Strategic

Strategic performance performance

empowerment model empowerment
model
Gary D. Geroy
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA 57
Phillip C. Wright
University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
Joan Anderson
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

Introduction
Empowerment has become one of the most salient concepts in modern
management theory and practice. Definitions vary, but for the purposes of this
paper, empowerment is defined as: the process of providing employees with the
necessary guidance and skills, to enable autonomous decision making
(including accountability and the responsibility) for making these decisions
within acceptable parameters, that are part of an organizational culture.
Similarly, Vogt (1997), defined empowerment as the act of giving people the
opportunity to make workplace decisions by expanding their autonomy in
decision making. Empowerment also has been described as the breaking down
of traditional hierarchical structures, as in an empowered organization, the line
personnel closest to a problem, are given the authority to solve the problem
(Blanchard, 1997). The concept has spanned cultures and industrial sectors.
Morales (1997), for example, has quoted a fellow Mexican, Freddie Lopez, as
suggesting that empowerment is “training employees to offer each other trust,
support, education, ideas, respect and motivation with the aim of developing
each person’s skills”. Lopez also commented that empowerment must be a
process and a long-term commitment that is incorporated into a company’s
growth strategy, so as to motivate and to breed loyalty among workers. Indeed,
employees who have autonomous decision making capabilities, can act as
business partners, keeping watch on profitability (Ettorre, 1997).
From a service perspective, empowerment gives employees the authority to
make decisions concerning customer service. True empowerment means that
employees can bend and break rules to do whatever is necessary (within reason)
to take care of the customer (Tschohl, 1997). In other words, empowerment is
the “wisdom to know what to do, the will to do what needs to be done, and the
wherewithal to do it” (Troyer, 1997, 27).
This paper will outline many of the problems and the myths that surround
empowerment. Then, through the use of a Strategic Performance
Empowerment Model, we will discuss pragmatic methods that will help Empowerment in Organizations,
Vol. 6 No. 2, 1998, pp. 57-65.
managers to make this key concept part of their own corporate reality. © MCB University Press, 0265-671X
Empowerment in Current issues
Organizations Vogt (1997), in his paper, “Transfer of Power” discusses two, often overlooked,
6,2 factors: (1) empowerment has boundaries, and (2) empowerment requires skills,
including decision making, problem solving and the ability to gather and to use
data. As to boundaries, Blanchard (1997) talks of creating autonomy through
boundaries, as a key to successful empowerment. The problem is that many
58 managers fear losing control when they give up some decision making power to
another employee (Vogt, 1997). Trust is a critical component of empowerment,
therefore, in that we must trust the people we empower (Mountford, 1997). But
the trust has limits; systems and policies still need to be developed that protect
both the employee and the manager. A hotel employee might be allowed (even
encouraged) to spend $200 to make a guest’s stay memorable, but $1,000
probably would be excessive. Employees need to be given boundaries within
which to innovate.
Mountford also discusses accountability – a measurement system that
monitors employees who make decisions about productivity, quality and profit.
Ward, (1996), claims that accountability is the key to successfully empowering
employees. Three conditions, however, must be met. First, managers must
assess the capabilities of employees to perform a particular task. Second,
managers must lead in a manner that gives employees these capabilities and
third, managers and employees must understand completely the structure in
which tasks are to be carried out. It is not enough, then, to state: “We are an
empowered organization”. Managers need to change the way they manage.
They need to overcome fears to perceived loss of control, concerns about
employee competence and doubts as to whether or not employees possess the
necessary skills. Perhaps the managers’ main fear, however, is how their jobs
might change. Indeed, many feel they may become redundant (Perry, 1997).
Another, much different, issue is that managers do not know if empowerment
has any effect on profitability. The concept remains difficult to quantify. Ettorre
(1997), for example, suggests that for empowerment to be measurable, there
must be a direct relationship to the organization’s strategic goals and
accountability at every level in the hierarchy, calling for a kind of courage,
honesty and strategic tracking foreign to most managers.
The list of concerns and fears that impede the application of empowering
management techniques continues:
(1) Consultant Thomas McCoy (President of T. J. McCoy and Associates)
suggests that many managers are afraid of allowing employees to take
action, because they don’t feel that employees understand the
ramifications of their decisions on the organization’s costs and profits.
(2) Tschohl (1997) writes that some managers don’t trust the customer. They
feel that by empowering employees to bend the rules, customers will
take unfair advantage. They don’t trust the ability of front line
employees to make decisions.
 (3) Employees too, may fear empowerment, especially when they make Strategic
decisions, as they are taking risks that could lead to reprimand or firing. performance
Jordan (1997), however, found that in an achievement-oriented empowerment
environment, when employees are empowered to do what is right, guided
by their knowledge of organizational values and their own personal model
beliefs, they generally will make the right decisions.
Thus, Crouch (1997) indicates that although many innovative managers are
59
beginning to dislike the word “empowerment”, fundamental concepts behind
the idea are critical to organizational success. Even so, autonomy cannot be
given without perimeters, or chaos will result until an appropriate framework is
put in place. The truly professional manager, therefore, knows that in order to
have power, one must give up power (Champy, 1997). Despite the reticence
to adopt empowerment strategies, companies in which staff are empowered
consistently outperform their competitors, as employees begin to accept more
and more responsibility. It has also been found, for example, that managers who
don’t promote personal development, tend to lose the best employees to more
forward thinking companies (Brown, 1997).

