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

The Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory and Practice

JAY A. CONGER RABINDRA N. KANUNGO McGill University
Despite increasing attention on the topic of empowerment, our understandmg of the construct and its underlying processes remains limited. This article addresses these shortcomings by providing an analytical treatment of the construct and by integrating the diverse approaches to empowerment found in both the management and psychology literatures. In addition, the authors identify certain antecedent conditions of powerlessness and practices that have been hypothesized to empovver subordinates. There has been a growing interest in the concept of empowerment and related management practices among both management researchers and practitioners (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Block, 1987; Burke, 1986; House, in press; Kanter, 1979; McClelland, 1975; Neilsen, 1986). This interest is due to several reasons. First, studies on leadership and management skills (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; House, in press; Kanter, 1979, 1983; McClelland, 1975) suggest that the practice of empowering subordinates is a principal component of managerial and organizational effectiveness. Second, analysis of power and control within organizations (Kanter, 1979; Tannenbaum, 1968) reveals that the total productive forms of organizational power and effectiveness grow with superiors' sharing of power and control with subordinates. Finally, experiences in team building within organizations (Beckhard, 1969; Neilsen, 1986) suggest that empowerment techniques play a crucial role in group development and maintenance. A review of the literature cited above clearly attests that empowerment is an emerging construct used by theorists to explain organizational effectiveness. The construct also has been widely
471

used by other social scientists who have dealt with issues of the powerlessness of minority groups (e.g., women, blacks, and the handicapped). Because of the widespread popularity of empowerment as a construct, we believe it requires critical examination. Despite the recognized role of empowerment in management theory and practice, our understanding of the construct is limited and often confusing. For example, most management theorists have dealt with empowerment as a set of managerial techniques and have not paid sufficient attention to its nature or the processes underlying the construct. This may reflect the pragmatic or practice orientation of theorists, and the result may be an inadequate understanding of the notion of empowerment and its theoretical rationale for related practices. As a construct, empowerment has not received the same analytical treatment from management scholars as the construct of power (or control). In many cases, scholars have assumed that empowerment is the same as delegating or sharing power with subordinates and, hence, that the construct requires no further conceptual analysis beyond the power concept. We believe that this approach has seri-

ous flaws, as we will discuss in our article. In addition, the contexts most appropriate for empowerment and the actual management practices that foster empowerment are poorly understood and catalogued. Our objective is to address these shortcomings by providing an analytical treatment of the empowerment construct. We have made an attempt to integrate the diverse approaches to empowerment found in both the management and psychology literatures. In doing so, this article provides a framework for studying empowerment and demonstrates its relevance to management theory and practice.

The Constructs oi Power and Empowerment

In order to critically analyze the notion of empowerment in management practice, the root constructs of power and control from which the empowerment construct is derived must be considered. Essentially, control and power are used in the literature in two different ways and, consequently, empowerment can be viewed in two different ways. Empowerment as a Relational Construct. In the management and social influence literature, power is primarily a relational concept used to describe the perceived power or control that an individual actor or organizational subunit has over others (Bacharach & Lawler, 1980; Crozier, 1964; Dahl, 1957; Hinings, Hickson, Pennings, & Schneck, 1974; Kotter, 1979; Parsons & Smelser, 1956; Pfeffer, 1981). Taking its emphasis from social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Emerson, 1962; Homans, 1974; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), this literature interprets power as a function of the dependence and/or interdependence of actors. Power arises when an individual's or a subunit's performance outcomes are contingent not simply on their own behavior but on what others do and/or in how others respond (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). The relative power of one actor over another is a product of the net dependence of the one on the other (Pfeffer, 1981). Therefore, if Actor A depends more on Actor B than B depends on A, then B has power over A.
472

