This symposium attempts to further our understanding of empowerment. In particular we investigate the impact of different contexts. Wagman empirically investigates empowerment in teams. Mishra and Spreitzer provide a theoretical framework clarifying how to maintain empowerment and trust during downsizing. Jansen and Thomas suggest how to create appropriate organizational contexts using the organizations specific reward system. Eylon and Au clarify how empowerment can have different impacts depending on a person's power distance background and Ferris looks at the cultural context of Eastern Europe.

In the past few years significant work has been done in the area of work empowerment, with most of it focusing on construct development. Conger and Kanungo (1988), followed by Thomas and Velthouse (1991), made significant strides in defining and clarifying the term. In addition, a measurement instrument has also been recently developed (Spreitzer, 1995). It is now time to move forward and learn how to implement empowerment. To do so, we need a better understanding of the contextual circumstances within which empowerment is likely to flourish, as well as those factors that may detract from successful implementation of empowerment.

A theoretical understanding of the construct is not sufficient for successful incorporation and enhancement of empowerment processes within organizations. Previous work (Conger & Kanungo, 1988: Sprietzer, in press) has already identified some key contextual components which need to be considered within organizations in order to effectively implement empowerment. This symposium comes in response to our understanding that empowerment may not be the same in all situations or for all employees. In other words, the environment within which empowerment is investigated or implemented is critical. In this symposium we present some of the key issues that need to be investigated in the context of empowerment implementation. We identify in what contexts can we expect empowerment to be most successful and we address how to effectively implement empowerment.

In our search for finding the contexts in which empowerment implementation will be most effective, the panelists of this symposium present empirical studies which utilize a wide range of methodologies including surveys (Ferris), interviews (Wagman), simulations (Eylon & Au) as well as theoretical discussion and development (Jansen & Thomas; Mishra & Spreitzer). As a set, these papers focus on contextual issues which include some form of a structural component such as reward systems (Jansen & Thomas), team design (Wagman), work redesign (Mishra & Spreitzer) and industry and cultural infrastructures (Ferris and Eylon & Au). In doing so, each of the papers strives to increase our understanding of how empowerment is related to other managerial concepts. Further, in line with this year's conference theme, learning from unusual organizational events, we look at empowerment within, what some may consider, unusual circumstances. Circumstances in which empowerment may not be expected to occur or be valued, such as in the military (Jansen & Thomas), during downsizing (Mishra & Spreitzer) in Eastern Europe (Ferris), and for those with a high power distance background (Eylon & Au). By studying the unusual we learn both how to manage in these particular situations as well as how to prepare for the future where these occurrences will be more prevalent. Events such as downsizing and managing in new cultural contexts are occurring with increasing frequency (Cascio, 1993; Anderson, 1993) thereby increasing the need for further investigation in these areas.

One of the key goals of this symposium is to encourage researchers interested in the area of empowerment to work alongside one another to ensure that their work supports the goal of furthering rigorous, yet applicable, research. Working more closely together allows researcher to build on each others' endeavors rather than working in parallel. To encourage this cooperation and in support of the Academy's call for innovative symposia we propose a more integrative format. We will begin with very brief presentations (10 minutes) followed by several discussion questions/topics on the issues described above. Together with the audience the presenters will investigate these themes while elaborating on their own research. In other words, the participants will set the stage by sharing some of their findings but will then quickly move on to create a dialog between themselves and the audience. Ferris will act as a facilitator of this process. Because of this format, a two hour block would be preferred.

Wagman, our first presenter empirically investigates empowerment in teams. She examines both the impact of team leaders' behavior as well as the initial team design on empowerment. The results of her 34 team study suggests that despite the significant role leaders are assumed to have in the context of empowerment (Manz & Sims, 1984; 1987), team design has much stronger effects than leader behavior. Moreover, the effect of leader behavior is dependent on the degree to which the team is well-designed. Thus, to empower work teams we need leaders who focus first on creating the appropriate context and only then on daily interactions.

Our second presenters, Mishra and Spreitzer, also suggest that creating the appropriate setting is critical for empowerment. These authors provide us with a theoretical framework of how empowerment relates to trust and downsizing. In this framework they describe and explain how empowerment and trust can be maintained, even in the context of downsizing. Their work identifies how to mitigate the negative impact of downsizing on empowerment and trust by providing implementation suggestions which include justice perceptions and, similar to Wagman, work redesign.

Clearly, as suggest by both Wagman and, Mishra and Spreitzer, creating the appropriate organizational context is crucial. However, how can an organization achieve and support such settings? Jansen and Thomas suggest that this can be done using the organization's reward system. Using the example of the military, they develop a framework explaining how organizations can reward self-management. In their framework they elaborate on the relationship between empowerment and different reward systems, emphasizing how these reward systems can develop and support empowerment.

Our last two presentations by Eylon and Au, and Ferris, focus more on the macro context: cultural differences which impact and interact with empowerment. Eylon and Au present a controlled empirical investigation in which they examine whether or not employees from high or low power distance cultures (Hofstede, 1980) differ in their satisfaction and work performance when in empowering or disempowering situations. They find both similarities (in satisfaction) and differences (in performance) along the power distance dimension.

Ferris looks at cultural context in the realm of Eastern Europe. Utilizing several methodologies he finds, similar to Eylon and Au, that empowerment does not have the same impact everywhere. In addition, his findings directly supports Jansen and Thomas' claim regarding the importance of reward systems as well as Wagman's, and Mishra and Spreitzer's assertation regarding team design and work redesign.

As noted earlier, it is time to move empowerment research forward. This symposium attempts to do so in a collaborative fashion by sharing the presenters' findings but also by involving the audience in an active dialog. This dialog will both clarify directions for future research as well as identify key implementation issues that can be shared with interested human resource, organizational development practitioners as well as with executives involved in deciding on and supporting empowerment programs. Specific topics for discussion will include issues such as identifying further relevant contexts which need to be investigated as well as additional organizational methods to support and enhance empowerment programs. To support our unusual format we will prepare a web page on the World Wide Web on which our papers will be posted prior to the academy. In addition, we will include several discussion themes which we hope will instigate discussion prior to our session. We will then incorporate the topics and themes introduced and developed in this virtual dialog.

"Empowered work teams" -- or self-managing teams -- have been examined extensively in the organizational literature. These treatments tend to focus on the effects of self-management on outcomes such as team performance and member satisfaction (e.g., Cohen & Ledford, 1994; Cummings & Griggs, 1977; Jackson, Mullarkey, & Parker, 1994; and others). This focus on what makes great empowered team outcomes has led researchers to overlook a prior question: what leads team members to behave as if empowered in the first place? The purpose of this paper is to identify the organizational conditions that most powerfully influence such behavior.

