employee empowerment and job satisfaction: a study of the ... · according to olshfski and...

ijcrb.webs.com INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS

COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research

18

DECEMBER 2011 VOL 3, NO 8

Employee Empowerment and Job Satisfaction: A Study of the Employees in the Food Manufacturing Sector in Zimbabwe

Zuvarashe Judith Mushipe (PhD) Assistant Professor, ST Thomas University, Miami Gardens, Florida, USA

Abstract

This study is based on the Zimbabwe employee involvement model that focuses on three

areas which are decision-making, information-sharing and power sharing. The model was

initiated in the country in the 1980s as a way of empowering employees in different

companies in the land. Government initiated the model as a way of addressing the inevitable

change in the business environment. The study carried out in the Food Manufacturing Sector

argues that involving employees in decision-making, information-sharing and power sharing

results into the employees experiencing job satisfaction. The study is in a case study format

was carried out in four different companies in Zimbabwe. After experiencing a number of

obstacles data was obtained and analyzed. The results indicated a positive relationship

between employee involvement and job satisfaction.

Key words: Employee Empowerment, Employee involvement, Change, Resistance to

change, Job Satisfaction.

Introduction

Research Objective

The research objective is to establish the impact of employee empowerment/involvement or lack of it on employee job satisfaction. The construct of employee empowerment/involvement is broken down to include decision-making, information sharing and power sharing. Propositions Proposition 1: Decision-making is positively associated with job satisfaction. Proposition 2: Information sharing results in job satisfaction Proposition 3: Power sharing results in job satisfaction

Need for Change In the 1980s the Zimbabwe Government initiated an empowerment model that

recommended employee involvement in the general running of the organizations they worked

for. This was a way of addressing the changes that were taking place in the general business

environment. The empowerment model conceived under the umbrella of the Labour Act

included some aspects of the workers’ committees and works’ councils.



19


Change is necessitated by the escalating development of global markets, increasing

rapid changes in work technologies, shifting workforce and customer demographics, and

increased emphasis on quality, productivity, customer satisfaction and flexibility in products

and services (Hammuda and Dulaimi, 1997). The driving forces for change are well known:

new technology, new types of competition, economic uncertainty, evolving customer needs,

deregulation, globalization and fragmentation of markets. So many factors argue for change

that to not change is to assure obsolescence (Lawler 111, 1991). Subsequently, given the

changes in the environment, the need to change the way organizations conduct business has

never been greater.

Literature has it that the environment people work in can shape their attitudes and

behaviour in either positive or negative ways; and that being the case an understanding of

how individuals in organizations are influenced by the organizational context becomes

imperative (Robertson, 1994). As Bayat (1991) observes “human beings as history has

repeatedly shown, tend to develop a strong desire to exercise control over their own lives, and

by the same token to reject attempts by other humans to restrict their freedom”.

Employee Involvement

Empirical research has recommended empowerment as a change strategy that

will align organizations with the changes in the environment (Nykodym, Simonetti,

Nielsen and Welling, 1994; Alkahtani, 2000; Des and Peken, 2000). Employee

empowerment here refers to sharing of information among individuals who are

otherwise hierarchically unequal (Locke and Schweiger, 1979; Wagner, 1994; Hickey

and Casner- Lotto 1998), the involvement of employees in decision-making

(Nykodym et al., 1994; Cotton, 1988) and sharing of power (Pun, Chin and Gill,

2001). At the same time Johnson and Thurston (1997), give examples of TRW,

Hercules, Whirlpool and McClanahan Book Companies as organizations that have

realized organizational benefits from their empowerment initiatives.

Contextualization of employee involvement In this study employee involvement is synonymous to worker- participation in

decision-making, information sharing and power sharing and that is also generally

equated to employee empowerment. The three aspects of employee involvement

address how one perceives his/her total work situation to be an important part of his

life and central to him / her and his/her identity because of the opportunity it (the

work situation) affords him/her to meet important needs. Central to that definition is



20


the notion of “the opportunity to meet important needs”. For someone to feel that

opportunity they need to have power to participate in decision- making and

information to make informed decisions. However, decision-making, information-

sharing and power sharing are very much intricately interlinked. The components are

further explained for a better understanding of each construct.

Different attributes of the constructs of employee involvement discussed in this study

are decision-making, information sharing and power sharing.

(a) (b) (c)

Literature Review Employee involvement or empowerment is a complex concept; it tends to

mean different things to different people. According to Nielsen and Pedersen, (2001),

“employee empowerment” as defined by (McClelland, 1975; Conger and Kanungo,

1988) may be seen as part of the broader concept of “employee involvement” which

also includes “participative management” (Lawler et al., 1992; Cummings and

Worley, 1997) “job enrichment” (Hackman and Oldham, 1980), and “industrial

democracy” (Poole, 1986. The term “empowerment” is elastic and so it is not always

clear what it means in different organizations (Wilkinson1998; Dainty, et al, 2002).

Notions of empowerment are derived from theories of participative management and

employee involvement (Spreitzer, Kizilos and Nason, 1997). The theories of participative

management advocate that managers share decision- making power with employees to

enhance performance and work satisfaction (Wagner111, 1994). Lawler 111, (1991) on the

other hand argues that employee involvement emphasizes cascading power, information,

rewards, and training to the lowest level possible in the organizational hierarchy to increase

worker discretion. As it turns out employee involvement is a multidimensional concept.

Decision-making Planning daily activities Setting targets Setting policies and procedures Using personal judgment

Information sharing Team work Suggestion boxes Feedback Consultation with supervisor

Power sharing Ownership programs Labor-management partnerships Profit sharing



21


However, in this study employee involvement is about decision-making, information sharing

and power sharing.

