Employee empowerment: factors affecting the consequent success or failure – Part I
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to uncover and synthesise the main factors that affects and determines the success or failure of empowerment initiatives from a macro and micro perspective. Design/methodology/approach – A thorough review of scholarly articles and empirical evidence was conducted on the topic of empowerment in order to bring to light the correlation between the different factors affecting structural empowerment, psychological empowerment and the effect of leadership style. Findings – It has been determined that a team based structure and a culture based on trust and open communication are the key factors affecting the successful implementation of empowerment. Furthermore, although, many positive points can be made for transformational leadership, transactional leadership cannot be discounted as the research shows that the right combination of incentives and rewards, coupled with a certain organisational culture can breed empowerment among certain types of employees. Research limitations/implications – Going forward in terms of research on the increasingly popular concept of empowerment, it is believed that a more fully integrated model should be developed. Although some models do incorporate analysis of various macro and micro variables a more comprehensive and encompassing model would prove useful. Such a model would allow for a far more in-depth understanding of empowerment and its defining factors and would provide an invaluable tool to organisations wishing to implement empowerment in the most optimal way. Practical implications – In applying a combination of theories on empowerment, leadership and individuals as part of an organisation, the authors posit that empowerment initiatives are predisposed to either success or failure. In order for empowerment to permeate the corporate culture and prove successful, the predispositions of decentralised management and personal ambition are strong factors of success. Social implications – The authors postulate that the deciding factors regarding the success or failure of empowering an employee originate from the employees themselves. Even though employees can adopt new corporate cultures and be transformed by their leaders, their core traits remain the same and will have a decisive impact on the eventual success or failure of empowerment initiatives. Originality/value – Going forward in terms of research on the increasingly popular concept of empowerment, it is believed that a more fully integrated model should be developed. Although some models do incorporate analysis of various macro and micro variables, a more comprehensive and encompassing model would prove useful.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".