The term "empowerment" has been used to convey a wide variety of meanings, from the mere absence of a formal manager to active front-line participation in decisions about selection, rewards, or promotion. Uses of the term have thus mixed structural definitions -- (e.g., the absence of formal managers) -- with behavioral definitions (e.g., participation in managerial decisions). Both behavioral and structural dimensions are relevant in this research, but in different ways. A structural definition is used to establish the kinds of teams investigated here -- specifically, teams are "empowered" or self-managing to the extent that they have authority that traditionally belongs to managers, including deciding how the work gets done, monitoring performance, and being ultimately accountable for work outcomes. All the teams studied here have such authority. Because this research addresses influences on the degree to which teams behave in self-managing fashion, the actual behavior of team members is the dependent variable. Specifically, this research examines influences on the degree to which teams actually take responsibility for their own performance, monitor their performance, and develop their own performance strategies.

This research explores the separate and joint effects of two critical sets of influences on work team behavior: (1) the behavior of the front-line manager in interaction with the team, and (2) the design and context of the team itself.

Many researchers have suggested that front-line managers -- the teams' leaders -- can behave in ways that facilitate or undermine the degree to which teams take on authority for their work. Manz & Sims (1984; 1987), for example, described differences in how leaders should behave in leading empowered vs. Manager-directed teams. Drawing on the views of both team leaders and team members, they identified a set of leader behaviors that they posit as critical to team self-management, including coaching a team to solve its own problems, providing positive feedback, and providing consultation into the team's process. Arguments about why these kinds of leader behaviors matter vary (see, for example, Barry 1991). However, one theme is pervasive: Supportive (vs. directive) leader behavior is seen as influencing the degree of engagement team members feel in solving their own problems, the amount of creativity they bring to bear in solving team problems, and the kinds of attributions the teams make about who is responsible for its performance. Leader behavior is thus expected to enhance the degree to which the team takes on authority for its own work to the extent that leaders enhance team members' (1) motivation to do so (2) ability to self-manage, and (3) perceived control over the work.

Team design. Some scholars identify features of team design as important determinants of team behavior and performance. For example, Hackman(1987) identified sets of conditions that are essential for team effectiveness. Other scholars have studies some subset of these design conditions (e.g., Manz and Sims, 1989; and Cohen, 1993). There thus exists overlap in the design features identified by scholars as critical to team effectiveness. For purposes of this paper, I will use Hackman's conditions as the basic model for well-designed teams. Thus a team will be considered well-designed to the extent that the team has a clear and engaging direction, an appropriate structure (including motivating and interdependent task design, appropriate composition, and core norms that promote strategizing), and a supportive organizational context (including rewards for team performance, adequate training and material resources, and the information necessary to manage the work).

The same processes posited to mediate the effects of leader behavior on team empowered behavior -- motivation and ability to self-manage, and perceived control -- also may be influenced by the design of the team itself (Hackman & Morris, 1975). To the extent that design conditions -- such as a clear direction, a well-designed task, or information provided to the team rather than to the manager--enhance the team's motivation, abilities, and experience of control over the work, those conditions will increase the team's level of self-management. Similarly, leader behavior that enhances these processes -- e.g., providing rewards for self-management, sending signals that the team has control--will increase team self-management. By contrast, leader behavior that causes the group to attribute control to the manager rather than to the team -- such as managing the work for the team -- will undermine team self-management. In sum, features of team design and leader behavior are predicted to jointly influence members' motivation and ability to self-manage, and their experienced control over their work. These processes, in turn, lead to enhanced levels of empowered behavior.

Thirty-four font-line task-performing teams in a large corporation participated in the research. Researchers spent at least two hours with each team and its leader, conducting a structured interview designed to elicit collective descriptions of organizational features, team structure, events in the team's life, and typical daily interactions with their managers. Team members also completed a 108-item survey that assessed such variables as design conditions, quality of group interaction processes, perceived control, and member satisfaction with the team and its work.

Leader Behavior. Leader behavior was coded from several questions asked in interviews both with the team and with the team leader. Each behavior was coded (by two separate coders, interrater reliability = .94) for frequency -- low, moderate, or high -- for each team leader, based both on team and manager descriptions of how often that behavior occurred. The behaviors used in the analysis included: 1. Providing rewards and other cues that the group is responsible for managing itself (e.g., rewarding the group for solving a problem); 2. Broadening the group's repertoire of problem-solving skills through appropriate problem-solving consultation (e.g., teaching the group to use a problem-solving process; facilitating problem-solving discussions without imposing the leader's view of a solution); and six others.

Team Design. The team design conditions were coded dichotomously -- for each team, they were considered to be either in place or not. I took multiple measures of all basic design and contextual features of the teams -- through the group interview, the manager interview, and the survey -- to increase the chances of getting valid measures of each item. Two independent coders coded each condition, including clarity of direction, task interdependence, compositional diversity, specific goals, team size, team stability, breadth of authority, core norms, reward interdependence, information availability, availability of material resources, and educational resources. Interrater reliabilities on variables coded from interviews ranged from .82 to .94. (In the interests of brevity, I do not provide here the criteria for coding each of the twelve design features). Overall quality of team design was calculated using a simple additive function, making no a priori assumptions about which design features were most important. Quality of design thus equals the total number of design conditions in place for the team, and varied from 0 to 12.

Team Behavior. All questions in the group interview were coded for indicators of the degree to which each group was self-managing. Three signs of self-management were assessed: (1) the degree to which groups take collective responsibility for the outcomes of their work: (2) the degree to which the group monitors its own performance, actively seeking feedback and data; and (3) the degree to which the group manages its own performance, altering performance strategies as necessary. Each group was coded as high, moderate, or low on each of these three signs. Scores on the three behavioral signs were also additively combined to produce one overall measure of self-management. Interrater reliabilities for the three separate signs were .94, .95, and .92, respectively.

Mediating processes. The three process measures -- motivation and ability to self-manage, and perceived control -- were all assessed via multi-item survey scales (Cronbach's alpha of .87 or better). Team members responded on 7-point Likert-type scales (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Three items assessed internal work motivation (e.g., "We feel a great sense of personal satisfaction when I do this job well"; Allmendinger et al., 1992); four assessed ability to self-manage (e.g., "We believe we can solve work problems that the team encounters") and four assessed perceived control (e.g., "We rarely get to make the important decisions about how our work gets done"; reverse-scored).

