Evaluation of Empowerment Processes

In the previous section, empowerment was discussed from the point of view of empowerment evaluation. That is, how a participatory process of evaluation can serve as an instrument to empower. This section will dig into the processes of how to evaluate whether empowerment has taken place or not. Such an overview can offer further clues as to the nature of an empowering organization and the concept of empowerment. The section is largely based on the discussion of Parsons (1998). It must be noted that although her title “Evaluation of Empowerment Practise” suggests that the practise is evaluated, the body of the text in the chapter is at times very similar to the approach of Fetterman (2001). Fetterman, as noted, has discussed evaluation process as an agent of empowerment.

Parsons (1998, 204–218) has identified a number of issues to evaluate in order to judge the success of empowerment processes. First of all, the attitude of the empowering agent²⁷ must be evaluated. The attitude is reflected in the professional role she/he takes.

Parsons suggests (1998, 207) that the role should be characterized by respect of the

26 Other works and persons who have contributed to the theory are listed in Fetterman et al. 1996, 6-9.

27 In Parsons’s text the empowering agent is a social practitioner.

clients. No matter what difficulties they have, they have inherent strengths, aspirations, and goodness in them. The empowering agent should focus on these.

Empowering agents should also aim at enabling clients to choose and assume power over themselves. In this setting his/her work can be described as enabler, helper, leader, and midwife in the process that aims at self-empowerment. Rather than considering him-/herself as an expert, the empowerment agent considers the clients as possessors of sufficient expertise in their living contexts. (Parsons 1998, 207-208.)

Parsons has proposed that when evaluation of the impact of empowerment process is taking place, the following facets should be examined (deducted from Parsons 1998, 209-210):

• Have the problems, solutions, needs, and aspirations under study been defined by the clients or groups of clients?

• Has the client focus stayed at the core of the empowerment process?²⁸

• Have the stakeholders and clients collaborated in the evaluation of the empowerment process?

• Is there evidence that the clientele have come up with indigenous solutions to difficulties and situations that demand coping?

• Has the complexity of client’s living environment been oversimplified?

Parsons’s propositions are the researcher’s deductions from a section that describe both what to study and how to study empowerment process. The ideas have a lot in common with the views of Argyris (1998), Koberg and others (1999), and Siitonen (1999). In all, Parsons’s views emphasize that at the core of the empowerment process is the individuals’ feeling and perception to influence their lives and the environment where they act.

In their attempt to compose an operational definition of empowerment, Herrenkohl and others had to differentiate between groups that were considered more empowered than other groups. The researchers suggested that the more empowered groups “…were described as solving real problems, needing little outside direction, seeking new ideas,

28 Parsons sees that there is a danger that in social work practice and in the evaluations of the practice, the social science values may overrule client focus.

acting independently, being confident about their abilities, and having positive interactions among members of the workgroup” (Herrenkohl et al. 1999, 378).

The descriptions of Herrenkohl and others of an empowered group have a lot in common with Bandura’s views on social cognitive theory and self-efficacy (e.g., Bandura 1988; 1993). In fact, many of the scholars who have studied or study empowerment refer to Bandura in this context (e.g., Eklund 1999; Fetterman 2001;

Koberg et al. 1999; Siitonen 1999). Bandura suggests that self-efficacy beliefs relate to how readily a person engages in difficult tasks, how long the person perseveres in when facing difficulties, and what kind of standards they set for their performance (Bandura 1988, 279–281). The value of Bandura’s thoughts on self-efficacy lay in his claim that others (e.g. organizations) can strengthen competencies, self-regulatory capabilities, and sense of efficacy that will improve psychological well-being and boost personal accomplishments (Bandura 1988, 299). Organizations can facilitate this in a number of ways such as: engaging people in goal setting, teaching, breaking difficult tasks into more manageable goals, setting immediate goals, setting high enough goals, setting explicit goals, assigning realistic tasks and exposure to success experiences (Bandura 1988, 284–299).

On the Finnish front, Antikainen (2005) has recently studied the linkage between growth-oriented atmosphere and empowerment. She argues (2005, 50; also Beairsto &

Ruohotie 2003) that growth-oriented atmosphere is a crucial element of the organizational empowerment process. She has used Ruohotie’s instrument in her study.