The strategic performance empowerment model

How then, do employees become empowered? What are the attributes of an
empowered employee? What characteristics must employees possess in order to
be truly “empowered”? These questions have lead to the development of a
model designed to optimize employee potential. Within the strategic
performance empowerment model, three key variables (1. coaching or
mentoring; 2. peer and supervisor modeling; 3. career path development and
strategies), must be present to provide employees with the guidance and the
skills necessary to become empowered employees (see Figure 1).

1. Coaching
Cleary (1995), defined coaching as an informal, planned, ongoing process for
interacting with employees. The goals of coaching are to improve job
performance by increasing employees’ capability for managing their own
performance. A coach has been defined as someone who cares about human
dignity and spiritual growth (Jones, 1995), while simultaneously adding value
to an organization by helping the staff learn, grow and develop (Phillips, 1995).
To be effective, coaching must cut across hierarchies and functional
boundaries, e.g., managers coach subordinates, and peers coach peers (Peters,
1996), so that all employees become more adaptive to change. It is through the
process of learning that change takes place (Phillips, 1995). The coach, however,
is not a teacher, but a partner who introduces others to challenges, options and
alternative behaviors (Witherspoon, 1996).
Witherspoon pulls coaching even further away from the teaching
environment by suggesting that the focus of coaching should be less on
teaching new techniques, than on being a helper. He defines coaching as a
Empowerment in
Organizations
6,2