Discussion of this research will focus on two key points: (1) Cognitive and motivational processes essential to empowered behavior. Motivation and ability to self-manage, and perceived control were all significantly positively related to teams' overall level of empowered behavior. Quality of team design influenced all of these, and different leader behaviors influenced different processes: e.g., leader cues and rewards were significantly positively related to motivation to self-manage, while leader task interventions were significantly negatively related to team members' perceived control. Finally, motivation and ability to self-manage, and perceived control did mediate the relationship between team design and leader behavior, and empowered work behavior.

(2) The implications of this research for leadership of empowered teams. Findings showed that both leader behavior and quality of design were related to teach behavior; however, design had much stronger effects than did leader behavior. Moreover, the effect of leader behavior depended on the degree to which the team was well-designed. Thus, eliciting genuine empowered behavior from work teams calls for leadership that is focused first on building the appropriate context, and only secondarily on altering the style of one's day-to-day interactions with the team.

The relevance of the command and control organizational systems dominant in previous decades is being questioned in today's contemporary business environment characterized by rapid change due to regulatory transitions, innovative technology, and globalization (Daft & Lewin, 1993). Success in contemporary organizations depends on management's ability to involve employees through high levels of employee trust and empowerment (Daft & Lewin, 1993); trust is critical for creating cooperative behavior among employees (Mishra, 1996) and empowerment is a prerequisite for employee risk taking and proactivity (Spreitzer, 1995).

At the same time, a parallel trend focused on the downsizing of the organization's human resources has emerged. Such downsizing efforts are expected to continue, particularly in industries undergoing significant consolidation, such as aerospace, banking, and communications (Zachary, 1995). The irony is that these downsizing activities are decimating the very employee trust and empowerment believed to be essential in today's business environment. Downsizing activity appears to be on a collision course with two employee attributes believed to be critical for organizational success -- employee trust and empowerment. Downsizing typically violates employee trust in management to act dependably and honestly with regard to the welfare of all organizational stakeholders (Mishra & Mishra, 1994). Likewise, downsizing impedes employee empowerment by taking away employees' feelings of personal control over their work environment. Hence, we do not find it surprising that research has found that the majority of downsizing efforts fail to improve organizational effectiveness (Cascio, 1993).

In our presentation, we will present a theoretical framework which extends prior work on survivor responses to downsizing by integrating theory and research on trust and empowerment. The framework makes explicit a set of managerial processes which mitigate the inherent trust-reducing and disempowering affects of downsizing. In this way, the theoretical framework attacks the assumption that trust and empowerment must suffer during downsizing activity.

Prior research has examined the effects of downsizing on survivors ( i.e., those who remain after a layoff event). Some research has examined the relationship between survivor characteristics such as prior level of organizational commitment and outcomes such as turnover intention (Brockner, Tyler, & Cooper-Schneider, 1992) and good citizenship (Bies, Martin, & Brockner, 1993). Other research has examined the effect of specific downsizing processes such as the fairness of the layoff process on individual outcomes of the downsizing (Brockner et al., 1992). Some recent research has begun to examine the interaction between survivor attributes and downsizing processes (Brockner, Grover, O'Malley, Reed, & Glynn, 1993).

Unfortunately, much of this research has been fragmented, looking at only a one or two variables at a time and not being guided by an overarching theoretical framework. While previous theory has focused on which variables influence survivor responses to downsizing (Brockner & Greenberg, 1990), it has focused less attention on how certain variables influence such outcomes. In the theoretical framework proposed in this presentation, we begin to address the how by making explicit the psychological responses which mediate the downsizing process. The framework extends previous work on downsizing by integrating recent theoretical and empirical work on trust (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995; McAllister, 1995; Mishra, 1996) and empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995).

The constructs of trust and empowerment hold significant potential for informing our understanding of individuals' reactions to threatening events such as downsizing. Trust has been argued to mediate the relationship between survivors' assessments of how downsizing events are managed and individual outcomes (Siegel, Brockner, & Tyler, 1995). Empowerment enhances an individual's sense of control over threatening events (Sutton & Kahn, 1986) and therefore is expected to lead to more favorable responses to a downsizing event. The roles of trust and empowerment in the downsizing process are further discussed in the theoretical framework described below.

The theoretical framework guiding this research has four elements: personal attributes of survivors prior to the downsizing, actions used to implement the downsizing event, psychological responses to the downsizing event (i.e., trust and empowerment), and individual outcomes of the downsizing event (see Figure 1). Survivors' personal attributes prior to the downsizing and their perceptions of the actions used to implement the downsizing activity (as well as their interaction) shape their psychological responses to a downsizing event. Survivors' psychological responses, in turn, influence the ultimate outcomes of the downsizing event. Each of the four elements is described in more detail below.

Several attributes are expected to influence key psychological responses. Specifically, prior levels of commitment, organizational tenure, and identification with downsizing victims are argued to influence employee trust in management following a downsizing. Self-esteem, employability, and education are argued to influence employee feelings of empowerment following a downsizing event. Further logic on these relationships will be discussed in the presentation.

We argue that survivor perceptions of the managerial actions used to implement the downsizing will also affect survivor reactions to the downsizing activity in terms of trust in others and survivors' sense of empowerment. We argue that survivor's justice perceptions will be particularly important for preserving employee trust in management, while work redesign activities will be particularly important for maintaining a sense of employee empowerment. Survivor's perceptions of fairness or justice of the organizational downsizing process have been found to influence cognitive and affective phenomena following a downsizing activity (Brockner et al., 1992) and thus are expected to affect assessments of trust as well. Research on downsizing strategies suggests that if efforts to downsize go beyond mere layoffs to include modifying structures, streamlining procedures and redesigning jobs, then survivors are more likely to feel empowered (Cameron, Freeman, & Mishra, 1993). Thus, we posit that work redesign processes used as part of a downsizing activity will preserve feelings of empowerment, while outsourcing will contribute to feelings of disempowerment.

In addition to having direct effects on the two psychological responses to downsizing, survivor personal attributes prior to the downsizing are expected to moderate the effects of downsizing processes on psychological responses to downsizing as well. For example, those survivors with low self-esteem are expected to react more negatively to perceived injustices associated with the downsizing effort and thus experience greater decreases in trust and empowerment than survivors with high self-esteem. The moderating effects of other individual attributes will be discussed as part of our presentation.

Two sets of psychological responses to downsizing activity are central to the theoretical framework: trust and psychological empowerment. Trust is defined as one party's willingness to be vulnerable to another based on the belief that the latter party will is competent, open, concerned, and reliable (Luhmann, 1979; Mishra, 1995; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). Empowerment is defined as feelings of psychological ownership, or a proactive mindset with respect to one's role in the organization (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990), and is composed of four elements: a sense of meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact (Spreitzer, 1995).

