A framework for understanding dysempowerment in organizations

A Framework for Understanding Dysenpowerment in Organizations • 263

A FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDINGDYSEMPOWERMENT IN ORGANIZATIONS

Human Resource Management, Fall / Winter 1998, Vol. 37, No. 3 & 4, Pp. 263–275© 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0090-4848/98/030263-13

Kathleen Kane and Kathleen Montgomery

The concept of dysempowerment is introduced as a process whereby an individual perceivescertain work events as affronts to one’s dignity. This perception results in affective responses thatgenerate attitudes and behaviors having the potential to disrupt or impair the individual’s taskmotivation. We specify propositions to predict the impact of factors on potential dysempowerment,and we present a typology to characterize organizational climates that result from the coexistenceof dysempowerment and empowerment.1

Introduction

In this article, we introduce the concept ofdysempowerment and describe its potential tointerfere with the motivational outcomes ofempowerment at the individual and organiza-tional levels.

Employee empowerment has been toutedas a panacea for improving organizational com-petitiveness through enhanced employee mo-tivation, morale, satisfaction, commitment,and innovation (e.g., Ford & Fottler, 1995;Randolph, 1995; Rothstein, 1995). Despitethe continued popularity of various manage-rial interventions to achieve these outcomes(Lawler, Morhman, & Ledford, 1995), thereremains a gap between managers’ enthusiasmfor such programs and systematic verificationof their effectiveness (e.g., Ledford & Lawler,1994; Rothstein, 1995; Tjosvold, 1987).

We suggest that the inconclusive researchfindings reflect, in part, disproportionate at-tention to measuring the benefits of empow-erment, while overlooking factors that can

contaminate the process. This is consistentwith Robinson and Bennett’s (1995) observa-tion that attention is more commonly directedto the presence or absence of positive phe-nomena, rather than the presence or absenceof negative phenomena. Glew, O’Leary-Kelly,Griffin, & Van Fleet (1995) acknowledge thatunspecified factors may act as “obstacles” tothe fully empowered employee, and the prac-titioner literature contains references to “emo-tional barriers” to empowerment such asmistrust and fear (e.g., Andrews, 1994; Dover& Kofodimos, 1994; Rothstein, 1995). Theseobstacles and emotional barriers have not beenincorporated into present studies of empow-erment, however, a step that we argue is es-sential to understanding the overallcontribution of empowerment to employeemotivation.

The article is organized as follows: First,we introduce a process we have called“dysempowerment.” Drawing together insightsfrom several previously unrelated literatures,we specify the mechanism through which

Employeeempowermenthas been toutedas a panacea forimprovingorganizationalcompetitivenessthroughenhancedemployeemotivation,morale,satisfaction,commitment,and innovation.

264 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Fall / Winter 1998

dysempowerment operates and identify fac-tors that may intensify the potential fordysempowerment to occur. We next specifyhow dysempowerment has the potential toimpair psychological empowerment (Thomas& Velthouse, 1990; Spreitzer, 1995; 1996).Finally, we propose a typology that includesdegrees of both collective dysempowermentand empowerment, which can be used to di-agnose organizational climates and to iden-tify areas in need of corrective action. Weconclude with implications of our model forresearch and practice.

Definitional Issues

The literature on empowerment has sufferedfrom a lack of conceptual coherence that hasled to interpretations of empowerment rang-ing from an overarching organizational phi-losophy to a set of managerial practices. Inthis article, we draw on the conceptual workof Thomas and Velthouse (1990, p. 667), whodefine psychological empowerment as a typeof motivation referred to as “intrinsic taskmotivation” produced by a set of task assess-ments arrived at through an individual’s sub-jective interpretations of reality. These assess-ments reflect four task-related cognitions—meaning, competence, choice, and impact—which constitute an employee’s “active orien-tation” to his/her work role. Recent work bySpreitzer (1995; 1996) represents the firstempirical validation of the four cognitions ofthis model of psychological empowerment. Wepropose that further efforts to understand

employees’ intrinsic work motivations shouldtake into account not only the task-relatedcognitions of psychological empowerment, butalso the affective component that may be pro-duced through the concurrent process ofdysempowerment.

Defining Dysempowerment

Dysempowerment is defined as a processwhereby a work event or episode is evaluatedby an individual as an affront to his/her dignity,hence a violation of a fundamental norm of con-sideration and respect, resulting in a debilitat-ing set of responses with the potential to dis-rupt the individual’s work-related attitudes andbehavior. The primary outcome in thedysempowerment process is the individual’s af-fective response to his or her interpretation of aperceived negative event (Weiss & Cropanzano,1996); and the subsequent outcome in thedysempowerment process is an impairment inthe individual’s task motivation associated withpsychological empowerment. This process isdepicted in Figure 1.

We emphasize that dysempowerment isnot the opposite of empowerment, and thatempowerment and dysempowerment can co-exist to varying degrees. The factors thoughtto produce psychological empowerment aretask-related cognitions (or “energizers” becauseof their potential to enhance motivation). Incontrast, the factors that trigger dysem-powerment are affective responses to events (or“polluters” because of their potential to im-pair but not necessarily negate the motivation

In this context,then, dysem-powermentshould not beconfused withconcepts such as“disempower-ment,” which isthe lack ofempowerment.