Some researchers have also equated it to decision-making. For example Nykodym et

al., (1994) posit that employee empowerment or participative decision-making is neither a

new or simple management concept; while Bowen and Lawler, (1992) point out that

empowerment enables employees to make decisions and Pastor (1996) emphasizes the taking

of responsibility for decisions made. From a mechanist or top-down approach, employee

involvement is about delegation and accountability (Quinn and Spreitzer, 1999). Collins

(1996) argues that that is a narrow definition of empowerment since it hinges more on

accountability than any wider change in the process of work and decision-making which

might be implied by a more active modeling of empowerment.

According to Olshfski and Cunningham (1998), empowerment is about delegation or

sharing of power, authority or responsibility by those in the organizational structure to those

lower levels of the organization. This in essence is the process of decentralizing decision-

making in an organization where managers give more discretion and autonomy to the front-

.line managers. Wagner 111, (1994) calls it a process in which influence is shared among

individuals who are otherwise hierarchically unequal. Collins (1995) sees that as a limiting

type of empowerment as at the end of it, the workers are empowered only in the sense that

they have a greater responsibility to act within a narrow sphere and then held accountable for

their limited action.

Hickey and Casner-Lotto (1998:58) state that empowerment is about delegating

directly to non-management employees a significant amount of decision-making authority

commonly reserved for managers. They further argue that a truly participative organization is

characterized by work systems that are structured to make employee involvement ongoing.

This is what Estad (1997) refers to as the involvement of everyone, including both

management and employees, that results into the disappearance of boundaries between formal

and informal leader to that of an inclusive organization where there are “leaders of leaders”.

At that level everyone in the organization feels empowered. That kind of participatory

management practice in a way balances the involvement of managers and their subordinates

in information sharing, decision-making or problem –solving endeavors (Wagner 111, 1994).

However, (Hammuda and Dulaimi, 1997) posit that empowerment is not meant to be a

delegation revisited, but rather a wider meaning of employees controlling their own destinies.

Conger and Kanungo (1988), define empowerment as a process of enhancing feelings

of self-efficacy among organizational members through the identification of conditions that



22


foster powerlessness and through their removal by both formal organizational practices and

informal techniques of providing efficacy information. Brewer (1994), lending support to

Conger and Kanungo’s definition, posits that empowerment entails suggestion involvement

that culminates into suggestion schemes, quality circles and job involvement where

employees are in control of their jobs by designing job content.

Collins, (1995) argues that democratic empowerment, represents a much more active,

or activist model of empowerment that is representative of a process whereby workers gain or

assume power and represent a process in which workers “act with a greater grasp and sense of

their own powers”. Consequently, empowerment only truly occurs when workers actively

take the initiative and attempt to wrest control from managers (ibid).

Pun, Chin and Gill, (2001) points out that empowerment is a process whereby

employees are taking part or having shares in managerial decision - making. They further

point out that true involvement draws people on the hierarchy up to the levels above them and

then shares the power that is available. They however, point out that many conventional

managers would see employee involvement as the giving away of control since true

involvement draws people lower on the hierarchy up to the levels above them and then shares

the power that is available. Most definitions of empowerment refer to some aspect of control-

control over decision making, control over work processes, control over performance goals

and measurement, and /or control over other people (Howard and Foster, 1999).

Ford and Fottler, (1995) emphasize that the empowerment process

necessitates the sharing of information and knowledge necessary to enable

employees to contribute to organizational performance. At the same time Bluestone

and Bluestone (1997) posits that participation turns out to work best when it is

organized jointly between union and management and when workers have a voice

independent from management that cannot be unilaterally stifled. Obviously, the

transfer of power and decision making authority, are at the centre of the

empowerment process. As Gilbert (1991) puts it, empowerment is about trust, and

most importantly it is about accountability. On the other hand Johnson and Thurston

(1997), adopted a thematic definition after their study of Multicorp, and decided to

define empowerment in the context of authority, control and trust.

Taking a holistic approach to defining employee involvement, Kinlaw (1996) points

out that it is the process of achieving continuous improvement in an organization’s

performance by developing and extending the competent influence of individuals and teams

over the areas and functions that affect their performance and that of the total organization.



23


He adds that empowerment also requires structural and systematic changes in the

organization, like shortening the lines of communication and modifying reward systems.

As can be derived from the above definitions, empowerment has been glorified as a

splendid (Olshfski and Cunningham, 1998). The linking thread in the employee involvement

concept is the encouragement of employees including management to utilize their skills and

experience by giving them power to use more judgment and discretion in their work. Simply

put it is the involvement of employees in decision- making, information sharing and power

sharing.

Decision Making

Making decisions closer to the point at which they are actually carried out has

advantages and provide economic motivations (Malone, 1997). At the same time people are

more energetic and creative if they have autonomy in both how they work and what they do

(ibid). In the empowerment models they advanced, Nykodym et al., (1994) and Cotton,

(1988), emphasized decision-making as a major determinant of participation. Dainty et al.,

(2002); Ford and Fottler (1997), posit that genuine empowerment is likely to include

decision-making authority over not just job content, but job context as well.

Information sharing

Marketers define information sharing as internal marketing or two- way

communication (Davis 2001). Under such conditions, employees are listened to and

encouraged to provide their input and ideas. Ideally, much more information should

be shared with employees. The intent is to find out what employees think and want, so

programs can be adapted based on the employees’ input (ibid).

Information is at the very core of what makes a group of people an

organization (Lawler 111, 1991). Apparently, information has been identified as a

source of power and effectiveness in organizational co-ordination and cooperation;

and without it, employee participation and involvement become impractical and

dangerous (ibid). Moreover, decision-makers frequently have access to information

that helps them make good decisions (Malone, 1997).