At the organizational level, the principal sources of an actor's power over an organization have been argued to be the actor's ability to provide some performance or resource that is valued by the organization or the actor's ability to cope with important organizational contingencies or problems (Pfeffer, 1982). For example, Crozier (1964) demonstrated that maintenance workers in a French factory had control over a critical organizational contingencythe breakdown of machinerywhich was their source of power. Salancik and Pfeffer (1974) found that in universities the degree of department power was related to the number of contracts and grants obtained. At the interpersonal level, the principal sources of 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) the expertise of the actor, and (d) the opportunity for the actor to access specialized knowledge/information (Bacharach & Lawler, 1980). Depending on what resources actors control, their bases of power have been identified as legal (control of office), coercive (control of punishment), remunerative (control of material rewards), normative (control of symbolic rewards), and knowledge/expertise (control of information) (Bacharach & Lawler, 1980; Etzioni, 1961; French & Raven, 1959). Implied in these theories are the assumptions that organizational actors who have power are more likely to achieve their desired outcomes and actors who lack power are more likely to have their desired outcomes thwarted or redirected by those with power. This orientation has led theorists to focus on the source or bases of actor power and on the conditions that promote such dependence (Hills & Mahoney, 1978; Kotter, 1977, 1979; Lodahl & Gordon, 1972; Pfeffer, 1981; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1974, 1977). This focus also has led to the development of strategies and tactics of resource allocation for increasing the power of less powerful parties and reducing the power of more powerful ones (Bucher, 1970; Kotter, 1977, 1979;Mowday, 1978;Pettigrew, 1972;

Pfeffer, 1981; Plott & Levine, 1978; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1974; Selznick, 1949). If we consider empowerment in terms of this relational dynamic, it becomes the process by which a leader or manager shares his or her power with subordinates. Power, in this context, is interpreted as the possession of formal authority or control over organizational resources. The emphasis is primarily on the notion of sharing authority. Burke's (1986) position is representative: "To empower, implies the granting of power delegation of authority" (p. 51). The Merriam Webster's Dictionary similarly describes the verb to empower as "to authorize or delegate or give legal power to someone." In the management literature, this idea of delegation and the decentralization of decision-making power is central to the empowerment notion (Burke, 1986; House, in press; Kanter, 1983). As a result, we find that most of the management literature on empowerment deals with participative management techniques such as management by objectives, quality circles, and goal setting by subordinates as the means of sharing power or delegating authority. This manner of treating the notion of empowerment from a management practice perspective is so common that often employee participation is simply equated with empowerment (Likert, 1961, 1967; McGregor, 1960). However, because this line of reasoning does not adequately address the nature of empowerment as experienced by subordinates, it raises important questions. For example, does the sharing of authority and resources with subordinates automatically empower them? Through what psychological mechanisms do participative and resource-sharing techniques foster an empowering experience among subordinates? Are participation and the sharing of organizational resources the only techniques for empowerment? Are the effects of an empowering experience the same as the effects of delegation, participation, and resource sharing? Empowerment as a Motivational Construct. In the psychology literature, power and control are 473

used as motivational and/or expectancy beliefstates that are internal to individuals. For instance, individuals are assumed to have a need for power (McClelland, 1975) where power connotes an internal urge to influence and control other people. A related but more inclusive disposition to control and cope with life events also has been proposed by several psychologists who have dealt with the issues of primary/secondary control (Rothbaum, Weisz, & Snyder, 1982), internal/external locus of control (Rotter, 1966), and learned helplessness (Abramson, Garber, & Seligman, 1980). Individuals' power needs are met when they perceive that they have power or when they believe they can adequately cope with events, situations, and/or the people they confront. On the other hand, individuals' power needs are frustrated when they feel powerless or when they believe that they are unable to cope with the physical and social demands of environment. Power in this motivational sense refers to an intrinsic need for self-determination (Deci, 1975) or a belief in personal self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986). Under this conceptualization, power has its base within an actor's motivational disposition. Any managerial strategy or technique that strengthens this self-determination need or selfefficacy belief of employees will make them feel more powerful. Conversely, any strategy that weakens the self-determination need or selfefficacy belief of employees will increase their feelings of powerlessness. In fact, the Oxford English dictionary defines the verb empower as "to enable." In contrast to the earlier definition of empowerment as delegation (of authority and resource sharing), enabling implies motivating through enhancing personal efficacy. In the management literature on power and empowerment, often both meanings are fused together, and their relationships to each other are not clear. For instance, Whetten and Cameron (1984) alluded to power as both gaining control over limited resources and as a sign of personal efficacy. Likewise, Neilsen (1986) considered empowerment both as giving subordi-

