This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Harley, B. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Myth of Empowerment: Work Organisation, Hierarchy and Employee Autonomy in Contemporary Australian Workplaces

Department of Management The University of Melbourne Parkville VICTORIA 3052 Australia

The aim of this paper is to assess the validity of the `empowerment thesis': the belief that new forms of work organisation are overturning traditional managerial structures and returning control to employees. Specifically, the project seeks to explore the role of `empowering' forms of work organisation (in particular Total Quality Management, team-based work and consultative committees) and of occupational hierarchies, respectively, in influencing levels of employee autonomy. Data from the 1995 Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey (AWIRS95) are used to construct quantitative indicators of `empowering' forms of work organisation, hierarchy and employee autonomy. Associations between the variables are measured. The analysis shows no association between `empowerment' and employee autonomy. There are, however, clear relationships between employees' positions within occupational hierarchies and their levels of control over their work. Therefore, the empowerment thesis is rejected. A provisional explanation for the failure of empowerment to enhance employee autonomy can be found in the fact that organisational power resides primarily in organisational structures. Contrary to claims of the emergence of the `post-bureaucratic organisation', hierarchical structures remain central to the majority of contemporary organisations, and the impact of other changes to work organisation must be understood in this context.

Work, Employment & Society, Vol. 13, No. 1, 41-66 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/09500179922117782


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Choi, J. Leiter, and D. Tomaskovic-Devey Contingent Autonomy: Technology, Bureaucracy, and Relative Power in the Labor Process Work and Occupations, November 1, 2008; 35(4): 422 - 455. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Osthus For better or worse? Workplace changes and the health and well-being of Norwegian workers Work Employment Society, December 1, 2007; 21(4): 731 - 750. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Niemela and S. Kalliola Team Membership and Experiences of Work in the Finnish Context Economic and Industrial Democracy, November 1, 2007; 28(4): 552 - 588. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E. L. Kick, J. C. Fraser, and B. L. Davis Performance Management, Managerial Citizenship and Worker Commitment: A Study of the United States Postal Service with Some Global Implications Economic and Industrial Democracy, February 1, 2006; 27(1): 137 - 172. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. J. Long and J. L. Shields Best practice or best fit? High involvement management and base pay practices in Canadian and Australian firms Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, April 1, 2005; 43(1): 52 - 75. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. Mitchell and J. Fetter Human Resource Management and Individualisation in Australian Labour Law Journal of Industrial Relations, September 1, 2003; 45(3): 292 - 325. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. Harley Employee Responses to High Performance Work System Practices: An Analysis of the Awirs95 Data Journal of Industrial Relations, September 1, 2002; 44(3): 418 - 434. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. EDWARDS and M. COLLINSON Empowerment and Managerial Labor Strategies: Pragmatism Regained Work and Occupations, August 1, 2002; 29(3): 272 - 299. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. I. Glassop The Organizational Benefits of Teams Human Relations, February 1, 2002; 55(2): 225 - 249. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. Harley Team Membership and the Experience of Work in Britain: An Analysis of the WERS98 Data Work Employment Society, December 1, 2001; 15(4): 721 - 742. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. Postmes, M. Tanis, and B. de Wit Communication and Commitment in Organizations: A Social Identity Approach Group Processes Intergroup Relations, July 1, 2001; 4(3): 227 - 246. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. Sewell What Goes Around, Comes Around: Inventing a Mythology of Teamwork and Empowerment Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, March 1, 2001; 37(1): 70 - 89. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. Harley, H. Ramsay, and D. Scholarios Employee Direct Participation in Britain and Australia: Evidence from AWIRS95 and WERS98 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, January 1, 2000; 38(2): 42 - 53. [Abstract] [PDF]