The empowerment process necessitates the sharing of information and

knowledge to enable employees to contribute to organizational performance (Ford and

Fottler, 1995). In support of Ford and Fottler, Hammuda and Dulaimi (1997) argue

that part of the empowerment program is to provide the necessary information for



24


employees to enable them to perform their jobs autonomously and effectively.

Consequently, sharing of information is important as it enables individuals to make

informed decisions. British Gas implemented an employee suggestion program which

resulted in the company realizing positive results (Estad, 1997).

Power Sharing

In this study power sharing is the same as authority. According to Webster’s College

dictionary authority is the power to settle issues. The workers in the Zimbabwe firms are

empowered by having a say in the running of the organization through the workers’

committees, works’ council, employee ownership and profit sharing schemes. Paul, Niehoff

and Tromley, (2000), point out that suggestion systems, gain sharing plans and quality circles

are part of parallel suggestion involvement. The schemes are also in tandem with Conger and

Kanungo’s (1988) assertion that the empowerment process enhances 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.

Pun, Chin and Gill (2001) argue that true involvement draws people on the

hierarchy up to the level above them and then share the power that is available.

Olshfski and Cunningham, (1998) also point out that empowerment involves the

sharing of power, authority or responsibility by those in the organizational structure to

those lower levels of the organization. Changes in ownership, such as employee stock

ownership plans, and changes in reward systems, such as profit sharing and gain

sharing are attempts to involve employees in organizational decision-making (Paul et

al., 2000). Employee ownership tends to increase workers’ desire for control and the

ownership rights may include the rights to information, decision-making and in

general, increased participation (Bartkus, 1997)

Outcome of Employee Empowerment

According to the research question the outcome of employee involvement is job

satisfaction. Employee empowerment has been contextualized to include decision-

making, information sharing and power sharing.

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is an area that has been well researched in the industrial and

organizational psychology literature. However, it is a concept that is still surrounded



25


by controversy because much of the literature is inconclusive in nature Morgan et.

al,(1995).

Defining job satisfaction is problematic since it has been considered in a variety of

ways, and defined differently in various studies (Lam, Zhang and Baum, 2000). They further

argue that if there is consensus about job satisfaction, it is the verbal expression of an

incumbent’s evaluation of his/her job. The popular definition that has been made reference to

in the literature is that advanced by Locke, (1976). He defined the concept of job satisfaction

as a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job

experiences. Locke further argues that the satisfaction is achieved when one realizes one’s

important job values provided these are congruent with or help to fulfill one’s basic needs.

The values or conditions conducive to job satisfaction are:

• Mentally challenging work which the individual can cope successfully

• Personal interest in the work itself

• Work that is not too physically tiring

• Rewards for performance that are just, informative and in line with the

individual’s personal aspirations

• Working conditions that are compatible with the individual’s physical

needs and that facilitate the accomplishment of his work

• High self esteem on the part of the employee

• Agents in the work place who help the employee to attain job values such

as interesting work, pay and promotions, whose basic values are similar to

his own, and who minimize role conflict and ambiguity.

Locke’s definition in this case incorporates both Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of

human needs and Hertzberg’s (1960, 1976) two- factor theory. However the list of

values reads more like a long shopping list that is also cosmetic in nature because at the

end of it all it is rather difficult to understand what job satisfaction really means.

However, the majority of researchers have defined job satisfaction based on Locke’s

(1976) definition. For example (Lam, Baum and Pine, 2001; Schwepker Jr. (2001);

Lam, Zhang and Baum (2000); Testa, (1999); and Weiss, (1976); Kalleberg, 1977;

Locke, 1976; Smith, Kendall and Hulin, (1969) and Currivan, (1999), defined job

satisfaction as the degree of positive emotions an employee has toward a work role.

Robbins and Coulter (1996); Currivan, (1999) highlighting the attitudinal nature of the

construct stated that job satisfaction is an employee’s general attitude towards his or her



26


job. Spector (1997 simply defined job satisfaction as the feeling people have about their

jobs and different aspects of their jobs. He concludes by saying that it is an attitudinal

variable.

A few studies on job satisfaction have tried to define it slightly differently. For

example (Currivan, 1999) defined job satisfaction just as an employee attitude or

“orientation”; and Spector (1997) posits that the attitudinal perspective has become the

predominant one in the study of job satisfaction. Ivancevich, et al., (1997), also defined

job satisfaction as an attitude that individuals have about their jobs; which results from

their perception of their jobs and the degree to which there is a good fit between the

individual and the organization.

Schwepker, (2001), argued that job satisfaction may be both intrinsic

and extrinsic. Internally, satisfaction is derived from mediated rewards such as the job

itself and opportunities for personal growth and accomplishment. Externally,

satisfaction is derived from mediated rewards such as satisfaction with pay, company

policies and support, supervision, fellow workers, chances for promotion and

customers. On the other hand McGue and Gianakis (1997), define job satisfaction by

conceptualizing it. They highlight the elements of job satisfaction that include the actual

work and its outcomes, or intrinsic job satisfaction pay, benefits and other rewards

directly associated with doing the work, or extrinsic job satisfaction. Included also is the

environment in which the work is done, including relations with coworkers,

organizational culture, the organization’s policies and procedures, participation in

decision making, involvement with the organization, and job status. That definition

encompasses almost every theme that describes employees’ attitudes.

The thread that runs through the different authors’ definitions is that of

attitudes, orientation and the fact that job satisfaction may be intrinsic and extrinsic.

Based on the definitions, it appears that the employee involvement program in this

study has both intrinsic and extrinsic attributes. The decision-making and information

sharing through the workers committees, team briefing system are intrinsic while profit-

sharing; and employee shares are extrinsic.

