managers as developers: some reflections on the contribution of empowerment in britain

International Journal of Training and Development 2:2ISSN 1360-3736

Managers as developers:some reflections on the

contribution ofempowerment in Britain

Jeff Hyman and Ian Cunningham

Britain’s record for training and developing managers andemployees was subject to severe scrutiny in the 1980s. Sub-sequently, a range of employer initiatives were launched withthe avowed intention of enhancing the human capital of bothmanagers and their subordinates. A major initiative has takenplace under the umbrella title of ‘empowerment’, which pur-ports to offer greater autonomy and discretion to employeesand to provide the means to bring about this transformationthrough training and supportive management styles. Thepresent study examines a number of organisations which haveintroduced empowering initiatives. It finds that whilst indi-vidual line managers in empowering organisations considerthemselves better equipped to deal with their subordinatesthan those in non-empowering organisations, deeper analysisreveals substantial problems in transforming these managersinto developers of subordinates. Managers appear to be under-trained and often not motivated to develop their staff. Discre-tion to employees was generally very narrowly defined andtightly bounded by both formal and informal controls.Empowerment for many employees was indistinguishablefrom work intensification. The conclusion is that theempowerment programmes under study were unlikely tostimulate line managers to develop their employees.

❒ Jeff Hyman is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Human Resource Management, University ofStrathclyde. Ian Cunningham is Lecturer in Human Resource Management, Middlesex University.

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1998, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main St., Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Managers as developers 91

Empowerment andmanagement development

In contrast to their counterparts in other mature economies, employers in Britain inthe 1980s regularly faced censure for their failure to train and develop either man-agers or workforce[1]. Both failures have been linked through skill shortages toorganisational under performance and to persistent economic crisis[2], with Britain“trapped in a low-skills equilibrium in which the majority of enterprises staffed bypoorly trained managers and workers produce low-quality goods and services”[3].

It has been contended that one of the principal reasons for the failure of managersto develop their subordinates during this period could be traced to their own under-developed status at work[4]. In contrast, the 1990s have been dominated in Britainby discourses of flexibility, learning organisation, performance management andincreasingly, empowerment of organisational members. Empowerment promises toadvance the development opportunities of both managers and employees, therebyallowing the empowered organisation to move much closer to the status of the ‘learn-ing organisation’[5].

In this article we intend to focus on the meanings associated with empowermentand in particular, to examine its relevance to the development of both managers andemployees. We present findings from a sample of 42 organisations, 23 of whichdescribe themselves as empowered. The objective is to assess the extent to whichempowerment can be associated with an enhancement of the learning opportunitiesof line managers, the development they receive and development disseminated totheir staff in these companies. Whilst an examination of the organisational perform-ance effects of empowerment is beyond the scope of this article, any evidence thatwider dissemination of development has occurred should offer at least a positivesignal that the context for performance enhancement has been improved.

Two images of the British manager: (i) the 1980sA profile of the typical British manager of ten years ago would not be flattering. He(and with nine out of ten managers being male, it invariably was a ‘he’) was directlyindicted in contributing to the faltering performance of the British economy[6]. Itwas argued that poor performance stemmed crucially from the weak educationalattainments of British managers and their equally low levels of training and develop-ment[7]. Further, many British managers were regarded as technologically andlinguistically illiterate at a time of accelerating technological innovation and of globalcompetitive expansion[8]. For the 1980s manager, long-term product or service qual-ity considerations were rarely performance issues, with short-term optimum outputobtained at minimal cost acting as the main barometer of management achievement.In consequence, management strategies to raise and maintain quality standardsamong subordinates were virtually untouched by the typical manager of the early1980s.

At the same time, it became recognised that the British workforce numbered amongthe least occupationally qualified and lowest skilled in the industrialised world[9].Many observers associated the neglect given to employee development with the lackof training provided for their equally poorly qualified managements. In other words,managers neglected to develop their staff because they themselves were occu-pationally and professionally under-developed and they lacked the skills and motiv-ation necessary to carry out this responsibility. Reasons ascribed to this neglectwere that:

1. managers were unable to attach any significant value to training in terms ofqualifications, with successful career development resulting from desirable per-sonal attributes and their abilities to develop throughout the organisation via‘networking’[10];

2. it was seen as a ‘soft’ or indeterminate activity which detracted from their main

92 International Journal of Training and Development Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1998.

and quantifiable production objectives[11] and best left to the personnel depart-ments for whom training represented a central occupational responsibility;

3. organisational resources allocated to training were both limited and fluctuating,thereby confirming its subordinate status[12];

4. managers were seldom rewarded for the quality and quantity of training theyoffered; for instance, manager appraisals rarely covered their competence andattainments in training their staff[13];

5. offering development opportunities to subordinates might further undermine thesecurity of poorly educated and under-developed managers[14].

Management neglect of subordinate development was expressed in a number ofways: systematic appraisal was rare and when conducted, appraisals focused withquestionable accuracy either on individual character traits or were related toemployee success in meeting designated short-term production targets. Little use wasmade of appraisal as a means to confirm or enhance managerial potential[15].

Further, technical shortcomings among managers were compounded by the lackof attention given to social skills which meant that people management was eitherneglected, delegated to others, performed badly or suffered from a combination ofall three[16]. Recruitment, selection and induction (when undertaken) were typicallytreated as the responsibility of personnel departments: also, contact with subordi-nates tended to be highly directional with any employment and human resourceproblems handed over to specialised personnel departments to resolve, often throughdialogue with employee representatives. In unionised establishments, these represen-tatives would also act as prime communication channels to shop and office floorstaff. In consequence, managers lacked and failed to acquire skills in communicatingwith their staff.

The 1990s: pressures for change and the emergence of a ‘newmanager’?

By the early 1990s, considerable exhortative attempts were made by government andmanagement institutions to persuade employers to train and develop their managerssystematically. The message was that investment in the human resource drives theperformance capability and flexibility of organisations operating within dynamicallycompetitive domestic and global environments. Recognition of the importance ofhuman resource development (HRD) emerged from several related strands.