FIGURE 1. A process model of dysempowerment.

Source

• Individual• Work Group• Organization

Affront toOne's Dignity

AffectiveResponses

• Humiliation• Anger• Indignation• Hostility

Outcomes

Impairment in:• Trust• Commitment• Motivation• Cooperation• Innovation

Polluting Eventfrom Source

Individual's CognitiveInterpretation

Individual's EmotionalReactions

Individual's Attitudesand Behavior

→ → →

→ → →


of empowerment). In this context, then,dysempowerment should not be confused withconcepts such as “disempowerment,” whichis the lack of empowerment; “powerlessness,”which is a feeling of domination by other

people and of not being able to reduce or elimi-nate that control (Blauner, 1964); or “learnedhelplessness,” which is a person’s assessmentof his or her inability to have influence(Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978).

TABLE I Relationships Indicated in Recent Literature to Demonstrate Mechanisms for theProcess of Dysempowerment.

Alexander & Perception of Trust GroupRuderman, 1987 fairness Commitment cohesiveness

Bies & Moag, Courtesy Perception of1986 Honesty fairness

RespectSincerity

Eisenberger, et al., Perception of Emotional Innovation1990 being cared about involvement Attendance

Greenberg,1993a Tactfulness Perception of OrganizationHonesty fairness devianceInterest (unfairness) (stealing)Sincerity

Hosmer, 1995 Compassion Perception of Trust VoluntaryKindness fairness cooperationGoodwill

Kidwell & Bennett Courtesy Perception of Propensity to Shirking1995 Sportsmanship lack of conformity withhold effort Free-riding

(lack of) to “principled Social loafingbehavior”

Korsgaard, et al., Respect Perception of Trust Cooperation1995 Honesty fairness Commitment

Sincerity AttachmentPatience

Mayer, et al., 1995 Caring Perception of Trust Risk taking inHonesty benevolence relationshipsGoodwill

Motowidlo, et al., Rudeness Subjective stress Fear Ineffective1986 Verbal abuse Anger motivation

Disrespect Depression ImpairedDishonesty Anxiety interpersonal

Hostility interactions

O’Leary-Kelly, et al., Insults Perception of Anger Aggressive1996 Ridicule unfairness Hostility behavior

Verbal threats Vindictiveness

Parasuraman & Uncaring Felt stressAlutto, 1984 Lack of commitment

AuthorsEvents/Messages

from SenderReceiver's Cognitive

InterpretationReceiver's Affect/

Attitude Receiver's Behavior


Mechanisms of Dysempowerment

The theoretical bases for the mechanisms ofthe dysempowerment process depicted in Fig-ure 1 are derived from insights in the litera-ture on organizational justice, organizationaltrust, and stress. As shown in Table I, we drawtogether these insights as follows: Consider-ation, or respect for the dignity of an indi-vidual, has been operationalized as indicationsof honesty, sincerity, courtesy, politeness, pa-tience, interest, and tact. Moreover, consid-eration has been identified as a key predictorof perceptions of fairness. In particular, re-search on organizational justice (e.g.,Greenberg, 1990; 1993a; Lind & Tyler, 1988)indicates that individuals’ perceptions of fair-ness are influenced not only by equity in thedistributions of rewards but also by the qual-ity of interpersonal respect for one’s status asa member of the work group (Lind & Tyler,1988). These perceptions facilitate the devel-opment of positive attitudes, including trust,emotional involvement, and commitment. Thework-related behavioral outcomes associatedwith these positive attitudes include interper-sonal and motivational effectiveness, groupcohesiveness, cooperation, and risk taking inrelationships.

Conversely, when polluting events in theform of a lack of consideration or respect forone’s dignity are present, a perception of un-fairness and subjective stress may develop. Forexample, Greenberg (1990) reports that per-ceptions of unfairness have been found whenindividuals believe their treatment did notachieve a level of “ethical appropriateness”associated with treating people with civilityand dignity. These cognitions have been foundto lead to such forms of negative affect as an-ger, hostility, fear, and depression, with sub-sequent behavioral outcomes such as lack ofcooperation, withholding effort, and otherforms of organizational deviance.

In summary, extending these findings to ourmodel of dysempowerment, we propose a pro-cess by which an individual interprets an eventfirst by making a cognitive appraisal that theevent lacks consideration and is thereby an af-front to his or her dignity. This appraisal is fol-lowed by an emotional reaction, or affectiveresponse, that has the potential to impair his/her ability to achieve the task motivation asso-

ciated with psychological empowerment.Although reciprocality is not explicitly

included in the model, we recognize the po-tential for direct or indirect feedback to ex-acerbate the effects of dysempowerment.One manifestation of this process is the fol-lowing: a manager’s impatience can producea sense of anger in an employee, which inturn may provoke disrespectful treatmentfrom the manager, which subsequently canproduce a lack of commitment in the em-ployee. Further, if the manager fails to rec-ognize both the employee’s anger and theinitial reason for the anger (managerial im-patience), such failure may be seen as an-other sign of lack of respect for theemployee’s feelings. In both instances, thedysempowerment process is triggered andperpetuated.