Employee involvement and Job Satisfaction

As it turns out, the assessment of employee attitudes such as job satisfaction has

become a common activity in organizations in which management is concerned with the

physical and psychological wellbeing of people (Spector, 1997). Rosenberg (2009) also



27


amplifies the importance of employee involvement when she cited resource-transformation as

the movement of information rather than materials within an organization. Akbar, Yousaf,

Haq and Hunjira(2011) in their empirical research assessing the impact of employee

empowerment and job satisfaction found a positive relationship between the two.

Nykodym, Simonetti, Nielsen and Welling (1994) assert that even the earliest

research findings suggested that great potential existed for improving job satisfaction

and performance through the use of worker participation as could be seen through

Japan’s quality circles. Results from some studies showed a positive correlation

between job satisfaction and consultative participation (ibid). Some researchers also

found a positive relationship between empowerment and job satisfaction. For example

Rinehart and Short (1994) found a strong and positive relationship between

empowerment and job satisfaction. Dennis (1999) also found a strong relationship

between the variables of employee involvement and job satisfaction in his search for

factors influencing job satisfaction in the prison environment.

Some interesting positive links between employee involvement and job

satisfaction have been found in the nursing field. For example, Kanter (1993) in her

studies argued that in nursing, empowerment has been shown to predict important

organizational outcomes, such as trust in management, perceived control over

nursing, organizational commitment and job satisfaction.

Nykodym, et al.1994) assert that participation causes greater job satisfaction

because the employee feels more valued and trusted by management and because the

worker gains a better understanding of management difficulties by dealing with some

of the same problems. A positive correlation between job satisfaction and consultative

participation was demonstrated in six different areas: participation in work decision,

consultative participation, short-term participation, informal participation, employee

ownership, and representative participation.

At the same time a positive relation was also found between informal

participation and job satisfaction and employee ownership and participation. The

relation between representative participation and job satisfaction was found to be

positive for at least the representatives. However the relation between work decisions

and job satisfaction was found to be positive among supervisors and management.

That type of an analogy is in line with the Zimbabwean empowerment model that has

all the types of participation as outlined by Nykodym at al., 1994). Finn, (2001) also



28


highlighted the link between autonomy and job satisfaction established during a

physicians’ strike in Israel. Nurses were forced into a full autonomous practice to

provide primary care and 31 percent of the nurses reported a significant increase in

job satisfaction due to the increased autonomy.

Equating an Employee to a Customer

Borrowing literature from the marketing discipline, an employee can be

equated to a customer to show the importance of job satisfaction. Rust, Stewart,

Miller and Pielack (1996) equate an employee to a customer since both have needs

and wants that have to be satisfied. Customer needs and wants are satisfied when they

perceive goods and services to have value that meet or exceed their expectations

(ibid). By the same token, employee needs and wants are satisfied when they perceive

that they are empowered by the organization in the form of information sharing,

decision-making and power sharing.

Davis (2001), pointing at the link between information and job satisfaction,

highlights the example of Sears Roebuck that is investing in rewarding managers who

improve employee satisfaction levels by consulting the employees. Again the

examples that come out of the literature are from western countries only and nothing

from the third world let alone Zimbabwe. In this study job satisfaction is

conceptualized as the degree of positive emotions an employee has toward a work

role (Kalleberg, 1977; Locke, 1976; Smith, Kendall, and Hulin, 1969; Currivan,

2000). Put simply, it is the degree to which people like their jobs (Spector, 1997).

Conclusion on Literature Review

What comes out of the literature reviewed is that empowerment is about

participative decision-making or autonomy. Participative decision-making is a

situation in which decisions pertaining to activities are arrived at, by the very persons

who are to execute those decisions (Hammuda and Dulaimi, (1997). At the same time

there is the notion of information sharing. Part of the empowerment program is to

provide the necessary information for employees to enable them to perform their jobs

autonomously and effectively (ibid). There is also the sharing of power, authority or

responsibility in this whole empowerment exercise. Ford and Fottler (1997), and



29


Dainty et al., (2002), posit that genuine empowerment is likely to include decision-

making authority over not just job content but job context as well.

Forrester (2000) argues that to understand empowerment requires

understanding what power is. Power as defined by Luke (1974) in Forrester (2000) is

the capacity to obtain the results one wants. Power is further defined by (Pfeiffer,

1981; Kotter, 1976; McClelland and Burnham, 1976), as the ability of those who

possess power to bring about the outcomes they desire or ability to get one’s way. In

organizational change it is necessary that the employees possess power to bring about

the outcomes they desire. That empowerment is achieved through employees’

participation in decision-making, information sharing and power sharing. Arthur

(1994) also argues that, although there is growing evidence that managers’

involvement in lower echelon employees is necessary in today’s business

environment, many managers are hesitant to involve lower echelon employees

because of the fear of losing control (ibid). That then calls for an element of trust on

the part of management. From the literature it has been established that empowerment

is linked to job satisfaction.

METHODOLOGY This section of the study narrates the information gathering process

undertaken in this study. The research question was “is there a link between employee

involvement and job satisfaction?” The purpose of the inquiry was exploratory and

was meant to find out what was happening in different companies and to seek new

insights to the concept of employee involvement. Remenyi, et al., (1998) observe that

there are at least three major philosophical questions that should be addressed at the

outset of the research. The questions are: why research, what to research and how to

research? In order to address the questions, propositions that show the relationship

between employee involvement and the construct of job satisfaction was formulated.

The proposition is that employee involvement/empowerment results into job

satisfaction.

Research Methods

The qualitative research method employed was two-pronged. It embraced the

case study and survey strategies. The combination of survey and case studies (both



30


institutional and individual) provides useful complementary information giving

valuable insights into the issue (Robson, 2001).