The degree to which survivors express trust in an organization's managers, and the level of empowerment that they have following the downsizing are expected to influence a number of outcomes of importance to both researchers and practitioners. By allowing for less formalized relationships, and by allowing individuals to go beyond routine behaviors, trust is expected to enhance a variety of individual outcomes. When empowered, employees are in a better position to plan and schedule work and to identify and resolve obstacles because they generally have more complete knowledge and information about their work tasks and process than do managers (Cooke, 1994). Some research has shown that trust at least indirectly enhances employee performance in terms of task completion (McAllister, 1995), and that the degree to which employees are empowered to make operational decisions is positively related to productivity (Arthur, 1994). However, research has yet to examine these constructs in the context of downsizing situations.

In sum, this theoretical framework goes beyond previous research on survivor responses to downsizing by making explicit the mediating influence of survivors' sense of trust in management and empowerment to make a difference in the organization. We argue that in order to achieve the hoped-for outcomes from downsizing efforts, organizations must implement the downsizing in a way that preserves levels of employee trust and empowerment. Justice perceptions and work redesign are argued to be particularly important for preserving levels of trust and empowerment.

The presentation goes beyond theoretical development to offer methodological recommendations for conducting research on downsizing activity. Prior research on survivor reactions to downsizing suffers from methodological problems which limit its generalizability and its potential to illuminate survivor dynamics. First, virtually all studies utilize self-report measures for both independent and dependent variables (Brockner, et al., 1992). Consequently, common method variance may account for many of the significant findings. Second, data are collected almost exclusively at the same point in time; no pre- or post-downsizing data are collected, and control groups are usually not incorporated in the research designs. And third, extant research has typically been conducted at the micro-level and has yet to examine the effects of context and managerial actions on survivor reactions. Our presentation will provide several suggestions to address these methodological issues.

The theoretical framework brings together several disparate areas of research, particularly survivor responses to downsizing, employee trust in management, and employee empowerment. It provides direction for future research by helping to resolve the apparent irony between what organizations achieve from downsizing efforts and what they hope to achieve. Findings from this research project are expected to inform both scholarly and practitioner audiences. Managers implementing downsizing initiatives typically do so without the guidance and benefit of theories which elucidate processes to preserve trust and empowerment. Trust and empowerment typically suffer during downsizing (Lublin, 1993; "When slimming is not enough", 1994), but anecdotal evidence exists that in at least some firms, if done right, trust and empowerment, as well as individual and organization outcomes, can be sustained and even enhanced during downsizing (Kelly, 1994).

Insert Survivor Engagement Diagram Here

The Department of Defense's Eighth Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (8th QRMC) has expanded its scope to investigate attraction, performance, and retention issues in a strategic human resource context. This effort includes a sub-component, in which we serve as primary investigators, that focuses on empowerment and intrinsic task motivation. The broad questions we have focused on include (1) the strategic importance of empowerment for organizational effectiveness of the military forces in the post cold war context of the twenty-first century and (2) the implications of empowerment and intrinsic task motivation for leadership and human resource management.

We define psychological empowerment in terms of the four constructs defined in Thomas-Tymon model (1993; see also Thomas-Velthouse, 1990). In that model, empowerment is based on four intrinsically rewarding judgments that individuals make regarding their work tasks: choice, competence, meaningfulness, and progress.

A critical step in evaluating the strategic importance of empowerment is specifying the behaviors that empowerment/intrinsic motivation generates and reinforces. Figure 1 depicts the reciprocal relationship between intrinsic motivation and self management. Empowerment or intrinsic task motivation (indicated on the right side of the diagram) refers to the individual's inner experience of choice, competence, meaningfulness and progress. Self-management (indicated on the left side of diagram), on the other hand, refers to behavior. In Figure 1, self management is broken down into four types of behavior that parallel the elements of intrinsic motivation: using one's best judgment, performing task activities in a quality manner, pursuing the task purpose, and keeping track of progress. These behaviors are also characteristics by which we judge individuals to be responsible, mature, or trustworthy on the job. High levels of self management and intrinsic motivation can produce self-reinforcing positive cycles--with individuals becoming increasingly self-managing and energized by their tasks. Likewise, low levels of self management and intrinsic motivation can produce self-reinforcing negative cycles in which individuals are turned off (demotivated) by their tasks and exhibit increasingly passive or irresponsible behavior.

As Figure 2 illustrates, self-management and intrinsic motivation (empowerment) have two potential benefits in the military (or other organization). First, intrinsic motivation and empowerment affects job satisfaction, which has been shown to be a major factor in the individual's decision to remain in the organization. Second, research suggests self-management (versus compliance) leads to more flexible, adaptive, responsive, innovative behaviors, which are characterized by learning and problem solving. These are critical behaviors for the military -- as most other organizations -- in their strategic context in the 21st century. In the Army, for example, weapons and information/communication technologies place an emphasis on rapid response by highly dispersed units, with individual soldiers showing high levels of initiative within the boundaries of command intent (Force XXI). These behaviors are thus expected to aggregate to improve unit and organizational levels of performance.

Because of the charge of the 8th QRMC, we have focused our attention especially on the role of extrinsic rewards and reward systems in implementing psychological empowerment. The topic of intrinsic motivation has been surrounded by oversimplified myths. In particular, influential writings have conveyed the message that intrinsic motivation is undermined by extrinsic rewards (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Kohn, 1993a, 1993b), while analyses of empirical research show that the two often facilitate each other (Cameron & Pierce, 1994; Wiersma, 1992). Empowerment thus involves not only managing intrinsic motivation, but rewarding self-management through extrinsic rewards. For example, Spreitzer (1995) found that performance based rewards were predictors of psychological empowerment.

Table 1 presents several preliminary implications for implementing empowerment within a reward systems perspective. [We will present a more polished version in August.] The reward systems perspective emphasizes that rewarding good behavior presumes identifying good behavior (performance appraisal), which presumes defining good behavior (goal setting). In the context of empowerment, this means (1) rewarding self-management behaviors and (2) rewarding leadership behaviors that are autonomy supportive (Deci & Flaste, 1995) of workers' self-management.