Predictors of the Impact ofDysempowerment

We propose that the impact of thedysempowerment process is affected by fac-tors related to (1) the polluting event itself,(2) the receiver’s expectations and norms, and(3) vicarious effects.

Factors Related to the Event

Volume. The accumulation of polluting eventsis predicted to have a stronger overall effectthan one or two isolated events. For example,employees who detect occasional impatiencefrom their managers will be less likely to ex-perience dysempowerment than employeeswho regularly receive impatient treatmentfrom their managers. Abelson (1985) reportsthat small episodic events can have strong cu-mulative consequences if allowed to amassover time. Similarly, Motowidlo, Packard, andManning (1986) report that frequency ofstressful events is related to greater levels ofsubjective stress. An analogous situation is alsoreported in the sexual harassment literature,whereby an accumulation of even minor ha-rassing episodes can create a hostile environ-ment (O’Leary-Kelly, Paetzold, & Griffin,1995). Thus:

Proposition 1: The greater the number ofnegative polluting events perceived by the

Greenberg(1990) reportsthat perceptionsof unfairnesshave been foundwhen individualsbelieve theirtreatment did notachieve a level of“ethicalappropriateness”associated withtreating peoplewith civility anddignity.


individual, the stronger the potential fordysempowerment.

Severity. Events that are perceived as moresevere in their lack of respect or considerationwill have a stronger effect than minor affronts.For example, a manager’s behavior that is per-ceived by the recipient to be dishonest will bemore likely to produce a negative responsethan behavior that is merely tactless.Motowidlo, et al. (1986) observe that the moreintensely stressful the events are for an indi-vidual, the greater the level of subjective stress.Further, the sexual harassment literature re-ports that a more serious episode of sexualharassment, even if an isolated incident, maybe sufficient to create a hostile environment(O’Leary-Kelly, et al., 1995). In fact, certainnegative events, even in isolation, can be sosevere as to serve as “breakpoints” with thepotential to generate irreparable dysempower-ment. Thus:

Proposition 2: The greater the severity ofan isolated event perceived by the indi-vidual, the stronger the potential fordysempowerment.

Factors Related to the Receiver’s Expectationsand Norms

Norm of Reciprocal Consideration. An ex-pectation of fairness is grounded in an assump-tion of shared norms regarding principledbehavior such as respect and politeness(Greenberg, 1990; Hosmer, 1995). Further, abasic premise of procedural justice theory isthat fair treatment, including interpersonalconsideration, is a major determinant of atti-tudes and behaviors (Greenberg, 1993b;Korsgaard, Schweiger, & Sapienza, 1995; Tyler& Bies, 1990). For example, the employee whoexhibits this norm by consistently treating oth-ers with courtesy will be more likely to reactnegatively when treated discourteously in re-turn than an employee for whom this norm isless strongly felt and practiced. Thus:

Proposition 3: The stronger the receiver’sgeneralized norm of consideration forothers, the greater the expectancy forreciprocal consideration from others, andthe greater the potential for

dysempowerment when that norm isviolated.

Norm of Consistency over Time. Trust isan expectation that the other will perform ina manner valued by the trustor. A generalizedexpectancy of trust is an important determi-nant of behavior; the history of trust betweenindividuals leads to trust in the future, as wellas confidence in the trustee’s continuing good-will (Hosmer, 1995; Good, 1988). As Mayer,Davis, and Schoorman (1995) show, an unmetexpectation of trust leads to disappointmentand lack of cooperation; and the greater theprior commitment of trust, the greater the dis-appointment when it is broken (Brockner,Tyler, & Cooper-Schneider, 1992). For ex-ample, the employee who has developed along-standing relationship of shared respectand honesty with his or her manager will re-act particularly negatively if that same man-ager later acts with insincerity and disrespect.Thus:

Proposition 4: The stronger the history ofconsiderate interactions between theactors, the greater the potential fordysempowerment when the receiver’sexpectancy for continued consideratetreatment is unmet.

Norm of Consistency Across Individuals. In-dividuals compare their work experiences tothose of similar others. Equity theory (Adams,1965) and research in organizational justice(Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; Lind & Tyler,1988; Greenberg, 1990; 1993a) predict thatpeople who feel unfairly treated, especially whena comparison with similar others reveals incon-sistent application of standards (Levanthal,1980), will be more likely to exhibit negativeoutcomes than if all are treated similarly, evenif disrespectfully. For example, an employee whoexperiences disrespectful behavior from thegroup leader, while other group members aretreated with politeness and interest, is likely tofeel unfairly singled out for inconsiderate treat-ment suggestive of lower status within the group(Lind & Tyler, 1988). Thus:

Proposition 5: The greater the number orseverity of polluting events experienced bythe individual, when compared to

A generalizedexpectancy oftrust is animportantdeterminant ofbehavior; thehistory of trustbetweenindividuals leadsto trust in thefuture, as well asconfidence in thetrustee’scontinuinggoodwill.


similarly situated others, the greaterpotential for dysempowerment.