First, the profile of the workforce was changing[17], with educationally advantagedemployees more likely to be recruited or retained by slimmer organisations[18]. Inturn, qualified staff were more likely to want and expect developmental opport-unities from their employers for both internal career advancement and for externallydirect ‘employability’ reasons. Investment in human capital was increasingly sig-nalled as a complement to technological investment and both were promoted ascritical components in the achievement of competitive capability. These concernswere reflected in the high profiles given to the Investors in People (IiP) initiative,the Management Charter Initiative (MCI) and Opportunity 2000 campaign. Thesethree government-backed programmes emerged from a number of highly criticalevaluations of training and development published in the 1980s and aimed to encour-age employers to treat development as a strategic and commercially justifiableventure.*

* Investors in People (IiP) is a voluntary initiative, supported by the British Government, to encourageindividual employers to develop and train their staff to nationally approved training standards. TheManagement Charter Initiative (MCI) was established in 1988 on a voluntary basis as an attempt toraise the profile and standards of management development. Subscribing organisations are expectedto meet a set of development objectives. Opportunity 2000 represents another voluntary move:launched in 1991, its intention is to further women’s employment opportunities in Britain. It aimsto make a significant impact by its benchmark year of 2000.

Managers as developers 93 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1998.

Second, organisational restructuring and management ‘delayering’ had becomecommonplace: restructured organisations led to fewer employees, who by necessityas well as design were allocated expanded individual and group discretion over theirwork tasks. Third, quality, consistency and adaptability of staff became increasinglyrecognised as necessary attributes of the competitive company. In the global econ-omy, quality and reliability as well as low cost is demanded and authoritarian man-agement regimes cannot command employees to incorporate quality into their work,a lesson demonstrated by the activities and experiences of growing numbers ofincoming Japanese and American companies which seemed to subscribe to moreflexible and facilitative styles of managerial practice than those adopted by theirBritish equivalents[19].

Fourth, performance management, in which managers are held fully accountablefor the acquisition and performance of resources under their authority gained inprominence[20]. In consequence, as Storey has noted, managers are now expected tobe more closely involved with selection, recruitment, retention and reward activi-ties[21]. At the heart of the model, performance appraisal has become a systematicfeature in many organisations. These compound pressures and organisational shiftshave meant that HRD is now recognised by many authorities as the central featureof human resource strategies[22].

Increasingly, then, the text-book emphasis is on managing staff both individuallyand in teams, through sophisticated involvement and communication techniques andremodelled appraisal systems which give credence to both developmental opport-unities and to skill acquisition as means to heighten performance. Briefing groups,quality teams and TQM, 360° appraisal, performance related pay and performancemanagement all place similar emphases on the acquired capabilities of first line andproduction management to provide informed and facilitative leadership toemployees who themselves enjoy greater discretion and control in their ownwork[23].

An added impetus to line management development has been provided by struc-tural changes to the function of personnel management which have taken place inits withdrawal from traditional roots of welfare, industrial relations mediation andpersonnel administration. In a context of sophisticated computerised systems andreduced trade union activity, it is argued that the slimmed down personnel functionhas been elevated to a more strategic role as a result of this restructuring process[24]:operational employee relations matters, including training and development, havebeen devolved to line managers newly ‘empowered’ with a range of human resourceresponsibilities and accountabilities[25].

The extent to which the 1990s manager matches the ‘ideal type’ manager profiledescribed above may be tested through exploring the experience of empowerment,which aims to offer both managers and employees with opportunities to exercisegreater discretion within expanded and more fluid job boundaries.

Models of empowermentWhilst the ancestry of empowerment is located firmly in human relations and neo-human relations traditions, its more recent manifestations can be traced to integrative(or ‘soft’) HRM prescriptions[26] and in particular to the work of Walton, whodescribed the organisational climate required in order that a shift could be achievedfrom the (Taylorist) control-centred organisation to the more efficient, flexible andcompetitive one predicated on universal commitment to the enterprise[27]. Waltondescribed empowerment of staff as one of the key factors in ensuring employee com-mitment. Whatever the validity of Walton’s nostrums, it is clear that growing num-bers of organisations in both the UK and USA have subscribed, both publicly (notablyin the stream of advertisements proclaiming the commitment of the Marriott Groupof hotels to empowerment) or through internal restructuring, to the empowermentmodel. In the UK, a 1995 survey revealed that about 20 per cent of organisationshave claimed to introduce empowerment and more than half the 580 respondents


intend to do so within the next three years[28]. America, too, has witnessed a con-siderable rise in empowerment in recent years[29]. Together with staff reductions(‘right sizing’, ‘delayering’), empowerment has seemingly become a major instrumentof corporate restructuring as well as representing a cultural emblem for progres-sive management.

As a relatively new organisational concept, empowerment does not currentlyoccupy an established place within the managerial lexicon, though in broad terms,two principal models of empowerment are identified in the contemporary literature.

The managerial model of empowerment

In some formulations, empowerment relates exclusively to opening up powerresources within managerial ranks[30]. Power is seen as a circulating asset to whichmanagers can learn to gain access through manipulation of resources such as infor-mation and support systems. The dynamic organisation needs to establish theenvironment in which entrepreneurial managers can seek out and utilise these powersources in order to facilitate organisational change, for example, by inter-departmen-tal contacts made through job rotation and by multidisciplinary teams. Non-mana-gerial employees would not become empowered under these conditions, thoughmore circumscribed opportunities for exercising task-related influence might beoffered through involvement exercises[31].

The redistributive model of empowerment

More commonly, empowerment is seen as providing an extension to employee auth-ority by devolving decision-making ‘as close to the ground as possible’[32]. In thissense, the employees become empowered to take decisions which previously werethe preserve of their line managers within an organisational culture that promotesinitiative, teamwork and flexibility. Employees also become equipped both to takedecisions and to assume responsibility for the consequences. Ownership of theseempowering skills is assumed to reinforce the employee commitment sought by con-temporary enterprises in their quest for organisational flexibility and adaptability.

Managers, in turn, are expected to acquire developmental skills which enable themto manage their newly empowered staff in innovative or liberating ways and tomobilise their new freedoms towards strategic operational issues.