The recommendations in Table 1 reflect several key propositions or insights, which are congruent with Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET; Deci & Ryan, 1985). First, it assumes the key to implementation is in viewing empowerment as based on objective rewards and interpretations. Therefore, much of empowerment involves communication and interpersonal dynamics: for example, credibly communicating a vision (management of meaningfulness) and celebrating milestones (management of a sense of progress). Second, the focus of management in empowerment is self-management. For example, goal setting becomes critical in communicating how the objectives of the unit constrain and limit alternatives; this is critical for understanding one's opportunities for autonomy and choice. In addition, individuals are encouraged to set their own milestones, both in terms of organizational performance and alternative career trajectories. Third, empowerment is seen as dynamic over time. For example, performance measures and appraisals focus on skill development and learning as well as performance. Of special importance is mastering the skills of self-management. For example, skill based pay may be increased when an individual or team demonstrates that ability to work without a supervisor (Lawler, 1990). Fourth, there is a shift from micro-management to coaching, from parent-child to adult-adult behavioral patterns and relationships. Thus, communications, including performance appraisals, are characterized by mutual problem solving and two- way communications rather than by evaluative sessions dominated by the superior. Finally, empowerment requires that managers respectfully share information in light of individual needs to develop mastery, exercise choice, and monitor progress. The classic focus (Lawler & Rhode, 1976) on information and rewards in terms of controlling deviations and deficiencies is viewed as problematic in undermining a sense of choice and competence, and therefore empowerment (Deci & Ryan, 1985). For example, in General Sullivan's vision of the Army as a learning organization, After Action Reviews (AARs) include debriefing and respectful information sharing among all ranks, from General to Private.

REWARD SYSTEM	CHOICE	COMPETENCE	MEANING	PROGRESS
GOAL SETTING	Clarify and explain unit objectives; develop career alternatives	Clarify expected skills, contributions and roles congruent with career stage	Clarify and explain vision and mission of unit and assign whole tasks	Clarify milestones and encourage self-monitoring
PERFORMANCE MEASURES	Solicit suggestions for measurement forms and process	Assess skill development and growth	Clarify strategic linkages of measures	Monitor and celebrate accomplishments; promote self-monitoring
SOURCES OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL (PA)	Solicit suggestions for sources	Solicit suggestions to ensure perceived source expertise	Include internal and external Customers	Approach sources at appropriate times (pacing)); use frequent or real time feedback when possible
FORMAL PA SYSTEM	Negotiation of appropriate dimensions and behaviors; Opportunity for formal input	Developmental in terms of career path; Certification for future assignments	Formally relate job and assignments to unit and mission	Document growth & skill development as well as performance
PERFORMANCE -REWARD LINKAGES	Increased career and work choices as a function of performance and growth; increased pay for unattractive choices	Increased education and training as a function of performance and growth; and skill based pay	Increase career choice as a function of performance and growth; parallel career ladders	flow; pace challenge to individual competence, performance and growth

Recently, "empowerment" has come into vogue among business practitioners and has become a corporate cliché both in general management and in international business (e.g., Jamieson and O'Mara, 1991; Solomon, 1994; Wellins and Sykes, 1994). However, since "there are no such things as universal management theories" (Hofstede, 1993:81) empowerment needs to be investigated in different cultural contexts. The purpose of this presentation is to introduce the importance of cultural distinctions in the context of empowerment. More specifically, we will focus on the power distance dimension (Hofstede, 1980; 1991).

Business globalization and changes in the ethnic composition of the workforce have made the management of cultural differences and organizational diversity important issues for managers and scholars (Burke, 1991; Andersen, 1993; Fernandez, 1993; Hofstede, 1991; 1993). Despite these recent trends, only 14% of studies published in major management journals are related to ethnic and cultural differences (Adler and Bartholomew, 1992). However, existing studies investigating these differences indicate that there are cultural differences in the impact of management styles on job performance (Black and Porter, 1991; Morris and Pavett, 1992). Hence, investigating work empowerment across cultures should be of paramount interest for those engaged in understanding and implementing empowerment. As a step in this direction we provide initial findings which suggest that empowerment, as defined in North America, may not have the expected results across all ethnic and cultural groups.

We view empowerment as an enhancing and energizing context-specific process that expands the feelings of trust and control in oneself as well as in one's organizations, which consequently lead to outcomes such as performance and satisfaction. This process results from changes in contextual and relational variables: the amount and quality of information, the degree of expressed trust and confidence, and responsibility. These three relational factors -- information, active belief, and responsibility -- have been underlying themes in much of the work on empowerment (e.g., Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Gomez and Rosen, 1994; Kieffer, 1984; Prestby, et al., 1990; Vogt and Murrell, 1990).

To understand empowerment in an international context we refer to Hofstede's (1980) seminal work in which he identified four bi-polar dimensions (power distance, individualism, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance) along which cultural differences can be described and understood. The single most significant dimension in the context of empowerment is most likely power distance which is defined as "the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally" (Hofstede, 1991:27).

In general, work in the area of empowerment suggests that it induces positive outcomes. However, this work is based in North America which is a low power distance culture. Our goal is to investigate if individuals from high power distance backgrounds respond the same way to empowerment as do low power distance individuals.

Previous work on power distance suggests that individuals from low power distance cultures are accustomed to being treated as equals, to being consulted and to working in decentralized organizations (Hofstede, 1991; 1993; Morris and Pavett, 1992). As a result we would expect that these individuals will be more interested and comfortable working where empowerment elements are provided. In turn, we assume that their job satisfaction and work performance will increase in such situations. However, individuals from high power distance cultures are used to working in centralized environments where they are not kept informed and where they can expect to be told what to do (Hofstede, 1991; 1993; Morris and Pavett, 1992). As they lack the background or experience of working in situations which contain the empowerment elements, individuals from high power distance cultures will be less familiar, less comfortable, as well as less capable in such environments. Hence, we can expect that these individuals will be less satisfied and will perform less well when empowered.

To test our hypotheses we examined the impact of an empowerment on 135 MBA students in the context of a controlled managerial simulation. Participants were randomly divided into three manipulation groups (empowered, disempowered, and control). For analysis, students were divided into high and low power distance groups by language (Garner and Lambert, 1972) and country-of-origin (Bochner and Hesketh, 1994; Cox et al., 1991).