60

Coaching Modeling
-Peer -Peer
-Superior -Superior

Empowered
Organization
Employee
Potential

Figure 1. Career Path

Users and non-users of Development
DFM -Individual
-Organizational

process whereby the employee is given guidance in assessing his/her own

performance, obtains feedback on strengths and weaknesses and learns
new behaviors and skills. The coach does not tell employees what to do, but
rather helps them be better than they already are (Brown, 1997). Brown
cautions however, that coaching can never omit the transfer of basic skills.
Warner (1996) concludes that coaching, as a proactive behavior, is one of the
best ways to ensure that employees improve and become consistently more
productive. Coaching is different from old-fashioned performance appraisals
and evaluations, as the process focuses on what people are doing right and on
ways they can capitalize on their strengths to improve further. Coaching, then,
has two main goals, to increase skill levels, and to modify behavior by
discarding undesirable behaviors and learning more effective ones (Coppola,
1995).1
The proper use of coaching then, is linked directly to empowerment. Coaches
setup environments where individuals feel able to make decisions for
themselves, by developing self-confidence and beliefs in oneself and in others
(Oncken, 1997). This practice leads to higher quality performance, and
ultimately, to the “empowered organization” (Willard, 1995).
2. Modeling Strategic
It has often been said that behaviors speak louder than words – this is the performance
essence of the modeling concept in employee development – as we communicate empowerment
more by what we do, than by what we say (Crouch, 1997). Many of the messages
received by employees are nonverbal, yet this important opportunity to model
influence behavior often is overlooked (Horsfall, 1996).
Behavior modeling can be defined as the study of personal excellence, as 61
employees tend to emulate those whom they admire and respect (Alder, 1992).
Even where managers or entrepreneurs are not an object of admiration,
however, they can become a model for planned development.
Modeling, then, is part skills-based training. Using discussions,
demonstrations, role-playing and feedback, skills can be taught. Modeling,
however, also is value based. Behavioral change cannot always be brought
about solely by changing skill levels. There are many studies that document the
measurable effects of modeling on training (Zenger, 1991).
Supported by 20 years of research, behavior modeling has been considered to
be one of the most effective forms of employee development. Indeed, Pescuric &
Byham (1996), suggest that modeling is the most effective means of developing
skills and changing behavior.
Wilhelm (1992), also indicates that modeling is the single most effective
means of affecting behavioral change in corporations. Practical imple-
mentation, however, is most difficult, as large-scale organizational change
requires each successive level to model the behavior that is expected of
subordinates. Thus, understanding the link between the behavior of leaders
and employee performance is critical (McNeese-Smith, 1993). By setting high
standards, providing examples, stating clear values and maintaining behaviors
that follow these values, managers will build commitment, and commitment is
an ingredient essential to the empowerment process.2

3. Career path development

The body of literature related to career planning continues to grow, as future
managers must be increasingly flexible and possess multiple skills (McNutt,
1995). From both an organizational and an individual perspective, career
planning can start as early as the hiring stage. Through proper selection
techniques, placement and nurturing, defined career paths can be developed.
The recognition of accomplishments, increases in the level of responsibility and
opportunities for advancement foster a sense of commitment and job
satisfaction (Miller, 1997). Similarly, Charter-Scott (1997) found that managers
who earned the highest respect from their employees, were concerned with
goals, career paths and growth, a position supported by Crouch’s (1997), work
on successful management styles. Crouch suggests that managers should
work constantly toward improving skills, linking this philosophy to both the
individual perspective (this type of development keeps employees suited to
their jobs), and the organizational perspective – skills enhancement helps
managers to prepare their corporation for the future.
Empowerment in The link between coaching and modeling
Organizations Although little supporting research has been found, we argue that a strong link
6,2 exists between coaching and modeling, as good coaches must model
appropriate behaviors in order to gain the respect of their employees and peers.
Similarly, Perry (1997) points to the need for managers to change the way they
behave in order to coach effectively. Indeed, Cleary (1995) suggests that one key
62 to establishing an effective coaching relationship is through supportive and
action-oriented behaviors. Coaching and modeling, then, share specific goals, in
that both are a means of skill development and behavior modification, which in
turn leads to that critical ingredient, commitment. As the empowerment
process depends on all three factors (skill enhancement, behavior modification,
commitment), the distinction between coaching and modeling may be blurred,
although coaching tends to be a more formal process.

Career path development and the link to coaching and modeling

James (1995), found that many managers were having difficulty sustaining
performance and managing careers in newer, flatter organizations, suggesting
the need for coaching to help solve these problems, as one of the primary goals
of coaching is to improve job performance and to prepare employees for higher-
level, or more complex tasks (Cleary, 1995). This position is supported by
Turban’s (1994), research on the relationship between coaching and career
success, as he found that coaching was related directly to career attainment and
perceived career success. Similarly, Leykam (1997), found that employees
involved in peer-level modeling programs showed an increase in job
effectiveness, higher morale and a raise in career enhancing competencies.
Some combination of these three inputs, then, appears to be essential to the
empowerment process.

