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 Hales, C. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Management and Empowerment Programmes

University of Westminster

This paper addresses the divergence between the widespread rhetoric of empowerment and limited reality of empowerment programmes. Having demonstrated the ambiguities and contradictions in the concept of empowerment to be found in the management literature and, hence, the amenability of the concept to a variety of interpretations, the paper considers evidence from studies of hotel companies, a theme park and chemicals and telecommunications manufacturing plants which shows that the interpretation of empowerment which senior managers enthusiastically promote is rather different from the one which junior managers reluctantly accept and that empowerment programmes are as much about the putative reorganisation of junior managers' work as any substantive increase in worker autonomy. An interpretation of these findings is then offered in terms of how the ideological space opened up by ambiguities in the empowerment concept presents senior managers with a convenient ideological justification for the reorganisation of managerial work but also presents junior managers with a set of ideas with which to justify their continued existence, at a time when the managerial labour process is being rationalised and the raison d'être of junior line managers, in terms of responsibility for a labour process, is becoming problematic. The rhetoric of empowerment is an ideological terrain on which the conflict between senior and junior managers over attempts to reconstitute managerial work is conducted.

Work, Employment & Society, Vol. 14, No. 3, 501-519 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/09500170022118545


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Bach, I. Kessler, and P. Heron The consequences of assistant roles in the public services: Degradation or empowerment? Human Relations, September 1, 2007; 60(9): 1267 - 1292. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. H. Sawchuk 'Use-Value' and the Re-thinking of Skills, Learning and the Labour Process Journal of Industrial Relations, November 1, 2006; 48(5): 593 - 617. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. Edwards Power and ideology in the workplace: going beyond even the second version of the three-dimensional view Work Employment Society, September 1, 2006; 20(3): 571 - 581. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Gallie, A. Felstead, and F. Green Changing Patterns of Task Discretion in Britain Work Employment Society, June 1, 2004; 18(2): 243 - 266. [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]

				A. Danford, M. Richardson, and M. Upchurch Trade Union Strategy and Renewal: the Restructuring of Work and Work Relations in the UK Aerospace Industry Work Employment Society, June 1, 2002; 16(2): 305 - 327. [Abstract] [PDF]