nates resources and as increasing their sense of self-worth. However, Burke (1986) recognized the distinctiveness of the two meanings, but like most management researchers preferred to use empowerment in the sense of delegation rather than in the sense of enabling. We propose that empowerment be viewed as a motivational constructmeaning to enable rather than simply to delegate. In McClelland's (1975) research, empowerment also is viewed as an enabling, rather than a delegating, process. Enabling implies creating conditions for heightening motivation for task accomplishment through the development of a strong sense of personal efficacy. We argue that delegating or resource sharing is only one set of conditions that may (but not necessarily) enable or empower subordinates. The process of delegation is too constrictive in scope to accommodate the complex nature of empowerment. Thus, there are various other conditions of empowering besides delegation or participation. Therefore, empowerment is defined here as a process of enhancing feelings of self-efficacy among organizational members through the identification of conditions that foster powerlessness and through their removal by both formal organizational practices and informal techniques of providing efficacy information.

viewed in five stages that include the psychological state of empowering experience, its antecedent conditions, and its behavioral consequences. The five stages are shown in Figure 1. The first stage is the diagnosis of conditions within the organization that are responsible for feelings of powerlessness among subordinates. This leads to the use of empowerment strategies by managers in Stage 2. The employment of these strategies is aimed not only at removing some of the external conditions responsible for powerlessness, but also (and more important) at providing subordinates with self-efficacy information in Stage 3. As a result of receiving such information, subordinates feel empowered in Stage 4, and the behavioral effects of empowerment are noticed in Stage 5. The Empowering Experience

To conceptualize empowerment in motivational terms, we prefer to use Bandura's selfefficacy notion (1986). Translated in terms of Bandura's model, empowerment refers to a process whereby an individual's belief in his or her self-efficacy is enhanced. To empower means either to strengthen this belief or to weaken one's belief in personal powerlessness. Personal efficacy is sometimes postulated to stem from internal need-states such as the intrinsic need for selfThe Empowerment Process determination (Deci, 1975), the competence moThe need to empower subordinates becomes tive (White, 1959), the need for power (McClelcritical when subordinates feel powerless. Thus land, 1975), and the need for self-actualization it is important to identify conditions within orga(Maslow, 1954). However, we prefer not to adopt nizations that foster a sense of powerlessness the content or need theory approach to explain among subordinates. Once these conditions are the phenomenon of empowerment. We assume identified, empowerment strategies and tactics that everyone has an internal need for selfcan then be used to remove them. However, redetermination and a need to control and cope moving external conditions is not always posswith environmental demands. Differences in the ible, and it may not be sufficient for subordistrength of this need among individuals can be nates to become empowered unless the strateexplained by analyzing the underlying motivagies and tactics directly provide personal effitional process. We therefore follow the process cacy information to them. Bandura (1986) sugtheory approach to empowerment as a motivagested several sources from which individuals tional phenomena by relating it to expectancy directly receive information about their personal (Lawler, 1973) and self-efficacy theories (Bandura, efficacy, and these sources should be used in 1977, 1986). developing empowerment strategies. Conceived According to expectancy theory, an indithis way, the process of empowerment can be vidual's motivation to increase his or her effort in 474

0
CO

en

ordino[te

CO

Ul

effo exp

cn 0

Ul

0 O

ndit ions
0 0

n U

-a R o o
O 31!

Ul

bell

X 0

-Q

.^

tl

c
"0

,9

per; lal eifi

ults in Doweri erienc

lening

D) o 0

Initiatic persi of be compl ish

0 6
w -C

Lead ing to vioral

effect

o 0
0

t
0

c D
"o

TAGE

task (Dbjecti ves

D u

m
0 Dl

p un
w

ove

ed

OC

a
0)