Case Study Approach

The case study approach was used to identify the objects of study in the

manufacturing industry. Although the case study approach should not be equated to

qualitative study per se, the majority of case studies build on qualitative data since

that makes it possible to examine complex and ‘rich’ phenomena (Huemer 1998). At

the same time the use of cases is advocated from a positivistic, realist and naturalistic

point of view (Easton, 1995; Eisenhardt 1989, Lincoln and Guba1985 cited by

Bryman, 1995). According to Yin (1994) case studies are the preferred strategy when

“how and why” questions are being posed, when the investigator has little control

over events, and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon with some real-

life context. Stake (2000) emphasized the case study approach as an early step in

theory building. When using that method, research is conducted through an intense

and/or prolonged contact with a “field” or life situation (Amaratunga et al., 2002).

The research problem that addresses the influence of employee involvement on the

construct of job satisfaction is more of a social nature since it encroaches on issues of

work life.

Survey Approach

The use of the survey method became imperative when access was denied to

interviewing the lower level employees. At that stage a questionnaire had to be

designed targeted at the other employees besides the key informants.

Sampling

Mwanje and Gotu (2001) argue that sampling rather than complete

enumeration becomes useful in terms of time, cost and available resources and

practicability. The choice of the industry was influenced by the size of the sector. The

manufacturing industry is the 3rd largest contributor to the Gross Domestic Product

(GDP) after agriculture and the distribution, hotels and restaurant industry (Central

Statistics Office, 2002). It also has the largest number of blue- collar employees. At

the time of the research there were forty-eight (48) registered companies which

employed about eighteen thousand (18 000) employees. The four companies that

formed the sample employed a total of two thousand four hundred and sixty-two (2

462) employees amongst themselves and that was about fifteen percent (15%) of the



31


work force in the entire industry. The companies have been operating in the country

for at least 30 years. These companies understood the political/economic situation

better especially after going through the era of the liberation struggle, and the

Economic Structural Adjustment Program (ESAP) era.

Sampling Design

Stratified random sampling was used in all four organizations. The employees

were stratified according to their hierarchical levels, which are top, middle and low

level, but questionnaires were only given to low level employees, since that was more

in line with the research question.

Sample Size of low level Participants CO.#1 CO # 2 CO # 3 CO # 4 Total 35 35 35 35 140

FINDINGS

The researcher used the information from the lower level respondents since that

addressed the research question. The data was all lumped together since the same

questionnaire was administered to all respondents in all four companies.

Decision-Making and Job Satisfaction

The proposition being advanced in this section is that employee involvement

through decision-making results into job satisfaction. The descriptive data are given in

the form of tables and graphs and not put in the appendices as recommended by

Saunders et al (1997). The attributes of decision- making highlighted are depicted in

Table 1 below.

Decision-making and Job Satisfaction Satisfied

(Percent) Not satisfied (Percent)

Number of respondents

Planning daily activities 75 25 98 Setting own targets 75 25 97 Setting procedures 66 34 98 Direct influence on work 71 29 98 Use of personal judgment 71 29 100 Completion of work/ Multi skilling 62 38 98



32


Conclusion on decision-making

Decision-making is an intrinsic motivator under Hertzberg’s two factor motivation

theory. The whole concept of decision-making and job satisfaction can be equated to

the principle of job design, whose primary motive is to raise morale of employees. Job

design entails job enrichment and job enlargement, which in this case are realized in

different forms of decision- making as depicted in Table 1 above. Decision-making

enhances self- actualization, which is the highest need on Maslow’s hierarchy of

needs theory. That feeling culminates in meaningfulness of the job and brings about a

sense of responsibility on the part of the individual (Hackman and Oldham 1975,

1980 in Burke 1987). The latitude given to employees to make decisions is a positive

reinforce (Skinner 1953, 1971) as evidenced by the positive job satisfaction.

Gould (1996) regards employee involvement to be a transformation strategy

that delegates decision-making to the shop floor of the organization and it engenders a

sense of process ownership among workers. Bowler and Lawler (1992) argue that

employee involvement enables employees to make decisions with the individuals

taking responsibility for their actions. In essence Organizational Development focuses

on change that will more fully integrate individual needs with organizational

effectiveness through better utilization of resources, especially human resources, and

change that will provide more involvement of organization members in the decisions

that directly affect them and their working conditions (Burke, 1987).

In this era of globalization and information technology it becomes imperative

to involve employees in decision-making. Organizations with highly involved

employees can certainly have a competitive advantage over those with less involved

employees (Alkahtani, 2000). At the same time the empowered manager is

distinguished from the competent traditional manager by breaking the rules and by

asking for forgiveness rather than for permission (Quinn, et al 1996).

Information Sharing and job satisfaction

The proposition advanced in this section is that information sharing through

team-work, availability of suggestion boxes and receiving feedback on one’s

performance results into job satisfaction.



33


Information sharing and Job Satisfaction

Agree (Percent)

Disagree (Percent)

No of respondents

Teamwork 71 29 100 Use of suggestion boxes 35 65 100 Feedback from management 71 29 100 Management consulting with subordinate 73 27 100

The results in Table 2 above show that most employees got job satisfaction

from information sharing in their organizations. The Labor Act that recommends

establishment of structures such as the workers’ committees, representation through

the trade unions, Works Councils, collective bargaining and the Tripartite Negotiating

Forum facilitated information –sharing. Besides, the organizations had other home-

grown programs that encouraged information sharing such as the ‘tombola’ game,

‘sunrise project’ and “padare”. In that respect the employees felt committed to their

organizations due to information sharing as they worked in teams. McClelland (1961

in Kreitner and Kinicki, (1998) equated teamwork to socialized power (s Pwr).