Manipulation check scales were analyzed using a 3 (treatment: empowerment, disempowerment, control) x 2 (power distance: high, low) ANOVA. Only the treatment main effect was significant F(2, 125) = 79.95, p < .01 suggesting that the manipulations were successful. Results of the 3 x 2 Job satisfaction ANOVA suggest that there were no significant differences between high and low power distance individuals as only the treatment main effect was significant F(2, 125) = 16.44, p < .01. However, a significant power distance main effect was found for work performance F(1, 125) = 10.76, p < .01. This main effect should be interpreted in conjunction with the significant interaction effect F(2, 125) = 5.26, p < .01, which was also found. Main effect tests suggest that the locus of the interaction was at the high power distance condition F(2, 125) = 21.62, p < .01, but not at the low power distance condition F(2, 125) = 1.04, n.s. Further analysis revealed that the empowered participants did not perform as well as the control and disempowered participants (p < .05). Overall, these performance results suggest that the low power distance group performed similarly across conditions, whereas the high power distance group performed significantly better in the disempowered condition that in the control and empowered conditions.

These results serve as an important reminder for the importance of considering cultural differences when conducting organizational research (Bond, 1988). Findings revealed both cultural similarities and differences in how participants responded to the empowerment process. No cultural differences were found along the power distance dimension for empowerment perceptions and job satisfaction, while differences were found for work performance. Specifically, the low power distance group showed no significant difference across all three conditions (empowered, disempowered, and control), whereas the high power distance group performed differently across treatment groups. The high power distance participants did significantly less well in the empowered condition than in the control conditions, and performed better, through insignificantly, in the disempowered conditions.

These results provided mixed support for our hypotheses. In our presentation and during discussion with the audience and other panelists we will provide some insights into these interesting results. To do so we will focus on differences between individuals from different power distance orientations and how these differences may interact with the empowerment process. In addition, we will also present how Fishbein and Ajzen's (1975) distinction between habitual and volitional behaviors shed light on these results, as well as contribute to a better understand of how and when to implement empowerment.

The terms "employee involvement"(EI) and "empowerment" derive from the attempt to allow and encourage greater employee participation in workplace decisions and outcomes in the hope of improving production quantity, quality, efficiency, and profits. Underlying the concept of greater employee involvement has been the belief that the more workers' input with regard to the production processes is sought and acted upon, the more they will care about doing good work. The concept of empowerment is achieved to the degree that they are granted authority to put their input into practice. Empowerment research and implementation has been the subject of academic conferences and research for the past decade and its significance for the workplace is forecast to be increasing (Herd & Ferris, 1991; Lawler, et al., 1995).

Applying employee involvement and empowerment strategies to emerging private industry in eastern Europe seems both necessary and difficult. At the risk of vast oversimplification, it is necessary for the same reasons that it is necessary in the west: without employee investment in work and work results, motivation is low, productivity is lower, and the quality of life so desperately sought in eastern Europe is more elusive than ever. It is difficult to achieve for a panoply of reasons as varied as the cultures within eastern Europe, including poor communication systems, the cultural memory of the failure of the worker/participation communist model, the lack of an industrial infrastructure with which to manufacture desirable and saleable products, and impatience to catch up with the west. In order to conceptualize the goal and the difficulties, let's use the definitions and concepts provided by various employment involvement and empowerment researchers.

If we utilize the Thomas & Velthouse (1990)/Thomas & Tymon (1993) approach to a definition of empowerment, later used by Spreitzer (1995) in a study developing ways of measuring it in a work context, we think in terms of the four critical elements of empowerment--meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact. Because these elements are not only dependent on individual psychological considerations but also on the work environment, much attention must be paid to context in terms of cultural factors. The challenge is to isolate the cultural factors that may be working to undermine these elements as well as those that may contribute to strengthening them. There can be no intrinsic motivation, and no positive ego energy (Ferris, 1994), without dealing with these cultural factors appropriately from sub-culture to sub-culture. I will discuss shortly how these factors can be isolated.

Cotton (1993), in his review of the employee involvement literature, finds a range of effects measuring improvement in both productivity and attitude in the hundreds of studies reported through 1993. The strongest effects are to be found in studies of involvement focused on self-directed work-teams and gainsharing programs set up jointly by employees and managers. Intermediate effects on both productivity and attitudes were found for quality-of-work life programs, job enrichment, and other kinds of ESOP programs. Weak effects were found for quality circles and representative participation (including union-management cooperation ventures). Improved flexibility of the organization and mental health of the employees are under-studied but show possibility of stronger effects as well. Optimal employee involvement programs, then, would be characterized by: (1) more direct focus on employee work, itself; (2) employee power to make changes, not just recommendations; (3) a continuous process, not just a single change intervention; and (4) job changes that are substantial, not simply cosmetic. Additionally, they require total management commitment at all levels and employee as well as management education and training.

Lawler, et al., (1995) have studied employee involvement's progress in Fortune 1000 companies over the past decade. They have surveyed thousands of employees and published results that show EI has been accelerating within western industry in the past few years and is expected to continue to increase for a variety of reasons. Chief among these is that organizational financial gains can now be attributed to empowerment strategies and that empowerment has been documented as a desirable response to the acceleration of global competition. Most importantly for those who believe empowerment is important for eastern Europe, Lawler et al attest to the absolute necessity of "identifying critical facilitators and barriers...in order to gain an understanding of what it takes to implement EI successfully."(1995: 138) Clearly, we must separate out cultural factors and devise facilitating strategies that are unique to subcultures for EI to succeed in eastern Europe. What will succeed in the Czech workplace will not necessarily succeed in the Hungarian or the Croatian workplace, or even in the Slovakian. And certainly American implementations of EI may not be replicable in particular in any of eastern Europe though some are undoubtedly replicable in general. All of this leads us to research the facilitators and barriers of EI in a cultural context so that we can discuss implementation of EI strategies based on cultural considerations.

As Hofstede (1991) has emphasized, such research is very difficult to carry out without research partners who speak the language and understand the culture and subcultures involved. Certainly, American, or even western, instruments are not necessarily appropriate, even if carefully translated and back-translated. One must know what questions to ask and how to follow up these questions meaningfully in order to gain an understanding of the context necessary to implement EI. I have taken on this challenge in the Czech and Slovak Republics by designing a three-part research approach. First, I undertook structured interviews of 16 Czech and Slovak business professors on the subject of the factors favoring and opposing the introduction of EI concepts in Czech and Slovak industry (Ferris, 1992; 1993a). Second, utilizing the information from these interviews, I designed an instrument and used it in translation with a group of 20 Czech executives for whom I ran a week of human resources management implementation workshops at a training site in the Czech Republic (Ferris, 1993b). Third, in partnership with a Czech business professor, I redesigned the questionnaire and administered it in the field to over 170 managers and employees from 18 firms in both the Czech and Slovak Republics (Ferris & Pivoda, 1995).