g
.. D
U

o a B a>
0

o -c

g
D

(0 to

0
to

Ul

ions 1 eadin logica pow sness

0 U

"D
0

niz

t
Ul

_0 0

a
D
0

0 O)

CJ

"o

1 a
3

c g

0 "m
Ul

XI
.._

I
C D

-a

475

a given task will depend on two types of expectations: (a) that their effort will result in a desired level of performance and (b) that their performance will produce desired outcomes. Bandura (1986) referred to the former as the self-efficacy expectation and the latter as the outcome expectation. When individuals are empowered, their personal efficacy expectations are strengthened. However, their outcome expectations are not necessarily affected. They develop a sense of personal mastery or a "can do" attitude regardless of hopes for favorable performance outcomes. Empowering means enabling, and it implies raising subordinates' convictions in their own effectiveness (successfully executing desired behavior) rather than raising subordinates' hopes for favorable performance outcomes. Even under conditions of failure to gain desired outcomes, individuals may feel empowered if their efficacy belief is reinforced by their leader's recognition of their performance (i.e., "We may have lost to competition, but I'm proud of your performance. We will do better next time."). Behavioral Effects Empowerment as an enabling process affects both initiation and persistence of subordinates' task behavior. As Bandura (1977) pointed out: The strength of peoples' conviction in their own effectiveness is likely to affect whether they would even try to cope with given situations. . . . They get involved in activities and behave assuredly when they judge themselves capable of handling situations that would otherwise be intimidating. . . . Efficacy expectations determine how much effort people will expend and how long they will persist in the face of obstacles and aversive experiences, (pp. 193-194) The behavioral outcomes are of special significance to organizational leaders. Empowerment processes may allow leaders to lessen the emotional impact of demoralizing organizational changes or to mobilize organizational members in the face of difficult competitive challenges. These processes may enable leaders to set higher performance goals, and they may help employees to accept these goals. Empowerment prac476

tices also may be useful in motivating subordinates to persist despite difficult organizational/ environmental obstacles. Context Factors Leading to Powerlessness Management theorists have argued that specific contextual factors contribute to the lowering of self-efficacy or personal power among organizational members (Block, 1987; Conger, 1986; Kanter, 1979, 1983). Block (1987) described how bureaucratic contexts and authoritarian management styles encouraged powerlessness by fostering dependency, the denial of self-expression, negative forms of manipulation, and less meaningful organizational goals. According to Conger (1986), conditions that lowered self-efficacy were found during major reorganizations, in start-up ventures, and in firms that had authoritarian managers and demanding organizational goals. Kanter (1977, 1983) argued that organizational communication systems, network forming arrangements, access to resources, and job design could contribute to employee powerlessness. She noted primarily that people held accountable for the results produced by others, whose formal role gives them the right to command but who lack informal political influence, access to resources, outside status, sponsorship, or mobility prospects, are rendered powerless in the organizations. . . . They lack control over their own fate and are dependent on others above them. (p. 186) Examples of first-line supervisors, certain staff positions, women, and minorities were cited. In Table 1, we identify the principal contextual factors that contribute to the lowering of selfefficacy beliefs in organizational members. These are organized into four categories: (a) organizational, (b) supervisory style, (c) reward systems, and (d) job design. In terms of organizational factors, we hypothesize that organizations that experience major changes or transitions have an increased likelihood of their employees experiencing powerlessness. These transitions may be spurred on by financial emergencies, loss of key personnel, labor problems, significant technological changes,

Table 1 Confexf Facfors Leading to Potential Lowering of Seli-Eificacy Belief

Organizational Factors Significant organizational changes/transitions Start-up ventures Competitive pressures Impersonal bureaucratic climate Poor communications/network-forming systems Highly 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 rewards Lack of competence-based rewards Lack of innovation-based rewards lob Design Lack of role clarity Lack of training and technical support Unrealistic goals Lack of appropriate authority/discretion Low task variety Limited participation in programs, meetings, decisions that have a direct impact on job performance Lack of appropriate/necessary resources Lack of network-forming opportunities Highly established work routines High rule structure Low advancement opportunities Lack of meaningful goals/tasks Limited contact with senior management

acquisition or merger activity, major changes in organizational strategy, rapid growth, and/or the introduction of significant new products or new management teams. In any case, these events induce significant alterations in organizational structures, communication links, power and authority relations, and the organization's goals, strategies, and tactics. In these cases, existing organizational norms and patterns of action are likely to change (Nadler, 1980). As the organization seeks new guidelines for action, its goals