Nevertheless, within this model, variations have been proposed. Bowen andLawler present a hierarchy in which depth of empowerment is contingent upon tech-nological, production, market and environmental factors in association with managerand employee characteristics[33]. The range of empowerment extends from passive(informational) through superficial and minor task-based accretions of influence toparticipation in a wide range of management decision-making processes. In practice,however, studies have shown that empowerment exercises are largely restricted tothe lower hierarchical levels[34].

Despite these different interpretations of the concept, commentators and evangel-ists agree that development, for both employees and managers, should be an integralelement of the empowerment model[35], though there is less agreement on the formsand priorities which development should take. The intention now is to explore pat-terns of development within a number of self-proclaimed empowering organisations.

Findings from the studies

Relationships between empowerment and development are examined by utilisingthree main sources derived from an original survey of 42 organisations. The studieswere undertaken between Autumn 1994 and Spring 1995. First a survey of line man-ager evaluations of their ability to perform a range of duties and their perceptions


Table 1: (a): Mean scores for perceived competence in traditional responsibilities

Responsibility Empowering Non-empowering Mean differentialChange work practices 3.2 3.1 0.1Discipline subordinates 3.2 2.9 0.3Manage absenteeism 3.3 3.1 0.2Disputes—emps. and mgrs. 3.3 2.8 0.5

of preparation received for undertaking these duties is presented. Nine of the 42organisations consented to the line manager survey, resulting in 95 completed ques-tionnaires. Second, 23 of the 42 organisations described themselves as ‘empowering’and a profile of the structural and behavioural characteristics of these organisationsis offered. Third, four of the empowerers offered access to the researchers to conductmore intensive case-study analysis of their empowerment arrangements.

(i) line manager perceptions

The opinions of managers themselves were obtained in a written survey of bothempowering and non-empowering organisations. Respondents were asked to com-plete a detailed checklist covering a range of employee management issues. We havedivided the issues into ‘traditional’ management responsibilities, such as discipliningsubordinates and dealing with absenteeism and ‘integrative’ responsibilities, whichinclude areas such as communicating with employees and undertaking appraisals.

We then asked managers two key questions in relation to this checklist of items:

(a) whether managers regarded themselves as competent to deal with each issue, using a four-point scale, from very competent (4) to not at all competent (1)(b) whether managers consider that they had received sufficient preparation to deal with thesame issues, again adopting a four-point scale ranging from receive sufficient preparation (4)to receive none at all (1).

Of the 95 questionnaires received from line managers, 58 were from empoweringand 37 from non-empowering companies.

The results of the survey indicate consistent positive differences between managersfrom empowering and unempowered organisations over both perceived competenceand preparation received. These differences are maintained both for traditional andfor integrative responsibilities (see Table 1 and Table 2).

The sample size meant that it was not practicable to test the significance of theresults. However, the findings demonstrate that line managers in the self-categorisedempowering organisations express consistently higher levels of perceived com-petence than those in other organisations in dealing with a broad range of employeeissues whether of traditional supervisory orientation or innovative, integrative nat-ure. Also, these managers are similarly consistent in their replies that they havereceived more preparation to deal with these same issues. It does seem, therefore,that there is evidence of a perceptible link between empowering organisation, man-agement perception of their competence to deal with managerial responsibilities and

Table 1: (b): Mean scores for preparation to deal with traditional responsibilities

Responsibility Empowering Non-empowering Mean differentialChange work practices 2.8 2.5 0.3Discipline subordinates 3.0 2.5 0.5Manage absenteeism 3.1 2.5 0.6Disputes—emps. and mgrs. 2.9 2.2 0.7


Table 2: (a): Mean scores for perceived competence to deal with integrative responsibilities

Responsibility Empowering Non-empowering Mean differentialRecruit employees 3.3 3.2 0.1Advise & counsel employees 3.4 2.9 0.5Communicate with subords. 3.5 3.4 0.1Conduct fair appraisals 3.4 3.2 0.2Train subordinates 3.2 3.2 —Lead meetings 3.4 3.1 0.3Communicate upwards 3.4 3.2 0.2Deal with emp. suggestions 3.3 3.1 0.2Ensure high quality 3.5 3.2 0.3

Table 2: (b): Mean scores for preparation received to deal with integrative responsibilities

Responsibility Empowering Non-empowering Mean differentialRecruit employees 2.9 2.6 0.3Advise and counsel emps. 2.9 2.3 0.6Communicate with subords 3.0 2.6 0.4Conduct fair appraisals 2.7 2.7 —Train subordinates 2.8 2.5 0.3Lead meetings 2.9 2.4 0.5Communicate upwards 2.7 2.3 0.4Deal with emp. suggestions 2.7 2.1 0.6Ensure high quality 2.8 2.6 0.2

the preparation which they receive. In the following section we examine whetherother variables might also be associated with this distinctive pattern.

Profiles of empowering organisations

Participating organisations could be classified along two broad parameters, structuraland behavioural. The first important structural finding is that a large proportion ofthe companies surveyed have undertaken an empowerment initiative or intend todo so in the foreseeable future. From our 42 organisations surveyed, 16 (38 per cent)claim to have launched empowerment initiatives and a further seven (17 per cent)say that they intend to introduce an empowerment programme. Virtually all theprogrammes had been introduced within the past two years.

Other structural features associated with empowerment were: a majority of manu-facturing concerns, union presence, and decentralised organisational structure. Fif-teen of the 23 empowering organisations were engaged in production and manufac-ture, four private sector companies were in retail, banking, telecommunications andpublishing. Also, four empowering organisations were located in the public sector.Only eight of 19 non-empowering organisations were in manufacturing.

It appears, then, that empowerment can and does not take place within the contextof conventional and traditional industry, where in the past it has been argued thattraining opportunities have been heavily constrained through a combination ofpoorly qualified staff, insufficient resources and fears of demanding trade unions. Inrecent years, though, we have witnessed a pronounced cultural shift with the conten-tion that the evolution of multi-skilled and flexible production systems in manufac-turing are only possible in organisations which have shifted autonomy over pro-duction systems to the shop-floor[36]. This requirement could well explain the


preponderance of manufacturing companies which claim to have introducedempowerment.