In the same vein, information sharing is seen as empowering by Hicky and

Casner-Lotto (1998) in their Participation, Achievement, and Reward (PAR) Model

that encourages team based work and labour management partnerships. Integration of

technology and people and communication and information sharing in general are

also contributory to job satisfaction. Hammuda and Dulaimi (1997) argue that

information for employees enables them to perform their jobs autonomously and

effectively. On the other hand Laschinger and Wong, (1999) also report that factors

such as access to information have a major influence on employees’ ability to get

work done.

Information sharing should be taken seriously since it plays an important role

in overcoming resistance to change. This is at the centre of the whole exercise of

aligning organizations with the changing environment. Change is associated with

uncertainties and by making information available, trust is built. As observed by Kets

de Vries and Balazs (1999) leaders driving change effort need to empower their

subordinates by sharing information fully, avoiding secrecy and delegating

responsibility. That aspect of avoiding secrecy is addressed by the legal structures

such as the Labour Act and its many provisions. According to Lawler 111 (1991)



34


information is at the very core of the development of an organization and is

fundamental for its success.

Power Sharing and job satisfaction

The proposition advanced in this section is that power sharing leads to job

satisfaction. Empowerment is realised through power sharing in general, employee

ownership programmes, labour- management partnership and profit sharing. In other

words power sharing can be tangible and intangible in nature.

Power sharing and job satisfaction Satisfied

(Percent) Dissatisfied(Percent)

No of respondents

Power sharing in general 51 49 98 Employee Ownership Programmes 34 66 96 Labour Management Partnership 34 66 96 Profit Sharing 30 70 96

The results in Table 3 above show that most of the employees were not

satisfied by the level of power sharing in their organizations. This was despite the fact

that companies, as per the findings, had indicated that they had expanded the

empowerment model from decision-making and information sharing to include power

sharing. Power sharing in the form of share ownership has always been a major

problem in organizations. Subsequently, Government came up with a number of

policies to address the issue of power sharing. The policies include Growth with

equity, indigenization, and employee share ownership plans.

McClelland (1961 in Kreiner and Kinicki 1998) argues that there are basically

two types of power; the socialized power (s Pwr) and personalized power (n Pwr) and

the two have some influence on power sharing. Naturally, the owners of capital have a

high need for power which is characterized by the “if I win you lose”. From the

results, the organizations seemed oblivious of the fact that empowerment involves the

sharing of power, authority and responsibility by everyone in the organizational

structure (Olshfski and Cunningham 1998).

However, it is also natural that many conventional managers would see

employee involvement as giving away control to workers at lower levels (Pun, Chin

and Gill 2001). Such managers find it difficult to share power with subordinates

because of the desire to control. Besides, there is just too much at stake such as the



35


need for control, recognition needs and security, thus managers hold on to power

(Forester, 2000).

CONCLUSION

The general conclusion in this research is that employee involvement in

decision making and information sharing results in job satisfaction. On the other hand

power sharing as part of employee involvement was found not to be positively linked

to job satisfaction; the reason being that power sharing was rarely practiced in the

organizations studied.

Decision-making

The study showed that participation in decision-making is positively linked to

job satisfaction. Decision-making is a very important aspect of empowerment. It

embraces a number of areas such as self-governance, freedom and self-control. In this

study it embraced such attributes as individual’s involvement in setting own targets

and use of personal judgment among others. That aspect of involvement enhances the

individual employee’s self- actualization. At the same time decision-making as an

empowerment strategy engenders process ownership among workers and that can

result in competitive advantage over other organizations that do not involve

employees. Employee involvement brings about a sense of belonging and that

psychological bond ties the employee to the organization.

Information –sharing

The study showed a positive link between information sharing and job

satisfaction. Information sharing facilitates the whole empowerment exercise in a

number of ways. For example it is of paramount importance in overcoming resistance

to change. In this study the Labor Act played a pivotal role in the provision of

information and the establishment of workplace democracy. Management taking

cognizance of the importance of information sharing promoted teamwork in their

firms to the extent of coming up with new programs as the Sunrise Project, Tombola

and Padare.

Information sharing is the epitome of teamwork and it encompasses feedback.

The importance of feedback is to find out what employees think and want so

programs can be adapted based on the employee’ input. Information- sharing in a

changing business environment such as the one experienced in Zimbabwe is of



36


paramount importance. Organisations have to align themselves with the changes by

keeping their fingers on the pulse of the changing environment. Suggestion boxes as

information sharing tool may sound trivial, but to the workers that was something

within their reach. However, management did not seem to take that information

seriously and that obviously, had a negative impact on employees.

Power -sharing

When asked about power sharing in general a positive relationship between

power sharing and job satisfaction appeared, but by a very narrow margin. When it

came to the specifics of power sharing, no association was established between power

sharing and job satisfaction. That was attributed to the natural mistrust between labor

and management and the fact that many conventional managers would see employee

involvement as giving away control to workers at low levels. The major bone of

contention was the ownership programs and the profit sharing schemes. Organizations

seemed not to be aware of the strength of empowerment to those at the lower levels of

the hierarch. Power sharing is supposed to empower workers and enhance feelings of

self-efficacy. Identification and removal of conditions that render organizational

members powerless is an essential part of the process and that was found to be lacking

in this study.

Naturally, power is difficult to share with subordinates and it becomes more

problematic when it involves the owners of capital and the workers. The Zimbabwean

situation is worsened by the fact that the majority of the business enterprises are

multinationals who symbolize classic capitalism, where workers are separated from

ownership and control of the means of production. However, separation of workers

and capital results in critical conflict of interests and that must be addressed if the

firms are to remain dynamically competitive.