and rules may no longer be clearly defined. Responsibilities and power may shift dramatically. Uncertainty may be experienced by a large part of the organization. Certain functional areas, divisions, or acquired companies may experience disenfranchisement because they perceive their responsibilities as being diminished or subordinated to others. Therefore, transitions produce a period of disorientation (Tichy & Devanna, 1986). As a result, major organizational changes may seriously challenge employees' sense of control and competence as they deal with the uncertainty of change and accept new responsibilities, skills, and guidelines for action and behavior. Start-up ventures can present similar conditions of uncertainty that lead to lowered feelings of self-efficacy for employees. During the initial start-up phase, there may be uncertainty surrounding the market potential for the company's products and services. This can translate into lowered efficacy feelings among organizational members regarding their competence in directing and managing the organization. With a company's success and accompanying growth, other conditions of powerlessness may be fostered. As Greiner (1972) pointed out, employees who are accustomed to informal organizational systems and relations may find the organization and its systems becoming increasingly formalized and impersonal. As control systems grow in importance, they may diminish employees' sense of autonomy and responsibility. As the company grows, managers' responsibilities may increase, requiring them to attain skill levels beyond their existing competencies. Problems may arise with role clarity and adequate training for employees. Furthermore, as the firm grows, entrepreneurial executives may be reluctant to relinquish control to subordinates. Bureaucratic organizations are characterized by patriarchal management/employee contracts (Block, 1987) and direct member behavior through established rules and routines. These factors inhibit self-expression and limit autonomy. As noted earlier. Block (1987) and Kanter (1983) argued that bureaucracy and "segmentalism" create serious inequities in the distribution of organi477

zational power and lead to a diminished sense of self-efficacy for employees. Authoritarian management styles can strip control and discretion from subordinates, thereby heightening the sense of powerlessness for employees (Block, 1987; Conger, 1986). As Kanter (1979) suggested, a satisfactory degree of discretion is important for fostering empowerment on the job, and this discretion is something autocratic 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; Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman, Oldham, lanson, & Purdy, 1975) also describes conditions that lower the self-efficacy of organizational members. When organizations do not provide rewards that are valued by employees and when rewards are not offered for employee competence, initiative, and persistence in innovative job behavior, employees' sense of powerlessness increases (Sims, 1977; Szilagyi, 1980). Furthermore, when jobs provide very little challenge and meaning and when they involve role ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload, employees' beliefs in personal efficacy suffer. We argue that these contextual factors should be the focal points for diagnosis and the interventions aimed at rectifying sources of powerlessness among employees. Empowerment Management Practices Organizational theorists have proposed or identified a number of management practices that heighten a sense of self-efficacy. At the organizational level, it has been suggested that organizations design selection and training procedures to ensure requisite technical, linguistic, and social influence skills (House, in press; McClelland, 1975) and that company policies and cultures emphasize self-determination, collaboration over conflict/competition, high performance standards, nondiscrimination, and meritocracy (House, in press). In addition, organizations that provide multiple sources of loosely committed resources at decentralized or local levels, that structure open communications systems, and that create extensive network-forming 478

devices are more likely to be empowering (Kanter, 1983). Leadership and/or supervision practices that are identified as empowering include (a) expressing confidence in subordinates accompanied by high performance expectations (Burke, 1986; Conger, 1986; House, 1977, in press; Neilsen, 1986), (b) fostering opportunities for subordinates to participate in decision making (Block, 1987; Burke, 1986; Conger, 1986; House 1977, in press; Kanter, 1979; Neilsen, 1986; Strauss, 1977), (c) providing autonomy from bureaucratic constraint (Block, 1987; Kanter, 1979; House, in press), and (d) setting inspirational and/or meaningful goals (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 the basis of their inclination to use power in a positive manner. It is argued that reward systems that emphasize innovative/unusual performance and high incentive values foster a greater sense of selfefficacy (Kanter, 1979). lobs that provide task variety, personal relevance, appropriate autonomy and control, low levels of established routines and rules, and high advancement prospects are more likely to empower subordinates (Block, 1987; Kanter, 1979; Oldham, 1976; Strauss, 1977). These practices can be viewed from the different perspectives of formal/organizational mechanisms or individual/informal techniques. For example, when organizations engage in participation programs, they establish formal systems that empower organizational members through the sharing of formal power and authority. But in order for this sharing of power to be effective at the individual level, employees must perceive it as increasing their sense of self-efficacy something a manager can accomplish through more informal practices. Sources of Self-Efficacy Information In order to be effective, the empowerment practices outlined above must directly provide information to employees about their personal effi-