Moreover, this finding also suggests that ample empowerment opportunities exist,but have yet to be tapped, in the expanding service sector, where empowermentexercises have been cited as highly applicable owing to the importance of theemployee/customer interface in delivering desirable business outcomes[37].

In the recent past it was often argued that training was less likely to be offered inunionised environments because of the fear that influential unions might exploit thepresence of qualified and developed staff in order to press for higher rewards[38].There was also concern in industry that unions might wish to incline training opport-unities to benefit their members rather than in accordance with organisationalpriorities[39].

In our sample, empowering organisations tended to be unionised, which is pos-sibly a reflection of the manufacturing bias. Thirteen of the 23 empowering organis-ations recognise at least one trade union and most reported high density membershippatterns. It is clear that unionisation and the presence of high union membership (anindication of the ‘unionateness’ or degree of potential union influence within theorganisation) does not act as a barrier to the implementation of empowering pro-grammes and the development of managers therein. It might be recalled thatemployee representatives were most likely to act as communicators in unionisedconcerns and to be perceived by managers as constraints upon change. These per-ceived barriers no longer appear to be present for there is little evidence of resistanceby union representatives to line manager assumption of those communication, con-sultation and leadership activities associated with empowerment programmes.

Empowerment was also most likely to be found in organisations which haddevolved its employee relations and manpower decision making to establishmentlevel. As enterprise decentralisation is reported to be gathering pace within the Brit-ish economy[40], it would appear that a favourable context for further extensions inempowerment practice is being created.

Behaviourally, empowered organisations were likely to be associated with a rangeof employee involvement schemes, where quality circles and joint consultation wereespecially prominent. Fourteen of the 23 empowerers/intenders had introduced qual-ity circles or groups, compared with just six of the 19 non-empowerers. In addition,17 of the 23 empowerers indicated that they had trained employees in aspects ofquality over the past three years. Whilst team briefings were common throughoutboth empowering and non-empowering organisations, team organisation seems tobe particularly prominent in empowering companies. Seven of the 16 organisationsthat have already introduced empowerment use teams as a main facilitator of change.Another indicator of the dissolution of sharp manager-subordinate distinctionsemerges in the finding that eleven of the empowering organisations have introducedharmonisation of terms and conditions of employment, with a further six intendingto do so, compared with five among 19 non-empowerers, with three intending tointroduce.

The association between empowerment and the range of involvement exercises isan interesting one. One link could be that in the empowering organisation bothemployees and their line managers are more receptive to new manpower develop-ments and more competent in dealing with them and with associated changes.

A second behavioural feature is that a clear majority of the empowering organis-ations fall into redistributive empowerment in that management proclaims its inten-tion to pass appropriate decision-making responsibility as far down the line as pos-sible to give employees greater discretion and control over the conduct of their day-to-day tasks. Only two companies explicitly follow the manager-specific route toempowerment. In one case, the company argued that empowerment is not extendeddown the line because of the high level of automation, which, matched with unskilledand semi-skilled labour, means that few opportunities to empower non-managerialjobs are available. The other organisation reported that high levels of employee


involvement were already in place among the workforce and it was neither desirablenor necessary to make additional changes.

Third, substantially more empowering companies had raised levels of trainingexpenditure over the past three years compared with non-empowerers (43 per centagainst 26 per cent). Patterns for expenditure on management training were lessdiverse with five out of 16 (31 per cent) empowering organisations allocating morethan 30 per cent of training expenditure to management compared with seven outof 19 (29 per cent) non-empowering organisations. One explanation for this patterncould be, of course, that empowering organisations distribute training expendituremore evenly through their non-managerial grades. Nevertheless, for both types oforganisation, increases of expenditure on management training were commonlyreported over the previous three years: 75 per cent of empowerers and 57 per centof non-empowerers claimed to have increased their expenditures in this way.

Table 3 indicates the degree to which empowering and non-empowering organis-ations were participating in national training initiatives. The results for the adoptionof Opportunity 2000 are low for both types of organisation. To a large extent this isdue to many of the respondents being unaware of the initiative. However,empowering organisations are clearly more likely to adopt the MCI and IiP initiativesthan non-empowerers, indicating, perhaps the higher profiles given to developmentalconcerns for all staff within such organisations.

Case studies: empowerment and the management developerSo far we have found evidence that line managers in empowering companies believethemselves to be competent in undertaking a range of employee-centred activities.They also consider themselves to be well prepared to undertake these responsibilitiescompared to a group of line managers from non-empowered organisations. Ourintention now is to explore the extent to which these associations confirm thatempowering organisations involve the presence of managers as developers of subor-dinates. At this micro-level of enquiry it is pertinent to examine and use case studyevidence accumulated during the investigation.

In the case studies, additional interviews were secured with senior personnel andtraining specialists and also with senior production managers in four of theempowering organisations. We were particularly interested in ascertaining the extentto which formal empowerment proclamations have been associated with practicalenhancement in the development of line managers and their subordinates. The fol-lowing case studies provide information on how far managers are developed andact as developers, but importantly, offer broader insights about the empowering pro-cess itself. Certain trends will be evident from these studies: empowerment rep-resents a relatively new initiative from senior management; there are quite narrowdefinitions and interpretations of empowerment, which directly affect its implemen-

Table 3: Adoption of national training initiatives

Empowering organisationYes No Don’t know

Opportunity 2000 5 15 3MCI 10 13 —IiP 13 10 —

Non-empowering organisationsOpportunity 2000 3 12 4MCI 4 12 3IiP 9 9 — (No reply = 1)


tation; it was generally felt by senior managers that the empowering process needsline managers and supervisors to adopt a more facilitative, involved, approach toemployee management: indeed, in a number of instances line manager resistance tothe initiative was palpable; line managers and supervisors require training to fulfil anempowering role; and whatever their shortcomings, they were the main facilitators oftraining and development, counselling and advising of non-management employees.