Other Individual Effects. Propositions 3through 5 imply that individuals differ from oneanother in their experiences, expectations, andnorms, and that these differences will affect thelikelihood of dysempowerment. We recognizethat other individual difference variables are alsoimportant in their potential to shape the likeli-hood of dysempowerment. For example, re-searchers have identified the following variablesas potential modifiers of individuals’ workplaceexperiences and perceptions: interpretive styles(Thomas & Velthouse, 1990), self-esteem (Con-ger & Kanungo, 1988; Ganster & Schaubroeck,1991; Motowidlo, et al., 1986), hardiness(Kosaba, Maddi, & Zola, 1983), need for inde-pendence and locus of control (Glew, etal., 1995), and differential sensitivity(Parasuraman & Alutto, 1984). Because of thecomplex nature of the effects of such individualdifferences, specific propositions regarding theirimpact on dysempowerment are beyond thescope of this article.

Vicarious Effects

The potential for vicarious dysempowermentis substantial because people learn from ob-servation as well as direct experience(Bandura, 1986). For example, an individualwho witnesses the disrespectful treatment ofa co-worker may also experience negative re-sponses to such an event, even though he/she is not the actual target of the treatment.The impact of observational learning is inten-sified when witnesses share a social identitywith the target because of the tendency tosympathize to a greater degree with the expe-riences of those with whom one shares sa-lient personal characteristics (Ashforth &Mael, 1989; Brewer & Miller, 1994; Tajfel &Turner, 1985) or with whom one shares a sa-lient work experience such as tokenism(Kanter, 1977). For example, a female em-ployee may witness disrespectful treatmentfrom the group leader to the only other fe-male group member. Although the first em-ployee was not the direct recipient of theleader’s disrespect, she may sufficiently iden-tify with the second woman as to also feel dis-respected. Thus:

Proposition 6: The more closely thewitness socially identifies with the targetof a negative event, the greater thepotential for dysempowerment of thewitness.

Integrating Dysempowermentand Empowerment

The Individual Level

We have argued that a more complete under-standing of the potential benefits of psycho-logical empowerment requires recognition ofthe potential coexistence of the process ofdysempowerment, which may impair empow-erment in several ways. Even though socialstructural factors may be in place that facili-tate empowerment (Spreitzer, 1996), pollut-ers in the form of perceived affronts to dignitymay intervene in the process before an indi-vidual has had a chance to become psycho-logically empowered. For example, socio-po-litical support based on mutual trust may ex-ist for an individual, but as suggested above,trust may become impaired by the process ofdysempowerment, thus blocking the condi-tions necessary for psychological empower-ment (Hosmer, 1995). Spreitzer (1996) alsofound that a participative climate can influ-ence psychological empowerment by signal-ing to an employee that his or her contribu-tion is worthwhile, thereby leading to the task-related cognition of impact or influence. Asnoted, research indicates that achieving a cog-nition of influence is difficult when a percep-tion of consideration is lacking caused by a“polluter” of disrespectful behavior targetedat the employee (Korsgaard, et al., 1995).

Dysempowerment may also interfere af-ter psychological empowerment has beenachieved but before its desired outcomes. Apolluter can drain the motivational energy thathas developed, thereby reducing the possibil-ity of such positive consequences as manage-rial effectiveness and innovation (Spreitzer,1995). For example, as several recent studieshave shown (see Table I), trust and a percep-tion of fairness are directly related to effec-tiveness and innovation. Trust is also relatedto outcomes of individual cooperation andgroup cohesiveness (Alexander & Ruderman,1987; Korsgaard, et al., 1995; Mayer, et al.,

A polluter candrain themotivationalenergy that hasdeveloped,thereby reducingthe possibility ofsuch positiveconsequences asmanagerialeffectiveness andinnovation.


1995), as well as to organizational commit-ment and involvement (Alexander &Ruderman, 1987; Eisenberger, Fasolo, &Davis-LaMastro, 1990; Korsgaard, et al.,1995). Because dysempowerment in the formof dishonesty, disrespect, or verbal abuse isbelieved to interfere with the development oftrust and the perception of fairness, it is simi-larly believed to interfere with the associatedoutcomes that overlap with the outcomes ofempowerment.

In this section we have proposed someexamples of the mechanisms through whichdysempowerment may interfere at specific dis-crete stages in the achievement and outcomesof psychological empowerment. In reality, weconsider dysempowerment to be a concurrentprocess that poses a continual threat before,during, and after the goal of task motivationthrough psychological empowerment.

The Organization Level

To this point, we have treated dysem-powerment as an individual-level phenom-enon. It is important to recognize thatdysempowerment can have collective effectsthat extend to the group, work unit, or organi-zation level. For example, negative attitudesand behaviors resulting from an individual’sdysempowerment may spread vicariously toothers in the group through “interpretive con-tagion” (Barley & Knight, 1992), generating aclimate of collective dysempowerment.Relatedly, others have suggested that empow-erment can have “contagious” or macro-leveleffects (Chiles & Zorn, 1995; Kirkman &Rosen, 1997).