cacy. Bandura (1977, 1986) identified four sources of such information: enactive attainment, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal state. Examples of empowerment techniques under each efficacy information category are presented below. Information in personal efficacy through enactive attainment refers to an individual's authentic mastery experience directly related to the job. When subordinates perform complex tasks or are given more responsibility in their jobs, they have the opportunity to test their efficacy. Initial success experiences (through successively moderate increments in task complexity and responsibility along with training to acquire new skills) make one feel more capable and, therefore, empowered. For example, managers can structure organizational change programs in such a way that initial objectives are sufficiently attainable and subordinates are able to execute them successfully (Beer, 1980). The feeling of being empowered also can come from the vicarious experiences of observing similar others (i.e., co-workers) who perform successfully on the job. During job training, modeling techniques often are used to empower employees. Very often, a supervisor's exemplary behaviors empower subordinates to believe that they can behave in a like manner or that they can at least achieve some improvement in their performance. For example, Bennis and Nanus (1985), in their study of leaders, described how William Kieschnick, president of ARCO, learned to be an innovative risk taker through the modeling of leaders he served under (p. 204). Vicarious efficacy information, however, is not as effective in empowering subordinates as enactive attainment experience. But as Bandura (1986) suggested, modeling effects can have a significant impact on efficacy expectation: People convinced vicariously of their inefficacy are inclined to behave in ineffectual ways that, in fact, generate confirmatory behavioral evidence of inability. Conversely, modeling influences that enhance perceived self-efficacy can weaken the impact of direct experiences of failure by sustaining performance in the face of repeated failures, (p. 400) 479

Words of encouragement, verbal feedback, and other forms of social persuasion often are used by leaders, managers, and group members to empower subordinates and co-workers (Conger, 1986). According to Bandura (1986), "People who are persuaded verbally that they possess the capabilities to master given tasks are likely to mobilize greater sustained effort than if they harbor self-doubts and dwell on personal deficiencies when difficulties arise" (p. 400). Deal and Kennedy (1982) described how Mary Kay Ash, president of Mary Kay Cosmetics, used annual sales meetings as forums for praising and encouraging the exceptional performance of organizational members. However, the effect that persuasion has on strengthening personal efficacy expectations is likely to be weaker than effects developed from one's own accomplishments. Finally, one's personal competence expectations are affected by one's emotional arousal state. Emotional arousal states that result from stress, fear, anxiety, depression, and so forth, both on and off the job, can lower self-efficacy expectations. Individuals are more likely to feel competent when they are not experiencing strong aversive arousal. Empowerment techniques and strategies that provide emotional support for subordinates and that create a supportive and trusting group atmosphere (Neilsen, 1986) can be more effective in strengthening self-efficacy beliefs. An example of such behavior is found in Kidder's Soui of a New Machine (1981) in which a Data General manager, Tom West, provided effective emotional and group support that ensured the completion of an extremely difficult computer project. On many occasions, employees' stress, anxiety, and tension on the job can be reduced by managers clearly defining employees' roles, reducing information overload, and offering them technical assistance to accomplish job tasks. The impact that depression and self-doubt have on subordinates as a result of their failure on the job could be lessened by their attributing this failure to external and unstable factors such as task difficulty, inadequate support systems, and so forth, rather than attributing it to their efforts

or abilities (Weiner, 1985). These techniques assist in the empowering process by reducing the negative effects of aversive emotional arousal on the development of self-efficacy beliefs.

Conclusions
Although empowerment has been discussed by several management scholars, little empirical work has been performed. This may be because of an inadequate conceptualization of the process. The process we have described may provide a useful framework for researchers. Our discussion suggests some important new directions for research on empowerment. First, the effectiveness of the model should be tested. Specifically, the concept of self-efficacy should be further operationalized and tested. Because Bandura's (1986) research was conducted mainly in therapeutic settings, direct links to organizational contexts should be drawn. Researchers also should investigate and validate the proposed antecedent conditions of powerlessness and the

appropriate intervention strategies. In addition, they should investigate and test the effect empowerment has on specific behaviors, such as initiation and persistence. Finally, a more direct link between empowerment practices and leadership should be studied. Empowerment may prove to be a vital form of influence for leaders attempting to induce and manage organizational change. Field research directed at this aim could contribute significantly to our understanding of effective leadership. Although we have focused on the positive effects of empowerment, it is conceivable that such management practices may have negative effects. Specifically, empowerment might lead to overconfidence and, in turn, misjudgments on the part of subordinates. Because of this sense of false confidence in positive outcomes, organizations might persist in efforts that are, in actuality, tactical or strategic errors. It is important that future researchers investigate the possibilities of such effects and discern whether or not a system of checks and balances could be developed.