The instrument covers the organizational facets of leadership, tasks, group dynamics, work related stress, and personal work-related attitudes (Antikainen 2005, 264–269).

The following broad principles may be deducted from the growth-oriented atmosphere instrument:

• Leadership should support the staff

• Work related tasks should reflect independence and the work force should have a say in their design

• Group related tasks are challenging and an individual worker both contributes to and receives from it

• Stress-level should not be overwhelming but challenging

• Personal interests are acknowledged and their realization supported.

The instrument will be revisited in greater detail, for example, in connection to leadership and its organizational role in relation to empowerment (2.3.7). What comes out clearly here is that in the opinion of Antikainen, Beairsto and Ruohotie, an organization contributes to empowerment process through leadership, task-design, group activities, stress/challenge-levels, and employee sensitivity.

Koberg and others (1999) have also tried to depict the antecedents and outcomes of empowerment in an organizational setting. They have conducted the research in a hospital setting. The setting is interesting in a sense that it is characterized by features such as excessive regulation. Excessive regulation could be thought of as an empowerment killer since one of the key attributes of empowerment has been considered as freedom (Fetterman 2001, Gutiérrez et al. 1998, Siitonen 1999).

The approach of Koberg and others is particularly interesting for the purposes of the current study since it ponders the relation of psychological empowerment to group and organizational settings. They have employed an instrument that includes ingredients from other instruments used by well-known scientists such as Friedlander, Thomas and Velthouse, and Spreitzer to name but a few (Koberg et al. 1999, 73–82). Koberg and others have viewed empowerment in relation to three different aspects: characteristics of individuals, characteristics of groups, and characteristics of organizations.

Koberg and others (1999) emphasize the feeling of empowerment as the crucial factor in the phenomenon. Demographically, when excavating into the individual characteristics of empowerment influencing the feeling, the following factors are highlighted: age, gender, ethnicity, self-concept, self-esteem, motivational needs, profession, and cultural background (1999, 73–74).

In relation to organizational empowerment, of special interest are the categories Koberg and others have used to measure how organizations are presumed to contribute to the feeling of empowerment. They hypothesized that group decision making, sharing of responsibilities and problems openly, and feeling mutual trust enhance feelings of self-determination and competency. The two feelings are then expected to bear on the feeling of empowerment. (1999, 75–76.) The process is depicted in the figure below.

Figure 8. Formation of feeling of empowerment.

Source: Koberg et al. 1999, 75–76.

The researchers also presumed, based on other studies (Fagenson, Rudolf & Peluchette, Spreitzer), that one’s status in the organizational hierarchy bears on the feeling of empowerment (1999, 76). If a person perceives to have access to information, resources, and influential persons, she or he is likely to feel empowered as well. This feeling of empowerment then enhances work productivity and success since people value their work and find it satisfactory.

Based on their research, Koberg and others (1999, 85–88) have suggested the following:

• Persons are more likely to feel empowered if the leader of the group is approachable, encourages the worth of the group, and facilitates group effectiveness.

• Organizational variables contribute towards feeling of empowerment as much, if not more, as the individual variables. Therefore, organizations affect greatly the intrinsic feeling of empowerment.

• Individuals who are on those levels of organizations that traditionally hold most power feel more empowered. The same is true of tenure. The persons with a longer tenure feel more empowered. In fact, there might be a natural link between the two factors. The persons with a longer tenure tend to be higher up in the organization than those with a short tenure.

• The results seem to give further support to the view that managers and supervisors can help workers feel empowered. This takes place by providing workers necessary resources, abilities, and authority. In addition, the workers should be involved in the decision making process. However, they agree with Rudolph & Peluchette that this may only create necessary conditions for empowerment.

• Compensation and reward programmes support organization by creating a sense of ownership (having a stake).

• Orientation, training, and mentoring programs contribute to the feeling of empowerment by providing a sense of competence.

Koberg and others’ article as a whole can be used as a piece of scientific evidence to support the view that organizational measures contribute significantly to empowerment.

GROUP DECISION

Their theoretical understanding of empowerment puts emphasis on the feeling of empowerment. This feeling can be boosted by organizational measures including the actions of superiors and colleagues. There is a strong correlation between the intrinsic feeling of empowerment and organizational context. At least, in relation to work, intrinsic feeling of empowerment cannot be divorced from the organizational factors that enable, enforce or disempower.