Empowerment Inhibitors

While frameworks and practices to enhance empowerment offer valuable clues to essence of empowerment and the practice of it, factors that are thought of inhibiting empowerment are valuable as well. They enable to provide a broader picture of empowerment and some of them present challenging views to present empowerment frameworks. A number of inhibiting factors could have been picked from the previous discussion on what is thought to enhance empowerment. The following is a short summary of the inhibiting factors.

Kuokkanen’s (2003) model of nurse empowerment suggests that empowerment might be impeded if a person has to work in a working environment where conflicting values exists. If there are no values that have been agreed on, it will make decision processes ambiguous. Authoritarian leadership has been seen as inhibitory factor since it does not propagate trust, restricts the flow of information, and does not allow for involvement in the planning processes. The model also suggests that a rigid working environment may block empowerment since it is not open for innovation and, thus, may lead to stagnation. As to terms of employment, short-term working relationships may hinder empowerment since usually influencing and change take time. Lastly, if the atmosphere at the working unit is not open, it affects empowerment negatively. (Kuokkanen 2003, 35–36.)

Argyris (1998) has pointed out a number of factors that he thinks has made empowerment efforts in organizational contexts less successful than expected. To him, managers know and trust the command-and-control model better than any other leadership style. Change and empowerment programs are initiated with good intentions but quite often contain a host of inner conflicts that affect their credibility in the eyes of the employees. Managers and those in supervisory roles seem to think that workers embrace empowerment as long as it does not demand personal responsibility. In addition, empowerment processes often work from the assumption that all workers should be empowered equally – in practice, this might not be possible. Again, false hopes have been created. Argyris also suggests that internal commitment that has been as one of the core factors in empowerment has limits. It cannot be thought of as cure for all. It also seems that there is a tendency to presume that all workers would be innately empowered if only provided the chance to demonstrate it. (Argyris 1998.) Antikainen (2005) has discussed work-related stress in the context of growth orientation of the workers. A number of stress factors that she discusses are very similar to conditions that are present in contexts where empowerment programs are implemented.

Changes and challenges can contribute to growth. However, if change and challenge are constantly present, the employee may not be able to detect their relevance to the daily operations. If this is the case, then changes and challenges become an added burden to an already overwhelming workload. The expectations that the organization has towards an employee and his or her personal expectations towards the work and

organization might be in conflict. Demands on knowledge, skills, independence, and social interaction may empower or disempower. They may trigger a growth process that leads to improved sense of control, inner satisfaction, and well-being. On the other hand, if such demands and opportunities are not balanced, they may trigger destructive feelings of stress and over-burdening. If such feelings prolong, they will have a negative effect on self-image, lead to unconstructive behavioral patterns, and deteriorate physical health. (Antikainen 2005, 86–89.)

Eklund, who drew the empirical material for her dissertation from a community empowerment effort, has suggested a number of factors that inhibited the programme’s empowerment efforts. In line with Kuokkanen (2003), she sees that in order for an empowerment effort to succeed, sufficient time is needed (Eklund 1999, 155). Since empowerment is linked to autonomy and independence, there is a temptation to hand over the project or program to community at an immature stage. Adams (1996) warned against too encompassing role of professionals in a community intervention. However, Eklund points out that an early withdrawal of external personnel might be harmful (1999, 155). She has also suggested that an empowering community intervention may fail if it does not secure support from the political environment. Those who hold political power in the community should commit to the processes and aims of the community intervention. Otherwise, it will flicker and be put out eventually. (Eklund 1999, 155–156.)

Mason and others (2001, 20) have put forth a list of possible empowerment inhibitors at a community level and their perceived consequences. The inhibitors relate especially to restricted participation. Restricted participation, in turn, leads to low degree of ownership. Low degree of ownership leads to low degree of empowerment. This causality is depicted in the table below.

Table 9. Causes and consequences of low community participation in relation to empowerment.

Source: Derived from Mason et al. 2001, 20.

CAUSES OF LOW CONSEQUENCES OF LOW

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION COMMUNITY

PARTICIPATION

Limited time for participation

Power conflicts Inability to sustain project activity or impact Political and religious diversity

Donor limitations Inappropriately planned projects Donor imposed project

Lack of political support Failure to have an impact on needs of people

Community has different aspirations

Lack of trust among community or with outsiders Project inefficiencies Failure to involve the population in all stages of the project

Social context Failure to maximize local resources Illiteracy when the approach used requires literacy

Attitudes and behaviours of leaders, sub-groups Community not committed to the project Domineering or authoritarian development agent

Mason and others (2001) suggest that the empowerment inhibitors in a community context range from personal time management to indifference in political sphere and domineering external agents. To summarize their view, empowerment inhibitors can be of personal, communal, organizational, institutional, or political in nature.