37


References Akbar, S.W.; Yousaf, M; Haq, UI.N; and Hunjira, I.A.(2011) Impact of Employee Empowerment on Job Satisfation: Analysis of Pakistani Service Industry. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research Business. Vol. 2, No. 11 pp 680-684 AlKahtani, A.S. (2000) Involvement of Employees and their Personal Characteristics in Saudi Construction Companies. International Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol. 10, No.3/4 pp. 67-79 Amaratunga, D. Baldry, D. Sarshar, M and Newton, R (2002) Quantitative and Qualitative research in the built environment: application of mixed research approach” Work Study VoL. 51. No. 1 pp 17-31 Arthur, J. B. (1994), Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. Academy of Management Journal, Vol 37, pp 670-687. Bartkus, B (1997) “Employee ownership as catalyst of organizational change” Journal of Organizational Change, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp 331-344 Bayat, A (1991) Work, Politics and Power: An International Perspective on Workers’ Control and Self-Management. London, Zed Books. Bluestone, B. & Bluestone, I. (1997) “Workers (and Managers) of World Unite” Technology Review, Vol. 95 Issue 8, pp 30-40 Bowen, D. and Lawler, E. (1992). The empowerment of service workers: What, why, how and when? Sloan Management Review, Vol. 33 pp 31-39. Brewer, A. (1994), The Responsive Employee, Allen and Unwin, Sydney. Bryman, A. (1995). Research Methodology and Organization Studies. Routledge Burke, W.W. (1987) Organisation Development. Addison-Wesley Co. Inc. Collins, D. (1995) Rooting for empowerment. Empowerment in Organizations Vol. 3. No. 2. pp 25-33. Collins, D. (1996) “The Disempowering Logic of Empowerment”, Empowerment in Organizations, Vol. 02, No. 2, pp 14-21 Collins, D. (1996) New paradigms for change. Theories of organization and the organization of theories Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 9-23 Conger, J.A and Kanungo, R.N. (1988) The Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory and Practice, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp471-482 Cotton, J.L., Vollrath, D.A., Froggatt, K.L., Leengnick –Hall, M. L., and Jennings, K.R. (1988). “Employee participation: diverse forms and different outcomes”. Academy of Management Review Vol. 13, Issue 1 pp 8-22. Cummings, T. G, and Worley, C. G (1997) Organisation Development and Change 6th edition, South-Western College Publishing. Currivan, D. (1999) “The Causal Order of Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in Models of Employee Turnover, Human Resources Management Review, Vol. 9, No. 4 pp 495-524 Dainty, A. R. J., Bryman, A. and Price, A. D. F. (2002) “Empowerment within the UK construction sector” Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 23, No. 6, pp333-342 Davis, T.R.V. (2001) “Integrating internal marketing with participative management” Management Decision, Vol. 39, No. 2 pp 121-132 Dess, G.C; Picken, J.C. (2000) “Changing Roles: Leadership in the 21st Century:



38


Encouraging challenges to the status quo, leaders of organizations in the new century will need to share knowledge with-and empower – All their employees.” Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 28 Issue 3 p18. Easton, G. (1995), Methodology and Industrial Networks in Business Marketing. An Interactive and Network Approach, K. Moller and D.T. Wilson (eds.) Kluwer Academic Press, Boston. Estad, M (1997) “Empowerment and organizational change” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 9 No. 7, pp 325-333 Finn, C.P. (2001) “Autonomy: an important component for nurses’ job satisfaction” International Journal of Nursing Studies. Vol. 38 pp 349-357 Ford, R. and Fottler, M.D. (1995) “Empowerment: A matter of Degree” Academy of Management Executive, Vol, 9, Issue 3, pp 21-30 Forrester, R. (2000) “Empowerment: Rejuvenating a potent idea” The Academy of Management Executive Vol 14 Issue 3 pp67-80. Gilbert, G. R. (1991) Beyond participative management. New York: Quorum

Gould, M. R (1996) “Getting from Strategy to Action: Processes for Continuous

Change” Long Range Planning, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp 278- 289

Government of Zimbabwe, (2002) Labour Relations Amendment Act.Gov. Printers

Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Hammuda, I. and Dulaimi, M (1997) ”The theory and application of empowerment in construction: a comparative study of the different approaches to empowerment in construction, service and manufacturing industries” International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp 289-296 Hertzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snydermen, B.B. (1997) The Motivation to Work, Transaction Publishers Hicky, J. V and Casner-Lotto, J. (1998) “How to Get True Employee Participation” Training and Development, (Feb 1998) Vol. 52 Issue 2 pp58-64. Howard, L. W. and Foster, T. S.(1999) “The Influence of Human Resource Practices

on Empowerment and Employee Perceptions of Management Commitment to

Quality” Journal of Quality Management, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 5-22

Huemer, L (1998) TRUST IN business Relations Published by Borea

Johnson, R.D. and Thurston, E.K. (1997) “Achieving empowerment using the Empowerment Strategy Grid” Leadership and Organization Development Journal Vol. 18, No. 2. pp 64-73. Kanter, R.M. (1983) The change masters. New York: Simon and Shuster.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. & Balazs, K, (Jan 1999) “Transforming the mind-set of the organization”. Administration and Society Vol.30. Issue 6, p640.

Kinlaw, D.C. (1995) “Empowerment”, Grower Publishing Ltd.

Kreitner, R. and Kinicki, A (1998) Organisational Behaviour 4th Edition Published by

Irwin McGraw- Hill.



39


Lam T; Baum T, and Pine, R (2001) “Study of managerial job satisfaction in Hong

Kong’s Chinese restaurants”. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality

Management Vol. 13 No. 1 pp. 33-42.

Lam, T, Zhang, H and Baum, T (2001) “An investigation of employees’ job satisfaction: the case of hotels in Hong Kong” Tourism Management, Vol. 22, pp 157-165 Laschinger, H, and Wong, C (1999) “Staff Nurse Empowerment and Collective

Accountability: Effect on perceived Productivity and self-rated work effectiveness.”