Case study 1

The first case study is of a small manufacturing plant. The initiative arose from aboard room decision and had been in place for about one year. Empowerment wasdefined as the placing of extra responsibility and accountability at the appropriatelevels. Managers from senior through to supervisor level were encouraged to ‘let go’certain responsibilities down the line. This process was described as an attempt tobuild an atmosphere of trust and ‘no blame’, where mistakes could be made and usedas a learning experience, as opposed to the traditional hierarchical and authoritarianapproach which was previously the case. In practice, however, this shift representedquite a difficult adjustment in culture, and was described as:

rather like being a parent: we all know it is difficult for a parent to allow their child to make adecision for itself and make its own mistakes.

The main empowering elements were a suggestion scheme and the devolution ofminor responsibilities down the line.

Nevertheless, operationally, this approach to empowerment was contained ‘withinfairly tight, specific, boundaries’. For example, non-managerial employees wereallowed to stop the production line for health and safety reasons (but this libertywas accompanied by warnings on the commercial implications of their actions). Linemanagers and supervisors, in turn, were generally seen as the main facilitators of thenecessary changes in attitudes and approach among shop floor employees. Therefore,supervisors and line managers needed to apply communicative skills related to list-ening, counselling and advising non-managerial employees in their appraisals, train-ing and development. More senior managers were expected to step back from someday-to-day operational matters by allowing their line managers to take on other newresponsibilities, such as the discretion to stop production on grounds of quality (butagain, with training in the commercial implications of these and other decisions).

A training needs analysis revealed that extra training was required throughout theorganisation to develop these new roles. It was felt that non-management employeesneeded to develop the confidence and motivation to make appropriate decisions, aswell as improve skills in communicating with their colleagues and superiors.

Deficiencies were also identified among all grades of management. They were notfostering the required facilitative and consultative culture with their subordinates,relying too much on the traditional, hierarchical basis for getting things done andneither explaining their decisions, nor allowing their subordinates to expressopinions.

More positively, it was reported that empowerment had led to employees havinghigher expectations for their development and future careers. The consequence wasmore demands on the personnel department and line managers with regard to train-ing and counselling. To meet this and other training demands, the company was inthe process of implementing individually tailored development plans for managers,who were then responsible for the development of their subordinates.

Case study 2

The second case study is of a large company in the telecommunications sector.Empowerment, initiated by the Chairman and Personnel Director, was defined assetting a clear strategy for corporate action and allowing people to work and usetheir initiative to achieve this end. It was seen as an attempt to devolve decision-


making downwards to those who were closest to the organisation’s customers.Empowerment was in its early stages, but the initiative was expected eventually tobe familiar to every employee. However, again, there are limits attached to this pro-cess. It was emphasised that employees must not lose sight of the overall strategicgoals, so it was described as ‘empowerment within a controlled environment’.

For the initiative to be successful, it was felt that non-managerial employees neededto receive extra training in technical skills and to develop the “ability to manage andcope with ambiguity . . . so they don’t run to their managers whenever there is aproblem”, in the words of one of the initiators. Empowerment also required a differ-ent approach from managers. According to one senior manager, they were:

to become leaders not managers. Line managers and supervisors have also had to place a heavyemphasis on advising and counselling employees in relation to their training and development.In addition, their communication skills have led them . . . to deal more with employee suggestionsto improve efficiency.

Moreover:

Both line managers and supervisors take part in the formal appraisal of employees’ work,assessing the level of training for employees and evaluating the progress of employees’ trainingand development in achieving corporate objectives.

Another functional change was the devolution of responsibility for recruiting newstaff from the personnel function to line managers. In practice, though, thereappeared to be obstacles in fulfilling these new roles. Non-management employeeswere seen as needing to develop a greater sense of self-sufficiency. The responsibilityfor nurturing this was placed with the immediate line manager or supervisor. How-ever, as with the previous case study, it was felt by the senior executives that man-agers of all grades still needed to encourage subordinates to act more on their owninitiative. Further, managers should improve their leadership and motivational skills.The training and development needed to meet these changes was mainly providedfrom in-house facilities. This has meant a shift in perspective for the training depart-ment, which was charged with providing managers with necessary skills to train,coach and counsel their subordinates. As a result, the organisation has moved awayfrom the traditional training course to more on-the-job development of staff.

Case study 3

The third case study was within a local authority. The respondents definedempowerment as devolving decision-making to the lowest possible level to increasethe employees’ stake in the organisation and its success. The project had been for-mally in place for about a year as part of the organisation’s overall quality enhance-ment programme and was adopted through the initiative of the Chief Executive.

As with the previous case studies, the implementation of empowerment impliedonly marginal increases in discretion for staff. This involved numerous initiatives atdifferent levels and in all departments. For non-managerial employees, one particularexample was of individuals replying to incoming correspondence without anycountersigning by immediate managers. However, these managers monitor howquickly replies go out, suggesting, again, that control is tightly maintained.

A training audit conducted by the organisation revealed a number of key areaswhere employees required development. Non-managerial employees were seen asneeding a large degree of assertiveness training in order to gain sufficient confidenceto put forward ideas under a new suggestion scheme to managers. In addition, itwas felt that they would also need training in how to work within a team and topromote their ideas to colleagues. For managers, the main requirement was to graspthe strategic direction of the organisation and the ability to delegate responsibilityto their subordinates to ensure that these wider aims were met. There was also aneed for them to respond positively and constructively to suggestions from subordi-nates. This included giving full explanations regarding the reasons for rejection ofany ideas submitted under the suggestion scheme.


The senior respondents noted that the degree to which these skills and abilitieswere already present among employees varied considerably. Moreover, responses tonew initiatives from the centre were mixed: some departments were very receptiveto change, others were not. However, the council was determined to implement theempowerment strategy throughout its services. The principal facilitators of thischange, including the development of non-managerial employees, were seen as theimmediate line managers and supervisors. To meet this changing role, the authorityrecruited an outside consultancy to instruct and train managers in ways of delegatingresponsibility to subordinates and in motivating them.