Further, because we argue that dysem-powerment and empowerment can coexist, it ispossible to characterize climates of collectivedysempowerment and psychological empower-ment simultaneously. We use the con-ceptualization of organizational climatedelineated by Denison (1996) that encompassesboth observable organizational practices andprocedures (in this case, empowering organiza-tional characteristics and dysempoweringevents) and individual perceptions (in this case,task-related cognitions and affective responsesto dysempowering events). The typology shownin Figure 2 demonstrates the organizationalclimates that may result from the coexistence

of high and low degrees of dysempowering pol-luters and empowering energizers.

We acknowledge, of course, that degreesof empowerment and dysempowerment fall ona continuum, rather than forming two high-low dichotomies, and that not all individualsin the same organizational setting will be simi-larly affected by empowerment or dysem-powerment. Although the typology suggestsfour “ideal types” that are unlikely to exist inthe real world, it should facilitate the diagno-sis of prevailing organizational climates thatapproach these four types and may thus beuseful for potential managerial intervention.In addition, the typology may serve as a use-ful guide for identifying the type of organiza-tional climate best suited to variousorganizational activities and goals.

For example, Type A depicts an organiza-tion in which there is a relatively low level ofnegative events associated with dysem-powerment, but where there also may be littleeffort to promote psychological empowermentamong its workforce. On the dysempowermentdimension, we characterize this organizationas hospitable because there may be few, if any,instances of affronts to employees’ dignity. Atthe same time, on the empowerment dimen-sion, we characterize this organization as staticbecause of the low level of task motivationamong employees. These combined dimen-sions generate a hospitable-static climate—neither highly polluted, nor highly energized.Although this climate may be satisfactory forsome types of organizational activity, such asroutinized work, it would be inappropriate formany others because a sense of passivity, how-ever benign, may pervade the organization.

A more extreme example of a climate thatwould be inappropriate, indeed undesirable, formost organizations is that depicted in Type B,where there is minimal effort to treat employ-ees with respect and dignity, as well as little at-tention to employee empowerment. Thiscombination of high polluters and low energiz-ers yields an antagonistic-static climate that onemight encounter in an organization whose em-ployees feel exploited. Although it is difficult toenvision an organization intentionally fosteringsuch a climate, a diagnosis of the relativedysempowerment-empowerment levels may re-veal a picture for some organizations that is re-alistically closer to Type B than to the others.


Type C depicts a climate that may appear,at first, anomalous; that is, an organization inwhich both high polluters and high energiz-ers coexist in a climate that is simultaneouslydynamic and antagonistic. However, this cli-mate may be found in some high-pressure salesorganizations, which may offer high levels ofempowerment in the form of intrinsic taskmotivation; at the same time, it is not uncom-mon for the competitive work environment ofsuch organizations to be associated with fre-quent events that affront one’s dignity.

The organizational climate in Type D sug-gests a setting in which employees experiencelow levels of dysempowerment, combined withhigh levels of empowerment. This hospitable-dynamic climate represents the idealized goalof much of the prescriptive teachings of organi-zational behavior, where organizations aspire tocultivate employees with high levels of intrinsictask motivation, coupled with perceptions thatthey are treated with dignity and respect.

Contributions and Implications

This work integrates research from severaldomains in an effort to examine the negativeimpact of workplace events on individuals. Inparticular, we have drawn on important con-tributions from research on organizationaltrust, procedural justice, and stress in devel-

oping a conceptual framework for understand-ing dysempowerment. These insights previ-ously have been reported only in incidentaland isolated ways.

In addition, we have demonstrated howdysempowerment relates to recent conceptualand empirical work on psychological empow-erment. We have argued that the affectivecomponents that serve to connect managerialpractices with the cognitions and outcomesof empowerment previously have received in-adequate attention. Our work on dysem-powerment makes explicit such an affectivecomponent.

Further, we have extended the relation-ship between dysempowerment and empow-erment to the organizational level through atypology of organizational climates that canserve diagnostic and prescriptive purposes byenabling predictions about the consequencesof organizational climate on individual moti-vation (Litwin & Stringer, 1968).

Directions for Future Research

Below, we outline the multi-stage, multi-levelempirical effort required to assess the predic-tive capability of the theory of dysem-powerment proposed herein.

Testing the Dysempowerment ProcessModel. The dysempowerment process is based

This workintegratesresearch fromseveral domainsin an effort toexamine thenegative impactof workplaceevents onindividuals.

FIGURE 2. A typology of organizational climate.

DysempoweringPolluters

Low High

Low

High

Type A

HospitableStatic

Type D

HospitableDynamic

Type B

AntagonisticStatic

Type C

AntagonisticDynamic

Empowering Energizers


on a fundamental assumption: that workevents perceived as an affront to one’s dignitywill have negative consequences for the indi-vidual and his or her work-related attitudesand behavior. This assumption is constitutedfrom observations in several domains, andempirical research is needed to confirm thisassumption within the context of thedysempowerment model. Empirical studieswill also enable specification of the relativeinfluence of characteristics of the event interms of volume and severity, as well as thefactors related to individual expectations andnorms, and those related to vicarious effects.