Characteristics of relationships
Further examination of the relationships among coaching, modeling and career
path development has determined that three factors (dependency, formality,
and values) can directly or indirectly affect these relationships. Employee
dependency on managers and on organizational systems can lead to a
breakdown in our model, as in some organizations, employee dependency, is
cultivated (Payne, 1992). Here, “control devices” such as compensation, benefits
and other perks are used to award those who please upper management. This
dependency leads to the minimization of organizational productivity. In order to
empower their employees, therefore, managers must give up traditional
(formal) concepts of supremacy (McLagan, 1996). By using the strategic
performance empowerment model, managers and employees utilize
consultation, communication and influence – activities much more in tune with
current participative management styles. Managers need to support rather than
to control, so that employees can develop their own styles of leadership, which
in turn, promote empowerment.
 The values and the norms of both managers and employees can influence the Strategic
coaching and the modeling relationships, which also can have an indirect effect performance
on career path development. Thus, developing an appropriate personal value empowerment
system is paramount to effective empowerment (Horsfall, 1996). During the
model
coaching and the modeling processes, the values of both manager’s and
employees will become evident (Phillips, 1995). With this factor in mind, models
and coaches need to be sensitive as to the effect their values have on those of 63
others. As suggested previously, modeling is as much value-based training as
skills training. As skill enhancement does not bring about lasting change
(Zenger, 1991; Wright and Geroy 1997), senior management needs to model the
values of the behaviors desired within the organization to create a shared
culture, a phenomenon considered one of five “people management policies”
that bind people together, as defined by Crouch (1997).
Finally, formality touches upon all three parts of the model. Career path
management, for example, would appear to be the most formal, as this function
often is a planned area of employee development. A culture based on
informality, however, can interest the best and the brightest employees in any
future opportunities within the firm. Coaching is performed on both the
informal and the formal plane. Formal coaching sessions, regularly scheduled,
with accompanying feedback sessions, are formal activities, but employees
seem to grow and to learn best within informal structures. As well,
extemporaneous coaching can, and should, often take place, as when managers
respond to behavior that warrants immediate feedback, they are practicing
informal coaching.
Perhaps the most informal of all these variables is modeling. Informal
observations are a method of behavior modeling (Zenger, 1991). There is
research in this area, however, that argues against informality. Adkins (1994),
suggests that informal modeling can be inconsistent, resulting in a waste of
time and money. Further, she indicates that for modeling to be effective, the
activity must take place in structured on-the-job training sessions, using
carefully selected trainers.
If our Strategic Performance Empowerment Model is to be effective, then, the
right balance must be found between formality and informality. As every
organization is different, it is impossible to develop rules that dictate “amounts”
of one or the other. In general, however, successful managers in North America
seem to be leaning toward informality as the basis for most employee/employer
relationships. But against this backdrop, it must be remembered that formal
systems must be in place to satisfy both legal requirements and the necessity to
keep proper records, so that the human resource can be managed effectively
(Wright, Mondy and Noe, 1996).

Implications for practicing managers

The Strategic Performance Empowerment Model outlines four premises:
Empowerment in (1) there are three key variables: coaching, modeling and career path
Organizations development, which must be maximized,
6,2 (2) these three variables interact,
(3) they must be utilized in combination to optimize employee
empowerment,
64 (4) anytime all three variables are not optimized, employees will not be fully
empowered.
The manager, then, faces a difficult task, as he/she must override traditional
authority/power-based mindsets to develop a different paradigm, based on
some combination of our three key variables. The addition of
formality/informality variables to the mix, further complicates the manager’s
job. Indeed, the creation of an empowered workforce may not only require the
will to change at all levels of management, but a willingness to experiment and
to accept some failures, until the formula is found that works in any given
organization. There is no magic in this model, but the ingredients that lead to a
more productive (e.g., empowered) workforce are isolated, so they can be
recognized and managed in an appropriate manner.

