Psychological EmpowermentKwanghyun Kim, Soyeon LeeLAST REVIEWED: 21 September 2020LAST MODIFIED: 28 April 2016DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199846740-0090IntroductionPsychological empowerment is defined as “intrinsic task motivation reflecting a sense of self-control in relation to one’s work and an active involvement with one’s work role” (in “Antecedents and Consequences of Psychological and Team Empowerment in Organizations: A Meta-Analytic Review,” Seibert, et al. 2011, p. 981, cited under Theoretical Overview). Since the 1980s, an increased interest in empowerment has been seen in diverse subject areas within psychology and management, including motivation, task performance, leadership, group processes, decision-making, and organizational design, because empowerment can enhance employee performance, well-being, and positive attitudes of individuals, teams, and organizations. Psychological empowerment is composed of four cognitions: meaning, self-determination, competence, and impact. Specifically, “meaning refers to the alignment between one’s work role and one’s own beliefs, values, and standards. Self-determination is an individual’s sense of autonomy or control concerning the initiation or regulation of one’s actions. Competence refers to the belief in one’s capability to successfully perform work activities. Impact is the belief that one can make a difference in the managerial process; that one could influence operational outcomes in the work unit” (Seibert, et al. 2011, p. 981). The four dimensions are described as independent and distinct yet related and mutually reinforcing, qualities that capture a dynamic state or active orientation toward work. Psychological empowerment may vary with organizational structure, individual and team characteristics, work design, leadership, and organizational support. To date, empowerment has been discussed from motivational and structural perspectives, and the construct has been operationalized by investigating the factors that lead to employee feelings of empowerment. Studies have also explored the consequences associated with an empowered workforce. Still, a number of important questions remain unanswered; therefore, it is important to develop a fuller understanding of the nature of empowerment, the factors that lead to employee feelings of empowerment, and the consequences associated with an empowered workforce. Show Theoretical OverviewThe study of empowerment was developed out of the motivational frameworks of the job characteristics model from Hackman and Oldham’s “Motivation Through the Design of Work: Test of a Theory” (Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16.2 [1976], pp. 250–279) and concept of self-efficacy from Bandura’s “Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change” (Psychological Review 84.2 [1977], pp. 191–215), and “Self-efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency” (American Psychologist 37.2 [1982], pp. 122–147). From the Kanter’s original work Men and Women of the Corporation (New York: Basic Books, 1977), early studies explained empowerment by organizational structure and practices. Referring to the empowerment review of Maynard, et al. 2012, the concept of empowerment has arisen from two major perspectives: socio-structural and psychological. Socio-structural perspectives view empowerment through a focus on the set of formal controls of an organization, such as facets of the job, team design, or organizational arrangements that instill situations, policies, and procedures (Maynard, et al. 2012). These controls decentralize power and transfer responsibility to employees in such decision-making processes (Men and Women of the Corporation). In contrast, the psychological perspective, first introduced by Conger and Kanungo 1988 and connected with Bandura’s 1977 and 1982 works on self-efficacy, focuses on employees’ perceptions or cognitive states regarding empowerment. On the basis of Thomas and Velthouse 1990, Spreitzer 1995 (cited under Measurement) developed multidimensional cognitive factors of meaning, choice, competence, and impact as the set of intrinsic task motivation enablers. Together, these four dimensions reflect a proactive, rather than passive, orientation to one’s work roles. Seibert, et al. 2011 shows meta-analytic support for an integrated model specifying the antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment, as well as testing the validity of psychological empowerment as a unitary second-order construct. Maynard, et al. 2012 reviews studies that considered the multilevel empowerment nomological network; the review examines how empowerment has been conceptualized and operationalized within the literature. Menon 2001 outlines the theory of an integrative psychological approach to employee empowerment, and Honold 1997 reviews the root of employee empowerment, focusing mainly on various theoretical perspectives of empowerment.
back to top Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login. How to SubscribeOxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here. ArticleUp
Down What is psychological empowerment?Psychological empowerment is a concept originating from industrial-organizational psychology. Empowerment is defined as the opportunity an individual has for autonomy, choice, responsibility, and participation in decision making in organizations.
What are the elements of psychological empowerment?Psychological empowerment is composed of four cognitions: meaning, self-determination, competence, and impact.
|
Which of the following statements concerning psychological empowerment is not true?
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 de.apacode Inc.