While it is not the purpose of this symposium to report the results of this study, suffice it to say that we found a number of facilitators as well as barriers to EI in the two republics. As interesting as the identification of facilitators and barriers was the identification of factors that might have been perceived to be barriers by consultants and/or researchers but that were not. Among the most significant forces for EI were the skills and desire of the people to improve themselves, the creativity and talents of the people, the desire to compete in the global business world, ability of some managers to generate positive results, and the insistence of younger workers for EI as they become educated in new ways. Most significant forces against were the poor communication systems, overconcern with one's wages in comparison to others, lack of sufficient resources, envy of others getting richer (managers, owners, even customers), and fear of becoming unemployed. Interestingly, the majority of these factors are directly related to what the literature has considered the antecedents of psychological empowerment--(high) self-esteem, (high internal) locus of control, information (availability), and rewards (an individual-performance-based reward structure)(Spreitzer, 1995).

Imperatives for implementation of EI in the Czech and Slovak Republics arising from the study outlined above are summarized in the following table. They should be of interest to consultants, government officials, and funding sources as well as regional employers.

1. Implement Human Resource Departments
2. Train managers in empowering skills
3. Establish programs to build positive ego energy by
   • increasing sense of individuality
   • calling upon pride in work
   • providing opportunity for recognized achievement
   • instituting a sense of fairness and justice in work environment
   • re-establishing internal locus of control within employees
4. Begin serious job redesign efforts
5. Assure open and fair compensation systems
6. Provide financial resources to send managers and faculty to observe successful participatory business environments in Japan and the west; bring western managers east for short exchanges
7. Make communication system improvement a higher priority
8. Take steps to de-politicize managerial environment
9. Facilitate entrepreneurship by stabilizing tax system and providing incentives for businesses that employ 10-100 employees
10. Communicate to all employees a better sense of the steps to the attainment of the dream of a "western" quality of life.

Some of these steps have been begun already while others remain unrecognized. In any case, they represent important goals for consultants and HR specialists in the area.

Finally, then, it might be asked why should anyone care about EI and empowerment in eastern Europe? Answers could come from many perspectives. Economically, global business is better off when workplace motivation is intrinsic and quality and productivity are consequently higher. Politically, east and west are closer to peaceful co-existence when ideals of autonomy and collaboration to achieve agreed-upon goals are more attainable. Most of all, EI promises a better quality of life for all of us, and anything that can close the gap between the haves and have-nots makes the greatest self-interested sense to research, implement, and otherwise pursue.

Adler, N. J., & Bartholomew, S. 1992. Academic and Professional Communities of Discourse: General Knowledge on Transnational Human Resource Management. Journal of International Business Studies, 23: 551-69.

Allmendinger, J., Hackman, J.R., Kowal-Wolk, L., & Lehman, E.V. 1992. Methods and Measures for the Cross-National Study of Symphony Orchestras. Report No. 4, Cross-National Study of Symphony Orchestras, Harvard University.

Andersen, O. 1993. On the Internationalization Process of Firms: A Critical Analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 24: 209-31.

Arthur, J.B. 1994. Effects of Human Resource Systems on Manufacturing Performance and Turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3): 670-687.

Barry, D. 1991. Managing the Bossless Team: Lessons in Distributed Leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 20:31-47.

Bies, R., Martin, C., & Brockner, J. 1993. Just Laid Off, but Still a Good Citizen? Only if the Process is Fair. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6 (3), 227-238.

Black, J. S., & Porter, L. W. 1991. Managerial Behaviors and Job Performance: A Successful Manager in Los Angeles May Not Succeed in Hong Kong. Journal of International Business, 22: 99-113.

Bochner, S., & Hesketh, B. 1994. Power Distance, Individualism/Collectivism, & Job-related Attitudes in a Culturally Diverse Work Groups. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25: 233-257.

Bond, M. H. 1988. Cross-cultural Challenge to Social Psychology. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.

Brockner, J. & Greenberg, J. 1990. The Impact of Layoffs on Survivors: An Organizational Justice Perspective. In J. S. Carroll (ed.) Applied Social Psychology and Organizational Settings (45-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brockner, J., Tyler, T. R., & Cooper-Schneider, R. 1992. The influence of Prior Commitment to an Institution on Reactions to Perceived Fairness: The Higher They Are, the Harder They Fall. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 241-261.

Brockner, J., Grover, S., O'Malley, M. N., Reed, T. F., & Glynn, M. A. 1993. Threat of Future Layoffs, Self-Esteem, and Survivors' Reactions: Evidence From the Laboratory and the Field. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 153-166.

Burke, R. J. 1991. Managing an Increasingly Diverse Workforce: Introduction. Canadian Journal of Administrative Science, 2: 62-63.

Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. 1994 . Reinforcement, Reward, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64(3), 363-423.

Cameron, Kim S., Freeman, Sarah J., and Mishra, Aneil K. 1993. Organizational Downsizing. In George Huber and William Glick (Eds.) Organizational Change and Redesign: Ideas and Insights for Improving Performance, 19-65. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cascio, W. F. 1993 Downsizing: What do we know? What have we Learned. Academy of Management Executive, 7 (1): 95-104.

Cohen, S.G. 1993. Designing Effective Self-Managing Work Teams. In M. M. Beyerlein & D. A. Johnson (Eds.), Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, 1:67-102. Greenwich, CT.: JAI Press.

Cohen, S. G. & Ledford, G. E., Jr. 1994. The Effectiveness of Self-Managing Teams: A Quasi-experiment. Human Relations, 47:13-43.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. 1988. The Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory and Practice. Academy of Management Review, 13: 471-482

Cooke, W.N. 1992. Product Quality Improvement Through Union Participation: The Effects of Unionization & Joint Union-Management Administration. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 46(1): 119-134.

Cotton, J.L. 1993. Employee Involvement: Methods for Improving Performance and Work Attitudes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cox, T. Jr., Lobel, S. A., & McLeod, P. L. 1991. Effects of Ethnic Group Cultural Differences On Cooperative and Competitive Behavior on a Group Task. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 827-847.

Cummings, T. G. & Griggs, W. H. 1977. Workers' Reactions to Autonomous Work Groups: The Impact of Control. Organization and Administration Sciences, 7:87-100.

Daft, R. L. & Lewin, A.Y. 1993. What are the Theories for the "New" Organizational Forms? An editorial essay. Organizational Science, 4: I-vi.

Deci, E. L., & Flaste, R. 1995. Why We Do What We Do. N.Y.: Grosset/Putnam.

Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum.

Drucker, P. F. 1988. The Coming of the New Organization. Harvard Business Review, January-February.