Nursing Economics Vol. 17 No. 6, p 308-417

Lawler,E.E. (1991) High-Involvement Management Jossey-Bass Publishers Lawler 111, E.E. and Bowen, D. (1995) “Employee Empowerment’ Sloan

Management Review Vol. 36, Issue 4, pp 73-95 Locke, E.A. (1976), The nature and causes of job satisfaction, in Dunnette, M.D. (ed), Handbook of industrial and organisational psychology, pp. 1297-1349. Randy McNally, Chicago. Locke, E.A. and Schweiger, D.M. (1979), Participation in decision-making: One more look in Staw, B. (ed), Research in organisational behaviour. Vol. 1 pp 265-339. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Malone, T.W. (1995) “Is Empowerment just fad? Control, decision- making, and IT”

Sloan Management Review, Vol. 38, Issue 2, pp 23-36

Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and Personality 2nd ed. Harper and Row, New York McGue, C. P and Gianakis, (1997) “The relationship between job satisfaction and

performance: The case of local government finance officers in Ohio. Public

Productivity and Management Review Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 17-191.

Morgan, R., McDonagh, P and Morgan, T.R. (1995) “Employee job Satisfaction: an

empirical assessment of marketing managers as an occupationally homogeneous

group” Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 10, N0. 2, pp 10-17

Mwanje, J.I. and Gotu, B. (2001), Issues in Social Science Research: Social Science Research Methodology Series. Module 3, Organisation for Social Science Research in Eastern and Southern Africa. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Nielsen,J.F. and Pedersen, C. P. (2003) “The consequences and limits of

empowerment in financial services” Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 19,

Issue 1 pp. 63-83

Nykodym, N, Simonetti, J. L, Nielsen, W. R, and Welling, B. (1994)”Employee Empowerment” Empowerment in Organizations, Vol. 02, No. 3, pp 45-55 Olshfski, D. and Cunningham, R (1998) “The Empowerment Construct in Manager-Executive Relationships. Administration and Society, Vol. 30, Issue 4 pp 357-374 Pastor, J. (1996), “Empowerment: what it is and what it is not”. Empowerment in

Organisations, Vol. 4 No 2, pp 5-7.



40


Paul, R.J. Nieoff, B. P; and Turnley, W. H. (2000) “Empowerment, Expectations and

the Psychological contract – Managing the Dilemmas and Gaining the Advantages

“Journal of Socio-Economics Vol. 29, No. 5 pp. 471-485.

Pfeiffer, J. and Tromley, C. L. (1995) ”Producing Sustainable Competitive Advantage

Through The Effective Management of People” Academy of Management Executive,

Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 55-73.

Pun, K. F; Chin, K. S; and Gill, (2001) R. “Determinants of Employee Involvement

Practices in Manufacturing Enterprises” Total Quality Management Vol.12 No.1 p95.

Quinn R. E., Spreitzer, G. M. Brown, M. U. (2000) “Changing others through changing ourselves: The transformation of human systems”. Journal of Management Inquiry: Vol. 9 Issue 2 pp. 147-164. Quinn, R, and Spreitzer, G. M. (1997) “The Road to Empowerment: Seven Questions every leader should consider” Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 26 Issue 2 p37. Remenyi, D, Williams, B, Money, A., and Swartz, E (1998) “Doing Research in Business and Management: An introduction to Process and Method” SAGE Publications. Robertson, P.J (1999) “The Relationship between Work Setting and Employee Behaviour” A Study of a Critical linkage in the Organizational Change Process. Robson, C. (2001) “Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and

Practitioner-Researchers. Blackwell Publishers

Rosenberg, B (2009) “Interface Carpet and Fabric Company’s sustainability efforts: What the company does, the crucial role of employees, and the limits of this approach.” Journal of Public Health Policy Vol. 30, 4, 427-438 Rust, R. T. Stewart, G. L. Miller, H and Pielack, D (1996) “The satisfaction & retention of frontline employee. A customer satisfaction measurement approach. International journal of service Industry Management Vol. 7, No. 5, pp. 62-80. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (1997), Research Methods for Business

Students. Pitman Publishing

Spector. P.E. (1997) Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and Consequences: Sage Publications. Spreitzer, G.M, Kizilos, M.A. and Nason, S. (1997) “A Dimensional Analysis of the

Relationship between Psychological Empowerment and Effectiveness, Satisfaction,

and Strain” Journal of Management, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp 679-704

Spreitzer, G. and Mishra, A. K. (1999) “Giving up control without losing control”

Trust and its substitutes’ effects on Managers’ Involving Employees in Decision

Making Group and Organization Management Vol. 24 No. 2 p155.

Stake, R.E. (2000) “Case Studies Handbook of Qualitative Research”



41


Testa, M.R. (1999) “Satisfaction with organizational vision, job satisfaction and service efforts: an empirical investigation” Leadership and Organizational Journal, Vol 20 Issue 3 pp. 154-161 Testa, M. R. Williams, J. M. and Pietrzak, D. (1998) The development of the cruise line job satisfaction questionnaire. Journal of Travel Research Vol. 36 Issue 3 p13-19. Wagner, J.A. 111 (1994) “Participation’s Effects on Performance and Satisfaction: A Reconsideration of Research Evidence” Academy of Management Review Vol. 19, Issue 2 p 312 Wilkinson, A. (1998) “Empowerment: theory and practice” Personnel Review, Vol.

27 No. 1 pp 40-56

Wisman, J.D. (1998) “The ignored question of workplace democracy in political discourse” Empowerment in Organizations, Vol. 6, No.6 pp. 149-164 Yin, R.K. (1994) “Case Study Research: Design and Methods” 2nd Edition SAGE

Publications

employee empowerment and job satisfaction: a study of the ... · according to olshfski and...

Documents