Case study 4

The final case study offers perhaps an extreme example of how the integrative anddevelopmental ideals of the empowering agenda promoted by senior executives canbe compromised by funding constraints, inadequate training and lack of manage-ment backing. The case study is an independent division of a larger group operatingin a parcels distribution market under intense local and national competition. Finan-cial deficits had been accumulating and the company had decentralised and reducedemployment in order to become more competitive. As part of its strategy, the com-pany introduced its management and supervisory empowerment programme, twoyears prior to the investigation. Though restricted to managers, empowered man-agers were formally expected to adopt a more integrative approach to their relationswith subordinates. A short general training programme accompanied the launch ofthe empowerment initiative, but financial considerations precluded any subsequenttraining.

Interviews with senior on-site personnel specialists revealed that the company hadformulated no organisational definition of empowerment, but intended to utiliseempowerment to raise service quality. This enhancement was to be accomplished bydevolving a wide range of manpower responsibilities, such as absence monitoring,discipline and dismissal to line managers. However, in the quest for service quality,managers were also expected to apply ‘softer’ people management skills such asencouraging teamwork, counselling and effective communication techniques.

Both line managers and their senior executives expressed frustration and disap-pointment with the programme. From the line manager perspective, the principalgrievance focussed on frustrated expectations:

Empowering the front line, they called it: they just gave you a manual and told you to get onwith it.

Another manager described his empowering experiences as:

Not empowering the front line, but dumping on the front line.

Senior management were equally uncomplimentary about the empowerment pro-gramme:

We haven’t empowered them really . . . They should be given objectives and then left to get onwith it as long as they make a profit. This would require training, which we don’t provide.

Indeed, training, or lack of it, seemed to provide the core feature in the failure ofthe empowerment system. A senior personnel representative was asked in whichareas of their employment relations responsibilities line managers needed support:

Just about all of them. Absence, dismissal, conduct etc . . . There are a lot of people who are goodor have potential . . . and we don’t make full use of them . . . People are our most valuableresource, but the investment in them is disgraceful.

Similar evaluations were offered by the line managers themselves, with lack of train-ing being a constant refrain raised by them in the interviews and in the employeequestionnaires which were distributed in this case study. Over one third of employeerespondents replied that they strongly disagreed with the statement that “training


for employees is a priority” and high proportions considered that their line managerswere “not at all competent” in dealing with a range of integrative human resourceresponsibilities, such as training, counselling and appraising. There were very fewsigns in this case study that line managers were acting as developers, despite thisbeing one of the purported objectives of the empowerment programme.

Discussion: (i) positive trends in development

In our opening review we stated that in the 1980s, British management was under-developed in terms of ownership of a range of skills. Managerial underdevelopmentwas in turn implicated as a major reason for the neglect by management of thedevelopment of their subordinates. We also identified key related factors whichtended to deter managers from training their subordinates.

In the light of the evidence presented above there are signs from the survey thatsome of these deterrents have weakened. First, it appears that under theempowerment programmes of the 1990s there is evidence that, in people concernsat least, line managers are receiving some attention or preparation which allowsthem to undertake these responsibilities with more confidence. Line managers inempowering organisations consistently presented higher competence profiles andstandards of preparation than their counterparts in non-empowering organisations.It is perhaps, no coincidence that these same organisations have also introduced awide range of involvement programmes many of which, like briefing groups, aredependent upon line management inputs and competence for their viability.

The second constraint to development that we identified concerned managerialperceptions of the value of such training. Training had previously achieved marginalstatus within organisational cultures because it was seen primarily as an addition tovariable costs rather than as a means to enhance organisational capital[41]. Our find-ings suggest that in empowered companies training and development are not onlyrecognised by senior executives as significant contributors to organisational perform-ance, but that line managers have been charged largely with applying and co-ordinat-ing developmental activities. Hence we have two contrasts to the identified non-developmental model of the 1980s. First senior management are providing some hier-archical support for training which was so conspicuously absent in the 1980s. Second,line managers are expected to train their staff within the portfolio of theirresponsibilities.

Another major constraint which limited training opportunities of employees atshop or office floor level was the restriction in resources allocated to training. Again,our evidence indicates that many of the empowering organisations are increasingthe resources allocated to training, albeit by modest amounts in many cases. It is alsoindicative that relatively high proportions of empowering respondents are formallycommitted to the IiP and MCI, an additional sign of the formal commitment offeredto training and development in these organisations.

(ii) Ambiguous trends in development

Lack of reward and recognition to managers for training provision to subordinateswas also cited as a potential deterrent. A useful way of looking at managementpriorities was introduced by Brewster and his colleagues in the 1980s[42]. Theseauthors divided employee relations policy into ‘espoused’ elements, ie. those towhich the organisation was formally committed; and ‘operational’ policy which rep-resented the reality of meeting output targets. In the presence of acute competitiveforces, evaluation of line manager performance would focus on achievement of thesetargets rather than success in meeting the espoused policies which would in practicebecome a subsidiary objective even if in formal terms, it retained its primarystatus[43]. Arguably, training and development, even when enthusiasticallyespoused by senior management, has tended to concede to short-term output require-ments as a management priority objective. This is in contrast to other managerial


cultures where developmental performance is highly valued. For example, Japanesecompany policy has traditionally expected line managers to train subordinates andprogress of subordinates in the acquisition of skills and qualifications is assessed asa central criterion of managerial performance[44].

Again, our survey does show signs of change in that line managers in manyempowering organisations are now expected both to appraise their employees andto offer training opportunities in the light of these appraisals. Also, it may be thatthe IiP initiative taken on board by many of these organisations was a demonstrationand confirmation of this policy alignment even if the IiP was appreciated more bysome respondents for its publicity value than as a genuine catalyst for training pro-vision. More worryingly, the case studies demonstrated that whilst senior managersexpected line managers to train and appraise, this was not always accompanied byeither the resources, resolution or enthusiasm among line managers to ensure thatit was undertaken effectively, with the result that continuing neglect of these activi-ties was apparent in many instances.