References
Adkins, K. E. (1994, May/June), Tapping the power of peers, Human Resources Professional, 7(3),
pp. 12-14.
Alder, H. (1992), A model for personal success, Management Decision, 30(3), pp. 23-25.
Belcourt, M. and P. C. Wright (1996), Managing Performance Through Training and
Development, Scarborough: Nelson Canada.
Blanchard, K. (1997). Out with the old and in with the new. Incentive. 171(4), pp. 59-61.
Brown, R. (1997, April), Coaching helps you reach for the stars, Works Management, pp. 34-36.
Champy, J. (1997), Somebody has to be in charge, Forbes, 160(9), p. 242.
Charter-Scott, C. (1997), The value of respect, Executive Excellence, 14(7), p. 13.
Cleary, M. (1995), You’re the coach, Credit Union Management, 18(9), pp. 40-42.
Coppola, B. (1995, October), Coaching the under-performing manager, HR Magazine.
Crouch, N. (1997, September 25), Winning ways, People Management, 3(19), pp. 40-43.
Ettorre, B. (1997), The empowerment gap: Hype vs. Reality, HR Focus, 74(7), 1,5+.
Horsfall, G.A (1996), Accountability: The force behind empowerment, Hospital Material
Management Quarterly, 18(2), pp. 26-31.
James, P. and Wark, V. (1995, May 31), Replacing the ladders, People Management, 1(11),
pp. 28-31.
Jones, L. (1995), Cocooned and cynical employees, Journal for Quality and Participation, 18(18),
pp. 52-57.
Jordon, H. (1997), The achievement environment, Secured Lender, 53(3), pp. 46-48.
Leykam, G (1997), Train the trainer through empowerment, Telemarketing and Call Center
Solutions, 15(11), pp. 98-104.
McLagan, P and Nel, C. (1996), Leaders’ new roles, Executive Excellence, 13(11), pp. 11-12.
McNeese-Smith, D. (1993), Leadership behavior and employee effectiveness, Nursing
Management, 24(5), pp. 38-39.
McNutt, R. W. and Wright, P. C. (1995), Coaching your employees: Applying sports analogies to Strategic
business, Executive Development, 8(1), pp. 27-32.
performance
Miller, J. (1997), Lead, follow, or get out of the way, Hospital Material Management Quarterly,
19(1), pp. 63-67.
empowerment
Morales, O. (1997), The flip side, Business Mexico, 7(7), pp. 32-33.
model
Mountford, J. R. (1997), Empowerment costing, Production and Inventory Management Journal,
38(1), pp. 65-71. 65
Onken, W. (1997), A coaching key for any century, Executive Excellence, 14(4), pp. 9-10.
Payne, T. (1992), How to create self-sufficient employees and who would want to? Canadian
Manager, 17(4), pp. 16-17.
Perry, I. (1997), Creating and empowering effective work teams, Management Services, 41(7),
pp. 8-11.
Pescuric, A. and Byham, W. C. (1996), The new look of behavior modeling, Training and
Development, 50(7), pp. 24-30.
Phillips, R. (1995), Coaching for higher performance, Executive Development, 8(7), pp. 5-7.
Troyer, J. (1997), Understanding empowerment, Association Management, 49(8), p. 27.
Tschohl, J. (1997, August 11), Empowerment: The key to customer service, Nation’s Restaurant
News, 31(31), p. 40.
Turban, D. B. and Dougherty, T. W. (1994), Role of protégée personality in receipt of mentoring
and career success, Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), pp. 688-702.
Vogt, P. (1997), Transfer of power, Credit Union Management, 20(6), pp. 44-45.
Ward, B. (1996), How to empower, Canadian Manager, 21(4), pp. 20-22.
Warner, C. (1996), Performance coaching for broadcast newspeople, including discipline without
punishment, Unpublished manuscript, University of Missouri.
Wilhelm, W. (1992), Changing corporate culture – Or corporate behavior? How to change your
company, Academy of Management Executive, 6(4), pp. 72-77.
Willard, M. (1995), Turning up the heat, Journal for Quality and Participation, 18(4), pp. 82-85.
Witherspoon, R. and White, R. P. (1996), Executive coaching: What’s in it for you? Training and
Development, 50(3), pp. 14-15.
Wright, P. C. and G. D. Geroy (1997), “Human Competence Engineering Versus the Training Myth:
Is It Time For a New Direction”, Working Paper 97-009, Faculty of Administration, University
of New Brunswick, Fredericton, N.B., Canada.
Wright, P. C., Mondy, R. W. and Noe, R. M. (1996), Human Resource Management, Scarborough:
Prentice Hall Canada Inc.
Zenger, J.H. (1991), The power of applied principles, Executive Excellence, 8(2), pp. 18-19.

Notes
1. For a discussion of how to coach, see Belcourt, M. and Wright P. (1996), Managing
Performance Through Training and Development, Scarborough: Nelson Canada, pp. 120-
123.
2. For a more detailed discussion of modeling procedures: see, Belcourt and Wright (1996),
pp. 186-188.