Fernandez, J. P. 1993. The Diversity Advantage. New York: Lexington Books

Ferris, W. P. 1992. The Role of National Business School Professors in the Service of Planned Change in the Czech Lands and Slovakia. Presentation at the International Organizational Development Association Conference, Coventry, England, December.

Ferris, W. P. 1993a. The Future of Employee Involvement and Empowerment in the Czech and Slovak Republics. In E. Kaplan and R. Pieper (Eds.), Managing in a Global Economy V: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the Eastern Academy of Management, Berlin, Germany, June, 1993.

Ferris, W. P. 1993b. The Outlook for Employee Involvement and Empowerment in the Czech and Slovak Republics: A Comparative Study of Business Professors and Executives. In K. York (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1993 Annual National Conference of The Association on Employment Practices and Principles, San Diego, CA, October, 1993.

Ferris, W. P. 1994. Mobilizing Ego Energy: Managerial and Leadership Practices. Ralph H. Kilmann (Ed.). Managing Ego Energy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ferris, W. P. and Pivoda, M. 1995. Employee Involvement and Empowerment in the Czech and Slovak Republics: The Prospect for Organizational Development in the Former East Bloc. (unpublished paper)

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

Garner, R.C., & Lambert, W.E. 1972. Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Gomez, C. & Rosen, B. 1994. The Relationship Between Managerial Trust, Employee Empowerment, and Employee Performance. Paper presented at the Academy Management Meetings. Dallas, TX.

Hackman, J.R. 1987. The Design of Work Teams. In J.W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, J.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Herd, A. M. and Ferris, W. P. 1991. Eds. Empowerment in the Workplace and Classroom. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Eastern Academy of Management, Hartford, Connecticut, May, 1991.

Hofstede, G. 1993. Cultural Constraints in Management Theories. Academy of Management Executive, 7: 81-94.

Hofstede, G. 1991. Cultures and Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. 1991. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw Hill.

Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture's Consequences. Newbury Park: Sage.

Jackson, P. R., Mullarkey, S., & Parker, S. January, 1994. The Implementation of High-Involvement Work Teams: Our-Phase Longitudinal Study. Paper presented at BPS Occupational Psychology Conference, Birmingham, UK.

Jamieson, D., & O'Mara, J. 1991. Managing Workforce 2000. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kanter, R.M. 1989. The New Managerial Work. Harvard Business Review, November-December: 85-92.

Kelly, K. 1994. The New Soul of John Deere. Business Week, January 31.

Kieffer, C. H. 1983-4. Citizen Empowerment: A developmental perspective. Prevention in Human Services, 3 Winter-Spring: 9-36.

Kohn, A. 1993a. Punished by Rewards. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Kohn, A. 1993b. Why Incentive Plans Cannot Work. Harvard Business Review, 71(5), 54-63.

Lawler, E. E. 1992. The Ultimate Advantage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lawler, E. E. 1990. Strategic Pay: Aligning Organizational Strategies and Pay Systems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lawler, E.E., Mohrman, S.A., and Ledford, G.E. 1995. Creating High Performance Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lawler, E. E., & Rhode, J. G. 1976. Information and Control in Organizations. Pacific Palisades, CA.: Goodyear.

Lublin, J. S. 1993. Survivors of Layoffs Battle Angst, Anger, Hurting Productivity. Wall Street Journal, December 6, p. A1.

Luhmann, N. 1979. Trust and Power. New York: John Wiley.

Manz, C. 1991. Leading Employees to be Self-Managing and Beyond: Toward Establishment of Self-Leading in Organizations. Journal of Management Systems, 3(2), 15-24.

Manz, C. C. & Sims, H. P. 1987. Leading Workers to Lead Themselves: The External Leadership of Self-Managing Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32: 106-128.

Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. 1984. Searching for the "Unleader": Organizational Member Views on Leading Self-Managed Groups. Human Relations, 37:409-424.

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., & Schoorman, F.D. 1995. An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Academy of Management Review, 20: 709-734.

McAllister, D. J. 1995. Affect- and Cognition-Based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (1): 24-59.

Mishra, Aneil K. 1996. Organizational Responses to Crisis: The Centrality of Trust. In R. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.) Trust in Organizations. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Mishra, A.K. and Mishra, K.E. 1994. The Role of Mutual Trust in Effective Downsizing Strategies. Human Resource Management, 33 (2), 261-279.

Morris, T., & Pavett, C. M. 1992. Management style and productivity in two cultures. Journal of International Business Studies, 23: 169-79.

Prestby, J. E., Wandersman, A., Florin, P., Rich, R. C., & Chavis, D. 1990. Benefits, Costs, Incentive Management and Participation in Voluntary Organizations: A Means to Understanding and Promoting Empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(1): 117-150.

Siegel, P., Brockner, J., & Tyler, T. 1995. Revisiting the Interactive Relationship Between Procedural and Distributive Justice: The Role of Trust. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting. Vancouver, BC, August.

Solomon, C. M. 1994. Staff Selection Impacts Global Success. Personnel Journal, 73(1): 88-101.

Spreitzer, G. In press. Social Structural Characteristics of Psychological Empowerment. Academy of Management Journal.

Spreitzer, G.M. 1995. Psychological Empowerment in the Workplace: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1442-1465.

Sutton, R., & Kahn, R.L. 1986. Prediction, Understanding, & Control as Antidotes to Organizational Stress. In Lorsch (ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Thomas, K., & Velthouse, B. 1990. Cognitive Elements of Empowerment. Academy of Management Review, 15: 666-681.

Thomas, K.W. & Velthouse, B.A. 1990. Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An 'Interpretive' Model of Intrinsic Task Motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15: 666-681.

Thomas, K.W., & Tymon, W.G., Jr. 1995. Bridging the Motivation Gap in Total Quality. Working paper, Naval Postgraduate School.

Thomas, K.W. & Tymon, W. 1993. An Interpretive Approach to Empowerment: An Empirical Investigation. Presentation at the Academy of Management annual meeting, Atlanta, Georgia.

Vogt, J. F., & Murrell, K. L. 1990. Empowerment in Organizations: How to Spark Exceptional Performance. San Diego, CA: University Associates, Inc.

Wellins, R. S., & Sykes, P. 1994. How to Build Self-directed Teams. Executive Development, 7(6): 25-28.

When Slimming is Not Enough. 1994. The Economist, September 3, 59-60.

Wiersma, U. J. 1992 . The Effects of Extrinsic Rewards in Intrinsic Motivation: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 101-114.

Zachary, G. Pascal. 1995. Layoff Announcements Increased 39% in August as Merger Activity Picked Up. Wall Street Journal, September 6, p. A2.