A second questionable advance also concerns the line managers themselves. It hasbeen proposed that deficiencies in education and development helped to breedinsecurity in managers, who might be tempted to deny training opportunities tosubordinates in order to minimise threats to their own status or jobs. In an era whenmanagement delayering is a common phenomenon, it is arguable that such fears dohave validity. Indeed, several of the survey empowering companies had undertakena management delayering exercise prior to, or in association with, the empoweringprogramme. It is also possible that the least flexible and competent of line managersand supervisors will be the most likely casualties of delayering exercises. On theother hand, surviving managers may appreciate that their own development, andthat of their staff, jointly contribute to the overall performance which will help tosustain the company. This recognition may eventually lessen the resistance of man-agers to ‘pass down’ development opportunities, though at present the case studiesdo suggest that managers can still be reticent about shifting to a more integrativeand communicative style of management.

(iii) Negative trends in development

The study reveals that despite some encouraging signs for manager development inempowering companies, downward transmission of developmental opportunities foremployees is still problematic. Indeed, the research reveals a number of potentialobstacles to employee development within an ostensibly empowering framework.

First, whilst recent management texts assume that redistributive empowermentwill be accompanied by an expansion (or deepening) of the range of tasks accessibleto employees, in practice, the added discretion offered to employees was found to betypically rather restricted in our case studies. In this respect, the scope for employeedevelopment also becomes confined as there is little extra responsibility at presentfor them to be developed into. Hence, among our case studies, formal suggestionschemes represented one of the most common methods of empowerment and in eachcase where they were used, the suggestion scheme forms a substantial element ofthe organisation’s empowerment programme.

Second, in terms of broadening and deepening low status tasks it would appearthat empowerment in many cases is little different from earlier prescriptions for func-tional job flexibility, where employees can exercise discretion and some influenceover the execution of their immediate tasks, but the overall parameters within whichthey operate are, in many cases, not so flexible.

A further indication of the lack of discretion offered to employees was the strongmanagerial control systems typically in evidence. For example, a formal ‘no blame’policy was promulgated in the majority of empowering organisations. The aim ofthese initiatives is to move away from a culture where employees attempted to pro-tect their positions and avoid criticism by hiding their mistakes or those of closecolleagues. A move to a ‘no blame’ culture allows employees to feel able to learn


by their mistakes and is said to foster better communications and a team culturewith colleagues[45].

Effectively, however, there was little obvious difference from conventional formsof discipline and control. Below is a direct quote from one of the case-study organis-ation’s quality culture statements, which describes its ‘no blame’ philosophy in thefollowing terms:

It is also likely to mean mistakes may be made by us all as we strive to achieve even higherstandards: Such mistakes should be seen as a learning experience and the lessons learned sharedwith colleagues. This does not reduce our responsibility to deal firmly and fairly with those whomay behave in a way which is contrary to Company standards.

In practice, however, a senior manager pointed out that this warning “did not meananyone could make the same mistake twice”.

Similarly restrictive approaches were also adopted by other case study companies.Other respondents claim that fairly tight disciplinary controls (described as ‘the bigstick’ in one case) are maintained. As we have seen, some organisations have del-egated manpower responsibilities such as absence control, discipline and dismissalto line managers, thereby enhancing the immediate control they have over subordi-nates, who do not themselves experience significant accretions in power or authority.It is perhaps relevant to refer back here to our line manager survey, where both interms of preparation and in competence, empowered line managers self-scored morehighly than their non-empowered counterparts over traditional managementresponsibilities such as absence control and discipline.

Perhaps, though, the biggest constraint is that which becomes evident from thecase studies in that the empowerment—manager development—employee develop-ment equation often fails to materialise. The main obstructions appear to be failureto continually develop managers who in turn are not in a position, or are unwilling,to develop their subordinates.

Conclusions

The study has shown that empowerment in organisations is now a common manage-ment approach. Alll the signs are that deployment of empowerment in Britain islikely to spread. Formally, empowerment assumes that both managers andemployees will receive sufficient preparation in order to undertake expandedresponsibilities: indeed, the assumption is that line managers, specifically, willbecome directly involved in developing their subordinate talent.

Evidence from the case studies, though, leaves us with nagging doubts as to howeffectively this process is being conducted: though in many cases, the potential todisseminate knowledge, understanding and action downwards through the mana-gerial network is present, the extent to which these are shared with subordinates ismore questionable. These doubts may be summarised as follows.

First, our study indicates that at present a minority of employers are formallyrestricting empowerment narrowly to managerial positions. Second, the extent towhich line managers were receiving sufficient developmental opportunities andencouragement to alter their managerial behaviour is questionable. Third, and relatedto the above, some line managers, at least, were experiencing difficulty in adaptingto a more facilitative style of management. This was especially evident in those caseswhere empowering resources were being tightly rationed. Finally, in the majority oforganisations which have embraced a broader perspective, empowerment foremployees only amounts to small increments in terms of discretion and responsi-bility, often allocated under tight controls. This begs the question: what opportunitiesare there for managers to be developers of employee potential if these employeesare facing substantial work intensification but not undertaking the range or depthof tasks which demand development and upon which their organisational commit-ment and subsequent motivation is supposedly dependent?


Acknowledgement

The authors would like to offer their appreciation to the Leverhulme Trust for fund-ing the research which provides the material for this article. They are grateful to theanonymous referees for their valuable comments on an earlier draft of this article.

References1. Cassels, J., Britain’s Real Skill Shortage, London, PSI, 1990; Rainbird, H., ‘Continuing training’

in K. Sisson (ed), Personnel Management (2nd edn), Oxford: Blackwell, 1994, p. 341.2. Hutton, W., The State We’re In, London, Jonathan Cape, 1993.3. Finegold, D. and Soskice, D., “The failure of training in Britain: analysis and prescription”,

Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 1988, 4:3, 22.4. Storey, J., Management of Human Resources, Oxford, Blackwell, 1992, p. 213.5. Pedler, M., Bourgogne, J. and Boydell, T., The Learning Organisation, Maidenhead, McGraw-

Hill, 1992.6. Cassels, op. cit.7. Handy, C., Gordon, C., Gow, I. and Randlesome, C., Making Managers, London, Pitman, 1988.8. Campbell, A. and Warner, M., New Technology, Skills and MAnagement, London, Routledge,

1992; Fogarty, M. and Brooks, D., Trade Unions and British Industrial Development, London,PSI, 1986, p. 9.

