The Process of Employee Empowerment - Impact on the Employees Physically and Psychologically - Essay Example

Employee Empowerment Student’s Name: Instructor’s Name: Course Code and Name: University: Date Assignment is due: Introduction Most people think they fully understand what employee empowerment is all about, but few people actually do. To ascertain this, ask dozens of different individuals what employee empowerment means, and you are likely to get dozens of different responses. In fact, carry a meticulous research on tens of organizational theorists, and you will get tens of different answers to the question of employee empowerment. The bottom line is that there is apparently no clear definition of the concept of empowerment (Martin & Fellenz 2010, p. 480). On the one hand, people agree with the notion that empowerment involves the sharing of power and authority. On the other, others contend that empowerment prevails when an organization sets up its processes and activities in a way that allows empowerment. Employee empowerment, therefore, is a process in which the culture of empowerment develops, there is sharing of information, competency is expanded, and support and resources are provided. This paper attempts to answer the employee empowerment question in such a way that workers in any organization can use the information to facilitate employee empowerment. At this point, one might ask himself why it is so critical to implement employee empowerment. The detailed answers to this question are contained in the literature under the relevant heading. During the implementation of employee empowerment, obstacles that must be overcome arise. The typical organization has to adjust its cultural values to fit the prevailing environment. Supervisors must learn to act like mentors and trainers, and not dictatorial figures for the employee empowerment to succeed. Many regard the process of employee empowerment as the major obstacle that cannot be subdued, but I consider it as just rough patches that can be overcome. Having provided an easy definition of empowerment in my, a sneak preview of the things that must happen for it to take place, and a brief assessment of the workplace as an empowering place; I pursue to address radical needs and observations in my workplace in this report. My Affiliation to the Company I am an employee of a medium-sized/small insurance company operating from the city of Adelaide, Australia, in the capacity of a sales and marketing line manager. This company provides a wide range of insurance policies, including car insurance, home insurance, landlord insurance, life insurance, and business risk insurance, just to name a few. My company attaches a great deal of value to its culture and values that hold it together and keep it afloat. Just six years ago, the company had a maximum workforce of just 150 employees. Today, a number of employees have risen to 350 and still continues to rise. There are many features in this company I like and those which I don’t like. Employee Empowerment I Would Like To See In My Company. Many definitions for employee empowerment go round, and others continue to come up. However, I tend to see the most appropriate definition of empowerment as Ettorre’s (1997), which suggests that empowered employees are those who have the autonomy of making decisions and can act as partners in the organization, while being knowledgeable of their contribution to the bottom-line. Most employees apprehend their contribution to their areas of work, but few are aware of their contribution to the bottom-line. Employee empowerment is, therefore, enhanced by providing them with valuable information so that they can make informed decisions. The various forms of information necessary for employee empowerment include the organization’s performance information and that knowledge that feeds their understanding, so that they are able to contribute to the performance of the organization. Other vital methods of employee empowerment include: rewarding them on the basis of the organization’s performance and conferring them with the power to contribute to decision-making in order to influence the performance and direction of the organization. It is, therefore, clear that an effective employee empowerment only exists in organizations whose structure allows, distribution of power, knowledge, free flow of information and rewards in the entire organization. It follows that any organization whose structure set up fails to facilitate this process will score zero in the employee empowerment test. The process of empowerment is meant to impact on the employees physically and psychologically. Employees manifest psychological empowerment in four different ways: competence, meaning, self-determination as well as impact. When combined, these four cognitive manifestations demonstrate an active orientation towards job responsibilities. It is argued that all the four psychological ingredients must combine tin order to result to an overall psychological empowerment. Empowerment distinguishes itself from mere delegation, intrinsic task motivation, and self-efficacy. People deliberately equate empowerment with delegation of power by a senior officer to his junior (Kreitner, & Kinicki, 2010, p. 246). However, this notion that the transfer of formal authority on organizational resources to subordinates is grossly misplaced and often mere employee participation is blindly interpreted as empowerment. To empower employees, managers and supervisors must remove all those conditions that bolster powerlessness and provide feedback regarding employee performance. They should shift from the traditional, sometimes dictatorial, managerial practices and act as mentors to their junior employees so that they feel empowered. For many years, managers have been known to harbor the belief that by delegating some of their responsibilities to their juniors, within set boundaries, they are empowering them. By this rather mechanical approach, they imply that empowering entails delegating duties and holding people to account for their results. On the other hand, “pro- organic approach” managers subscribe to the idea that employee empowerment involves growth, risk-taking, and change. They also put much emphasis on better understanding of the employees’ needs, modeling and maintaining an empowered behavior for their employees; team-building in order to boost cooperative behavior; the encouragement of intelligent risk-taking, and they trust employers to perform (Vecchio 2006, p.153). To me, these are the primary elements of employee empowerment because the managers do more than just mentoring their subordinate employees. However, I would prefer the combination of the two approaches, mechanical and inorganic, to come up with a balanced empowerment model that focuses on the strongest point from the individual approaches. Empowerment is a concept whose definition and usage can be viewed from several perspectives. Therefore, it is difficult to reach a unanimous consensus regarding the best model or approach to empowerment. Scholars have indicated that, for success, individual organizations ought to develop and define their own understanding of empowerment, based on their uniqueness. Empowerment must, therefore, attend to the unique culture and needs of the organization Organizational Culture Organizational culture describes the bedrock upon which empowerment in built. Organizations who succeed in implementing employee empowerment programs acquire core values and empowerment will flow from these values. Examples of these values are appreciation for individuals and respect and the value they incorporate in the organization. However, values are not the only constituent elements of organizational culture. Rather, organizational