Various manifestations of negative affectalso require specification. Previous studiesreviewed herein suggest such responses topolluting events as distrust, lack of commit-ment, fearfulness, anger, and hostility. Futureresearch will help to determine whether someof these affective responses are stronger thanothers in their potential to interfere with in-trinsic task motivation; whether they operatein an additive manner; and whether they forma multi-variate construct, similar to the con-struct of four cognitions found to constitutepsychological empowerment.

Finally, although the model is character-ized as unidirectional, the potential for out-comes to be altered through various forms offeedback needs further exploration. We havesuggested above that one effect of feedbackmay be to intensify dysempowerment throughan increasingly destructive interaction processbetween a manager and an employee. On theother hand, some forms of feedback may re-duce the potential for ongoing dysem-powerment. Future research is needed toexplore the complex dynamics suggested byvarious feedback.

Testing Dysempowerment’s Effects on Psy-chological Empowerment. Dysempowermenthas been conceptualized as a process that in-terferes with the achievement of the four cog-nitions of psychological empowerment and/orwith its outcomes. The empirical study of psy-chological empowerment is in its early stages.Spreitzer’s recent work (1995; 1996) providesimportant insights and offers directions forfuture research, yet she notes that the cur-rent state of empirical research has not delin-eated the precise mechanism through whichvarious organizational characteristics affect

each of the four cognitions constituting theconstruct of empowerment. This somewhatconstrains our efforts to propose precise waysin which dysempowerment affects empower-ment. We have offered some speculation aboutthe mechanisms of interruption in the empow-erment process (i.e., through disruptions inthe development of trust and commitment,and subsequent disruptions in outcomes ofeffectiveness, innovation, and cooperation),but we recognize that additional mechanismsalso are likely to be involved.

Models of dysempowerment and psycho-logical empowerment are based on subjectiveperceptions and responses to work events(dysempowerment) or subjective cognitions oftask-related phenomena (empowerment).Hence, there is little question that many indi-vidual difference variables will affect the pro-cesses and outcomes in both models. Althoughno predictions have been made herein regard-ing the complex influence of these individualdifferences in either the dysempowermentmodel or the application of dysempowermentto the psychological empowerment model,future researchers may wish to explore theseimportant issues.

Testing the Typology of Organizational Cli-mate. A typology has been introduced to char-acterize the organizational climates that resultfrom various combinations of the pollutersof dysempowerment and the energizers of em-powerment. This typology illustrates the po-tential for collective dysempowerment andempowerment that can characterize an en-tire work unit or organization. The next stepin order to assess the diagnostic usefulnessof this conceptualization is the specification,measurement, and testing of collectivedysempowerment and empowerment as or-ganization-level phenomena. For example,what proportion of the work force is neces-sary to feel the effects of dysempowermentin order for the overall climate to be charac-terized as antagonistic? Is it necessary for amajority of employees to experiencedysempowerment, or is the strength ofdysempowerment sufficient that a fewdysempowered employees can pollute theentire organizational climate? Further, towhat extent can vicarious dysempowermentof individuals become a collective phenom-enon? Similar questions relating to collective

This typologyillustrates thepotential forcollectivedysempowermentandempowermentthat cancharacterize anentire work unitor organization.


empowerment also are important to pursue.

Implications for Human Resources

Many practitioners may protest that they arewell aware that the interpersonal effectivenessof individual managers is important to anorganization’s functioning, and will offer evi-dence that they have provided their managerswith interpersonal skills training. Yet, it does notappear that organizations have explicitly incor-porated an understanding of the dynamics ofdysempowerment into their efforts at empow-ering their employees. We conclude this be-cause, while organizations continue to embracethe notion of empowerment, reports from busi-ness also indicate an ambivalence on the partof employees (Rothstein, 1995; Russ, 1995).Our theory suggests that part of the problemresults from a lack of recognition of the poten-tial of negative events that pollute the empow-ering process. Thus, even the most aggressiveorganizational efforts to enhance empowermentmay be compromised in the presence of pollut-ing events. Indeed, dysempowerment may func-tion as a drop of poison in the glass of nectar;one or two drops has the ability to poison theentire glass—whether in an individual or in theentire organization.

Once organizations recognize the poten-tial of dysempowerment to pollute or poisonotherwise ambitious efforts to produce em-powerment, their leaders may decide to inves-tigate the presence of polluters in advance offormal attempts to promote the intrinsic taskmotivation of empowerment, as well as to re-main alert to the ongoing potential damage ofpolluting events. Although an intervention

(e.g., “politeness” training for managers) maybe vital to the organization’s health, it also mayprove to be the most challenging to accom-plish, because it may require substantivechanges in employee and managerial behav-iors and, ultimately, a fundamental change inthe organizational culture.

Conclusion

We began by observing that, despite the popu-larity of empowerment programs in business,scientific evidence supporting the value of suchefforts remains in question. We have presentedthe concept of dysempowerment as a partialexplanation for the inconclusive results of em-powerment studies. In particular, we have sug-gested that work events that imply a lack of con-sideration or respect for one’s dignity can trig-ger a process of dysempowerment, which canimpair the task motivation of empowerment.