9. Allen, C., Work Skills and Work Orientation, Stockton, England, Jim Conway Foundation,1993, p. 9.

10. Luthens, J., “Successful versus effective real managers”, The Executive, 1988, 2:2, Academyof Management.

11. Finegold and Soskice, op. cit.12. Hyman, J., Training at Work, London, Routledge, 1992; Keep, E., ‘A training scandal?’ in K.

Sisson (ed.), Personnel Management in Britain, Oxford, Blackwell, 1989.13. Legge, K., Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and Realities, Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1995,

p. 241. Sisson, K. and Storey, J., Managing Human Resources and Industrial Relations, MiltonKeynes, Open University Press, 1993.

14. Keep, E. and Mayhew, K., “The assessment: education, training and economic performance”,Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 1988, 4:3, p. viii.

15. For a comprehensive review of these issues, see Randell, G., ‘Employee appraisal’, in K.Sisson (ed.), Personnel Management, Oxford, Blackwell, 1994.

16. Townley, B., “Communicating with employees”, in K. Sisson (ed.), Personnel Management,Oxford, Blackwell, 1994.

17. Labour Market and Skill Trends 1996/1997, Department for Education and Employment,1995.

18. Labour Market and Skill Trends, op. cit., chs. 3–5.19. Oliver, N. and Wilkinson, B., The Japanization of British Industry, Oxford, Blackwell, 1992;

Storey, J., ‘Do the Japanese make better managers?’, Personnel Management, August 1991.Wickens, P., The Road to Nissan, Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1987.

20. Bevan, S. and Thompson, M., ‘Performance management at the crossroads’, Personnel Man-agement, 1991, November; Fletcher, C. and Williams, R., ‘The route to performance manage-ment’, Personnel Management, October 1992.

21. Storey, 1992, op. cit., p. 194.22. Rainbird, op. cit.; Storey, 1992, op. cit., pp. 111–116.23. Du Gay, P., Salaman, G. and Rees, B., ‘The conduct of management and the management

of conduct: contemporary managerial discourse and the constitution of the “competent man-ager”, Journal of Management Studies, 1996, 33:3; Fenton-O’Creevy, M. and Nicholson, N.,Middle Managers: Their Contribution to Employee Involvement, Employment DepartmentResearch Paper, No. 28, June 1994.

24. Gennard, J. and Kelly, J., ‘The unimportance of labels: the diffusion of the personnel/HRMfunction’, Industrial Relations Journal, 1997, 28:1.

25. Cunningham, I. and Hyman, J., ‘Transforming the HRM vision into reality: the role of linemanagers and supervisors in implementing change’, Employee Relations, 1996, 17:8; Kirk-patrick, I., Davies, A. and Oliver, N., 1992, ‘Decentralization: friend or foe of HRM?’ in P.Blyton and P. Turnbull (eds), Reassessing Human Resource Management, London, Sage, 1992.

26. Mabey, C. and Salaman, S., Strategic Human Resource Management, Oxford, Blackwell, 1995.27. Walton, R., ‘From control to commitment in the workplace’, Harvard Business Review,

March/April 1985.28. Industrial Society, ‘Empowerment’, Managing Best Practice No. 8, Birmingham, 1995.


29. Gee, J. P., Hull, G. and Lankshear, C., The New Work Order: Behind the Language of the NewCapitalism, Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press, 1996; Walton, op. cit.

30. Kanter, R. M., The Change Masters, London, Routledge, 1983.31. Kanter, op. cit., p. 180.32. Foy, N., Empowering People at Work, Aldershot, Gower, 1994. Similar formulations can be

found in: Byham, W. C. with Cox, J., Zapp! The Lightning of Empowerment, New York, FawcettColumbine, 1988; Scott, C. D. and Jaffe, D. T., Empowerment, Menlo Park, California, Crisp,1991; Stewart, A. M., 1992, Empowering People, London, Pitman.

33. Bowen, D. E. and Lawler, E. E., “The empowerment of service workers: why, how andwhen”, Sloan Management Review, Spring 1992.

34. For a review of these studies, see Ramsay, H., ‘Involvement, empowerment and commit-ment’, in B. Towers (ed.), The Handbook of Human Resource Management, Oxford, Blackwell,1996.

35. See Foy, op. cit.; Stewart, op. cit.; Walton, op. cit.36. Kern, H. and Schumann, M., ‘Limits of the division of labour’, Economic and Industrial Democ-

racy, 1987, 8:2; Palpacuer, F., ‘Development of core-periphery forms of organization: somelessons from the New York garment industry’, Discussion Paper No. 95, International Institutefor Labour Studies, 1997, Geneva, p. 15; Piore, M. and Sabel, C., The Second Industrial Divide—Possibilities for Prosperity, New York, Basic Books, 1984.

37. Lashley, C. and McGoldrick, J., ‘The limits of empowerment’, Empowerment in Organizations,1994, 2:3; Stewart, op. cit., pp. 9–11.

38. Keep, E. and Rainbird, H., ‘Training’ in P. Edwards (ed.), Industrial Relations: Theory andPractice, Oxford, Blackwell, 1995, p. 532.

39. Stuart, M., ‘The industrial relations of training: a reconsideration of training arrangements’,Industrial Relations Journal, 1996, 27:3.

40. Millward, M., Stevens, M., Smart, D. and Hawes, W., Workplace Industrial Relations in Tran-sition, Aldershot, Dartmouth, 1992.

41. Coopers and Lybrand Associates, A Challenge to Complacency, London, MSC/NEDO, 1985.42. Brewster, C. J., Gill, C. G. and Richbell, S., ‘Deploying an analytical approach to IR policy’,

Personnel Review, 1981, 10:2.43. Brewster et al., op. cit.44. Dore, R. P. and Sako, M., How the Japanese Learn to Work, London, Routledge, 1989; Hyman,

op. cit., p. 80.45. Foy, op. cit.


managers as developers: some reflections on the contribution of empowerment in britain

Documents