References
Abramson, L. Y., Garber, J., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1980) Learned helplessness in humans: An attributional analysis. In J. Garber & M. E. P. Seligman (Eds.), Human helplessness: Theory and applications (pp. 3-34). New York: Academic Press. Bacharach, S. B., & Lawler, E. J. (1980) Power andpoiifics in organizafions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bandura, A. (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral 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: Strategies and 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. New York: Wiley. Block, P. (1987) The empowered manager. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bucher, R. (1970) Social process and power in a medical school. In M. Zald (Ed.), Power in organizations (pp. 348). 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. American Socioiogicai Review, 27, 3141. Etzioni, A. (1961) A comparative analysis of complex organizations. 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 Social Research. Greiner, L. (1972) Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. 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.

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 fields and 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. New York: Irvington Press. McGregor, D. (1960) The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill. Mowday, R. (1978) The exercise of upward influence in organizations. Administrative Science Ouarterly, 23, 137156. Nadler, D. (1980) Concepts for the management of organizational change. New York: Organizational Research & Consulting, Inc. Neilsen, E. (1986) Empowerment strategies: Balancing authority and responsibility. In S. Snvastra (Ed.), Executive power (pp. 78-110). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Oldham, G. R. (1976) The motivational strategies used by supervisors' 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 resource. 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 influence on comniittee decisions. American Economic Review, 68, 146-160. Rothbaum, F. M., Weisz, J. R., & Snyder, S. S. (1982)Changing the world and changing self: A two process model of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 5-37. Rotter, J. B. (1966) Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80 (1, Whole No. 609). Salancik, G. R., 8f Pfeffer, J. (1974) The bases and use of power in organizational decision making: The case of a university. Administrative Science Ouarteriy, 19, 453-473. Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977) Who gets powerand

Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971) Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 55, 259-286. Hackman, J. R., Oldham, G. R., Janson, R., & Purdy, K. (1975) New strategy for job enrichment. California Management Review, 17(4), 57-71. Hills, F. S., & Mahoney, T. A. (1978) University budgets and organizational decision making. Adminisfra/ive Science Ouarteily, 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. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. House, R. J. (in press) Power and personality m complex organizations. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual review of critical 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. In S. L. Dolan & R. S. Schuler (Eds.), Canadian readings in personnel and human resource managements (pp. 261275). St. Paul: West. Kidder, T. (1981) Soui o/a new machine. Boston: Little, Brown. Kotter, J. P. (1977) Power, dependence, and effective management. Harvard Business Review, 55(4), 125-136. Kotter, J. P. (1979) Power in management. New York: Amacom. 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 science approaches to organizational change (pp. 163-226). Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.

481

how they hold on to it: A strategic-contingency model of power. Organizational Dynamics, 5(3), 3-21. Selznick, P. (1949) TVA and the grass roots. Berkeley: University of California Press. Sims, H. P. (1977) The leader as a manager of reinforcement contingencies. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 121-137). Carbondale: Southem Illinois University Press. Strauss, G. (1977) Managerial practices. In J. R. Hackman & L. J. Suttle (Eds.), Improving life at work: Behavioral science approaches to organizational change (pp. 297-363). Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear. Sziiagyi, A. D. (1980) Causal inferences between leader reward behavior and subordinate goal attainment, absenteeism, and work satisfaction. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 195-204.

Tannenbaum, A. S. (1968) Controlin organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill. Thibault, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959) The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley. Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986) The transformational leader. New York: Wiley. Vroom, V. H. (1964) Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. Weiner, B. (1985) An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548-573. Whetten, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (1984) Developing management skills. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. White, R. W. (1959) Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297-333.

Jay A. Conger (D.B.A., Harvard University) is Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior, Faculty of Management, McGill University. Correspondence regarding this article can be sent to him at: McGill University, Faculty oi Management, 1001 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, Ouebec, Canada, H3A 1G5. Rabindra N. Kanungo (Ph.D., McGill University) is Professor of Organizational Behavior, Faculty of Management, McGill University.

482