaches. Adding enough free riders, and inefficient operators to an organization, will detract from the firms missions, purpose, and economic strength.
Coordinators of human capital are combined into what we consider the board of directors. This board should have the skill to develop and create synergy within the organization by hedging human capital to create innovative powers (Mohrman et al., 1995). Thus, the very purpose of the board of directors lies in their ability to increase the efficiency of transactions as well as the innovative potential of the organization.
When a group of skills and abilities come together into an in-group paradigm with productive core values, the stakeholders are able to capitalize on employee's abilities and reap higher market rewards. The firm becomes the psycho-social group with a bundle of rights and obligations (Donaldson and Dunfee, 1999). Each member of the organization must be fully integrated into these groups, rights and obligations if true success of the organization will be found.
Stakeholder theory helps put within perspective the nature and purpose of an organization. At present these two purposes are 1.) shareholder wealth and 2.) other interested parties that have influence over the firm. Even though the theory doesn't specifically state this concept, one could take a very large view that firms are also societal socialization tools and can collectively change the very nature of American values and beliefs. Thus a stakeholder can be any person, group or entity that has a vested interest in the development of the organization and the people that pass through it.
Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P. (1993)Strategic Assets and Organizational Rent. Strategic Management Journal 14, 33–46.
Donaldson, T. & Preston, L. (1995). The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. Academy of Management Review 20 (1), 65–91.
Friedman, Milton. "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits." New York Times Magazine, 13 September 1970.
Hardin, R. (1995). Efficiency, in R. E. Goodin and P. Pettit (eds.), A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy (Blackwell, Oxford), pp. 462–470.
Mohrman, S., Cohen, S. and Mohrman Jr, A. (1995). Designing Team-Based Organizations: New Forms for Knowledge Work. (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).
The theory defines who are the stakeholders in an organization and their rights and obligations to the shareholders as well as society in general. The root of the theory is based off of the premise that its purpose is the, "identification of moral or philosophical guidelines for the operation and management of the corporation" (Donaldson & Preston, 1995). The theory helps to foster the understanding that the needs of the owners should be realized first before other considerations. However, other ethical aspects of managing an organization in society are important considerations of how companies should operate; the definition of stakeholder has been expanded to include them.
This management perspective helps bridge a gap with classical economic theorists who see the system as separate economic components competing against each other while ignoring the perspective of the management of the firm. The classical approach makes the assumption that all participants in the system are rational and independent (unbounded rationality) while management theorists believe that the imperfect information and lack of participant's mental abilities would bind them together for decision making into firms and organizations (bounded rationality) (Simon, 1955).
Thus the firm became a resource entity where operational abilities and knowledgecan minimize costs and improve upon market influence (Amit and Schoemaker, 1993). It is believed that organizations have the capacity to create market efficiencies through tying together the skills of labor and management into a social function that furthers the interest of its members. In essence, a person joins the firm for resource attainment and hedges their skills which creates more productivity than working alone.
In order for the firm to be effective it must hedge the skills and development of employees to create efficiencies. When these efficiencies are difficult to obtain and employees/managers are capable of a "free ride" the collective benefits will be lessened (Hardin, 1982). The same risks apply when an organization's culture detracts from employee development, unions become obstructionists, or political corruption encourage "free rider" approaches. Adding enough free riders, and inefficient operators to an organization, will detract from the firms missions, purpose, and economic strength.
Coordinators of human capital are combined into what we consider the board of directors. This board should have the skill to develop and create synergy within the organization by hedging human capital to create innovative powers (Mohrman et al., 1995). Thus, the very purpose of the board of directors lies in their ability to increase the efficiency of transactions as well as the innovative potential of the organization.
When a group of skills and abilities come together into an in-group paradigm with productive core values, the stakeholders are able to capitalize on employee's abilities and reap higher market rewards. The firm becomes the psycho-social group with a bundle of rights and obligations (Donaldson and Dunfee, 1999). Each member of the organization must be fully integrated into these groups, rights and obligations if true success of the organization will be found.
Stakeholder theory helps put within perspective the nature and purpose of an organization. At present these two purposes are 1.) shareholder wealth and 2.) other interested parties that have influence over the firm. Even though the theory doesn't specifically state this concept, one could take a very large view that firms are also societal socialization tools and can collectively change the very nature of American values and beliefs. Thus a stakeholder can be any person, group or entity that has a vested interest in the development of the organization and the people that pass through it.
Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P. (1993)Strategic Assets and Organizational Rent. Strategic Management Journal 14, 33–46.
Donaldson, T. & Preston, L. (1995). The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. Academy of Management Review 20 (1), 65–91.
Friedman, Milton. "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits." New York Times Magazine, 13 September 1970.
Hardin, R. (1995). Efficiency, in R. E. Goodin and P. Pettit (eds.), A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy (Blackwell, Oxford), pp. 462–470.
Mohrman, S., Cohen, S. and Mohrman Jr, A. (1995). Designing Team-Based Organizations: New Forms for Knowledge Work. (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)