culture is more complex and refers to a set of common values, beliefs of how things ought to be done, acceptable codes of behavior, and the organization’s ethics (Ott 1996, p. 2). For any organization’s culture to thrive, it must support and nurture empowerment. Nevertheless, confusion and discussion on the concept of organizational culture remains. Debates on its management are equally taunting, with some contending that it can be managed, while others dispute this claim. Scholars who do not believe that organizational culture can be managed cite such reasons as complexity and multiplicity of sub-cultures, bad timing, differing political persuasions, and communication failure (Witte & Muijen 2010, p. 498). Organization culture draws a lot from the anthropological dimensions of culture (Parker 2000, p. 64). Research shows that strong cultures result in success while weak one cause failure. Moreover, employees need to get involved in the daily operations of the organization so that they can adapt to and internalize the culture for a better outcome. According to The culture adopted by an organization shapes most of its features and aspects-its structure, strategy, processes, control and reward systems, and the daily routines. Top managers should be culture “heroes” so that the trait may be transmitted to their juniors for the overall success of the organization. There are companies that are known for their outstandingly unique cultures. For instance, W.L. Gore and Associates of the United States has no position titles, they refer to each other as associates, each associate has a sponsor who offers training and acts as a mentor, as well as negotiating with the remuneration committee for employee salary increments; employees are at liberty to apply their own creativity, among other liberal, cultural gestures. The Management of My Company and Its Organizational Culture My company fits the definition of a small to a medium-sized insurance company. It has five branches, three in Adelaide, where the parent branch is located, and two in the city of Perth. Power flows from the CEO downwards to the first line managers, but owing to the big size of the company, I will only deal with the management of my branch. The branch manager is the figurehead of the branch. Like all other branches, my branch in Adelaide is divided into various departments, including the Finance and Accounts, Sales and Marketing, Human Resources, and client service departments, with each department under the departmental heads, who report directly to the branch manager. The management is very categorical when it comes to the performance of one’s duties; employees have to do that which is there to be done. The working environment is relatively conducive for all employees to carry out their tasks effectively. Mentorship and training programs are usually offered during the induction and orientation of new employees. Other programs on the same are rare and far in between. I also observe that managers and other top officials exercise a lot of power on us, their juniors, some of which I consider to be unnecessary. The structure of the company is also prohibitively bureaucratic, impeding free flow of information. A junior employee, including line managers go through a lot of difficulties whenever they have to present a problem or suggest an idea to the top management. However, the company’s level of remuneration is relatively well above par, I would say. My company’s culture is somehow young because the company started about ten years ago as a small insurance broking firm in Adelaide. However, this has not stopped the company from curving its niche as a competent, customer-oriented, fast-growing, and a unique company, albeit in the one city, Adelaide. Most companies draw considerable amounts of inspiration and direction from their founders (Parker 2000, p. 71). My company is no exception to this usual occurrence. Ask most people from Adelaide, and beyond, and you will come to know that hardwork, quality, service, and growth are synonymous to my company. In fact, this company received an award for the overall successful insurance company in the region. These are some of the core values inherited from the founder of this company, who has since retired from active management. To say the least for the company’s top management, they are champions of this culture. They are able to transmit this culture to their juniors by insisting on and demonstrating hardwork, devotion to quality service, and through drawing up strategic plans that are aimed at ensuring a continuous growth and development of the company/branch. In my view, however, employees are somehow discontent with the general state of affairs in the larger company, and more so in my branch partly because they feel left out in the management sector. The company culture does not entertain many ideas from junior employees, even in matters that impact on them. They also cite a poor rewarding system that is so inherent in the culture and impacts negatively on employee empowerment. Deviations from the Theoretical System It is common knowledge that, no matter how radical and insightful some theories might be, companies find it almost impossible to apply all of them in their day-to-day business operations. It is, therefore, expected that the theories of employee empowerment and organizational culture will not be entirely in tandem with the practices of my company. For instance, the theory of employee empowerment suggests that employees should consider giving employees the autonomy of accessing information and making decisions. They should also be and feel at liberty to act in the company in the capacity of partners. This is, however, not the case in my company, partly because of the strict bureaucratic nature of the management structure. My company does not also encourage employees to even taking worthy risks. I would tend to believe that the company lacks enough trust in its employees, and that the strict bureaucracy is not accommodative of activities and processes that have the effect of delegating power to juniors. Recommendations The course followed by information from the top management to the junior staff should be streamlined and upgraded in order for the junior staff to access and assimilate quality information, free of distortions. This can be done through the utilization of modern communication tools like the e-mail because everyone has access to the internet. E-mailing is also free, hence cost-effective. The employees should be developed through extensive training programmes so that they may then be given the autonomy of making decisions in the future. This will also enable them to act as partners in the company, not as mere workers. This not only improves the internal well-being of the company, but also improves its overall image. The company leadership should allow for more delegation of power to the juniors, and loosen its limiting bureaucratic grip. This culture has prevailed for so long, and employees have been calling for repeal, albeit in suppressed murmur. List of References Martin, J & Fellenz, M., 2010, Organisational Behaviour and Management, 4th. edn, Thomson, London.  Ott, J. S., 1996, Classic readings in organizational behavior, 2nd edn, Wadsworth, Belmont, California.  Witte, K. D. & Muijen, J. J., 2000, Organizational Culture, Taylor and Francis, London. Parker, M. 2000, Organizational culture and identity: unity and division at work, SAGE, California. Vecchio, R. P 2006, Organizational Behavior-Core Concepts. 6th edn, Thomson/South-Western, Ohio.  Kreitner, R & Kinicki, A 2010, Organizational Behavior, 9th. edn, McGraw-Hill, New York. APPENDIX THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF MY INSURANCE COMPANY Managing director Read More