IntroductionDefinitions of the natu

Introduction
Definitions of the nature of empowerment have fallen within a common frame in some
aspects. On the other hand, despite a common frame being formed, there is no fully
agreed definition of empowerment (Peccei and Rosenthal, 2001; Wilkinson, 1998). The
fact that employee empowerment is closely related to management techniques and
instruments, such as motivation, job enrichment, communication, trust, participative
management, delegation, training and feedback, makes it necessary to examine the
concept and its managerial dimension
from different perspectives. Authors
approaching the construct from the behavior and relationship side, such as Hales
and Klidas (1998), define empowerment as sharing knowledge, information and power
with subordinates; Cunningham
et al.
(1996) relegate the power to make a decision in a
manner that will cover employees without the power to make decisions. Conger and
Kanungo (1988) regard empowerment as a motivational concept related to self-efficacy
and define empowerment as improving the feeling of self-efficacy of employees. Conger
and Kanungo (1988) hold that administrative implementations for empowerment make
up only a small portion of empowerment itself, and these implementations will not be
enough alone. Thomas and Velthouse (1990) highlight that empowerment cannot be
accounted for in only one dimension, and that administrative implementations and the
perception of employees should also be taken into consideration. Drawing on the study
by Thomas and Velthouse (1990) defining empowerment as “internal motivation that
can be explained by four perceptive dimensions, which are sense, competence, choice
and impact”, Spreitzer (1995) incorporates these four dimensions in his definition.