To develop the concept of dysempower-ment, we first presented the theoreticalmechanisms of dysempowerment and identi-fied factors that may intensify the potentialfor dysempowerment. Next, we discussed therelationship of the dysempowerment processto the construct of psychological empower-ment, at both the individual and the organiza-tion level, and argued that dysempowermentand empowerment can coexist. We illustratedthis with a typology depicting combinationsof collective dysempowerment and empower-ment characterizing various organizational cli-mates. Finally, we discussed implications ofthe dysempowerment model for theory andpractice, and identified areas in which furtherresearch and intervention are needed.


REFERENCES

Abelson, R.P. (1985). A variance explained paradox:When a little is a lot. Psychological Bulletin, 97,129-133.

Abramson, L.Y., Seligman, M.E.P., & Teasdale, J.D.(1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Cri-tique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psy-chology, 87, 19-74.

Adams, J.S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. InL. Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in experimental so-cial psychology (vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York:Academic Press.

Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role ofprocedural and distributive justice in organiza-tional behavior. Social Justice Research, 1, 117-198.

Andrews, G. (1994). Mistrust, the hidden obstacle toempowerment. Human Resources Magazine,39(9), 66-70.

Ashforth, B., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theoryand the organization. Academy of ManagementReview, 14, 20-39.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought andaction, A social cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs,NJ. Prentice-Hall.

Barley, S.R., & Knight, D.B. (1992). Toward a cul-tural theory of stress complaints. In B. Staw &L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizationalbehavior (vol. 14, pp. 1-48). Greenwich, CT: JAIPress.

Bies, R.J., & Moag, J.S. (1986). Interactional justice:Communications criteria of fairness. In R.Lewicki, M. Bazerman, & B. Sheppard (Eds.),Research on negotiation in organizations (vol. 1,pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Blauner, R. (1964). Alienation and freedom, The fac-

tory worker and his industry. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.

Brewer, M.B., & Miller, N. (1994). Beyond the con-tact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on de-segregation. In N. Miller & M.B. Brewer (Eds.),Groups in contact (pp. 281-302). San Diego, CA:Academic Press.

Brockner, J., Tyler, T.R., & Cooper-Schneider, R.(1992). The influence of prior commitment onreactions to perceived unfairness: The higher theyare, the harder they fall. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 37, 241-261.

Chiles, A. M., & Zorn, T. E. (1995). Empowermentin organizations: Employees’ perceptions of theinfluence of empowerment. Journal of AppliedCommunication Research, 23, 1-25.

Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. (1988). The empowermentprocess: Integrating theory and practice. Acad-emy of Management Review, 13, 471-482.

Denison, D.R. (1996). What is the difference betweenorganizational culture and organizational cli-mate? A native’s point of view on a decade ofparadigm wars. Academy of Management Review,21, 619-654.

Dover, K., & Kofodimos, J. (1994). We’re being givenempowerment but fear is still our workmate. Jour-nal for Quality & Participation. 17(7) 12-18.

Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V.(1990). Perceived organizational support and em-ployee diligence, commitment, and innovation.Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 51-59.

Ford, R. C., & Fottler, M. D. (1995). Empowerment:A matter of degree. Academy of Management Ex-ecutive, 9, 21-29.

Ganster, D. C., & Schaubroeck, J. (1991). Work stress

KATHLEEN KANE, Ph.D., is an associate professor of management at the McLaren Schoolof Business, University of San Francisco. She teaches courses in leadership, manage-ment, and cross-cultural awareness. Besides her work in the area of dysempowerment,Kathy’s research interests include Chinese management practices, organizational prac-tices of traditional societies as tools for change in modern organizations, and feminineapproaches to consulting. She has consulted with both for-profit and not-for-profitorganizations in the areas of organizational culture, vision and values, workplace em-powerment, self-organizing systems, and diversity. She is currently interested in pro-moting integration of people with disabilities into the mainstream workforce throughboth her research and consulting.

KATHLEEN MONTGOMERY is a faculty member in the Anderson Graduate School of Man-agement at the University of California, Riverside. She received her Ph.D. in sociologyfrom New York University. Among her current research projects is a study of the dynam-ics of the trust relationship between physician executives and lay executives in man-aged health care, with particular emphasis on the way this relationship influencesstrategic decision-making. Her publications have appeared in Organization Studies, LaborLaw Journal, Current Research on Occupations and Professions, Health Services Re-search, the Academy of Management's Best Papers Proceedings, and elsewhere.


and employee health. Journal of Management, 17,235-271.

Glew, D.J., O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Griffin, R.W., & VanFleet, D.D. (1995). Participation in organizations:A preview of the issues and proposed frameworkfor future analysis. Journal of Management, 21,395-421.

Good, D. (1988). Individuals, interpersonal relations,and trust. In D.G. Gambetta (Ed.),Trust, Mak-ing and breaking cooperative relations: (pp. 131-185). New York: Basil Blackwell.

Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yester-day, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management,16, 399-432.

Greenberg, J. (1993a). Stealing in the name of jus-tice: Informational and interpersonal modera-tors of theft reactions to underpayment inequity.Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 54, 81-103.

Greenberg, J. (1993b). The social side of fairness. InR. Cropanzano (ed.), Justice in the workplace, Ap-proaching fairness in human resource management(pp. 79-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Hosmer, L.T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link be-tween organizational theory and philosophicalethics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 379-403.

Kanter, R.M. (1977). Men and women of the corpora-tion. New York: Basic Books.

Kidwell, R.E. Jr., & Bennett, N. (1995). Employeepropensity to withhold effort: A conceptual modelto intersect three avenues of research. Academyof Management Review, 18, 429-456.

Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1997). A model of workteam empowerment. In R. Woodman & W.Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizationalchange and development, (vol. 10, pp. 131-167).Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Korsgaard, A.A., Schweiger, D.M., & Sapienza, H.J.(1995). Building commitment, attachment, andtrust in strategic decision-making teams: The roleof procedural justice. Academy of ManagementJournal, 38, 60-84.

Kosaba, S.C., Maddi, S.R., & Zola, M.A. (1983). TypeA and hardiness. Journal of Behavioral Medicine,6, 41-51.

Lawler, E.E., III., Mohrman, S.A., & Ledford, G.E.(1995). Creating high performance organizations,Practices and results of employee involvement andtotal quality management in Fortune 1000 com-panies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ledford, G.E., & Lawler, E.E., III. (1994). Researchon employee participation: Beating a dead horse?Academy of Management Journal, 19, 633-636.

Levanthal, G.S. (1980). What should be done withequity theory? In K.J. Gergen, M.S. Greenberg,& R.H. Willis (eds.), Social exchange, Advancesin theory and research: 27-55. New York: Ple-num Press.

Lind, E.A., & Tyler, T.R. (1988). The social psychol-ogy of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.

Litwin, G., & Stringer, R. (1968). Motivation and or-ganizational climate. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Mayer R.C., Davis, J.H., & Schoorman, F.D. (1995).An integrative model of organizational trust.Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.

Motowidlo, S.J., Packard, J.S., & Manning, M.R.(1986). Occupational stress: Its causes and con-sequences for job performance. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 71, 618-629.

O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Griffin, R.W., & Glew, D.J.(1996). Organization-motivated aggression: Aresearch framework. Academy of ManagementReview, 21, 225-253.

O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Paetzold, R.L., Griffin, R.W.(1995). Sexual harassment as aggressive action:A framework for understanding sexual harass-ment. Best Papers Proceedings, Academy of Man-agement, 453-457.

Parasuraman, S., & Alutto, J.A. (1984). Sources andoutcomes of stress in organizational settings: To-ward the development of a structural model.Academy of Management Journal, 27, 330-350.

Randolph, W. A. (1995). Navigating the journey toempowerment. Organizational Dynamics, Spring,19-32.

Robinson, S., & Bennett, R.J. (1995). A typology ofdeviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensionalscaling study. Academy of Management Journal,38, 555-572.

Rothstein, L.R. (1995). The empowerment effort thatcame undone. Harvard Business Review, January/Febraury, 20-31.

Russ, D.E. (1995). Executive commentary on empow-erment: A matter of degree. Academy of Manage-ment Executive, 9, 29-30.

Spreitzer, G.M. (1995). Psychological empowermentin the workplace: Dimensions, measurement,and validation. Academy of Management Journal,38, 1442-1465.

Spreitzer, G.M. (1996). Social structural characteris-tics of psychological empowerment. Academy ofManagement Journal, 39, 483-504.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1985). The social identitytheory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel &W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup behav-ior (2d ed., pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Thomas, K., & Velthouse, B. (1990). Cognitive ele-ments of empowerment: An “interpretive” modelof interpretive task motivation. Academy of Man-agement Review, 15, 666-681.

Tjosvold, D. (1987). Participation: A close look at itsdynamics. Journal of Management, 13, 739-750.

Tyler, R.T., & Bies, R.J. (1990). Beyond formal pro-cedures: The interpersonal context of proceduraljustice. In J. Carroll (Ed.), Advances in appliedsocial psychology, Business settings (pp. 77-98).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.


ENDNOTE

1. This is a fully collaborative work; authors’ names appear alphabetically. An earlier version of this articlewas presented at the 1996 Western Academy of Management annual meeting and received the Best PaperAward. We thank many WAM participants who made valuable suggestions for revision, including SusanCohen, Robert Eder, Regina Eisenbach, Steven Havlovic, Lisa Pelled, Patricia Seybolt, Gretchen Spreitzer,and Judith White. We are grateful for the thoughtful comments on previous drafts from our colleaguesNanette Fondas, John Haleblian, Janice Jackson, Amalya Oliver, Susan Schor, Joseph Seltzer, and DayleSmith. The authors also express their appreciation for the research support provided by grants from theUniversity of San Francisco and the University of California, Riverside, Center for Ideas and Society.Finally, and most important, we are indebted to Charles Vance for insightful observations from which thiswork has greatly benefited.

Weiss, H.M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affectiveevents theory. In B. Staw & L.L. Cummings

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (vol.18, 1-74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Documents

A framework for understanding dysempowerment in organizations