Abstract
Many social workers believe that concepts such as empowerment and participatory decision making are universally applicable across cultures. However, a failure to recognize the diversity that can occur across cultural groups may result in organizations choosing poor fitting empowerment strategies. In this qualitative study, the author explored how participatory decision making and empowerment are perceived among South African staff, where higher levels of power distance exist. Results of the study highlight perceptions of and barriers to participatory decision making and potential strategies that social workers might use to empower staff to participate in decision making in a culturally competent manner.
Introduction
One of the most influential studies that explored the impact of culture on business management was Hofstede’s (1980) Culture’s Consequences. This cross-national study included 117,000 respondents from 71 nations. Study results indicated that business and management practices across nations could be categorized using four distinct cultural dimensions, including individualism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, and power distance. Since the study’s original publication date, the greatest amount of attention in cross-cultural management studies has been singly dedicated to exploring individualism, with relatively little attention given to exploring the concept of power distance (Triandis, 2001).
Power distance is a cultural dimension existing along a spectrum. Those cultures with high power distance tend to centralize power hierarchically, with relatively few individuals making decisions on behalf of a group. Low power distance cultures, on the other hand, tend to share power across a community, making decisions democratically. Medium power distance cultures also exist in a number of varieties that include some decentralization of hierarchal power structures (Hofstede, 1984).
The lack of attention that power distance receives in the literature is not the result of the concept’s lack of credibility. A number of studies have followed up and replicated Hofstede’s (1980) earlier work, confirming the ability to classify nations and groups of employees using the concept of power distance (Hofstede, 2001; Robert et al., 2000). The lack of attention dedicated to power distance in the academic literature is also not the result of the concept’s lack of importance. Research studies have found that a cultural group’s level of power distance may influence the type of leadership style chosen by management staff (Goolaup and Ismayilov, 2011) and the level of stress experienced by managers and organizational leaders (Peterson et al., 1995). Researchers have also found that failure to appropriately address the concept of power distance when two cultural groups interact in the organizational context can have negative impact on staff members’ ethical interpretations of management techniques (Smith and Hume, 2005), perceptions of procedural and organizational justice (Brockner et al., 2001; Lee et al., 2000), and the overall effectiveness of organizational decision-making processes (Sagie and Zeynep, 2003).
Although the previously discussed studies emphasize the importance of power distance, relatively little research about power distance exists in comparison with other cultural dimensions. Even less research has been dedicated to power distance in African nations, which have traditionally been identified as having higher levels of power distance than their Western counterparts (Basabe and Ros, 2005). For social workers operating in African nations, this lack of information may result in poor management techniques and organizational outcomes when the complexities of power distance are not accounted for. This problem should also be of particular concern for those engaged in the broader field of international or cross-cultural social work management. In order to avoid what Midgley (1981) termed professional imperialism, or the tendency to prioritize Western social work values and practices among non-Western cultures, further information about power distance should be explored so that appropriate cultural adaptation of management approaches can occur.
One particular aspect of power distance that should be of concern to social work managers is the concept of empowerment. For years, social workers have acted as if concepts such as empowerment are universally applicable across cultures, along with other related concepts such as democracy, self-determination, and participatory decision making. However, research seems to indicate that attempts to empower individuals in high power distance societies may be harmful to the organization, resulting in decreased employee satisfaction and attachment to the organization (Robert et al., 2000). More research in this area is needed though, as some researchers have suggested that specific types of empowerment may still be useful in high power distance societies. Fock et al. (2013) have suggested that although attempts to enhance employees’ decision-making authority at work (discretionary empowerment) may not be well received in some high power distance cultures, attempts to motivate employees to believe they are capable of discharging their job duties (psychological empowerment) may still be beneficial.
The primary goal of this qualitative study was to identify how participatory decision making is perceived by staff members from a culture with higher levels of power distance, as well as potential barriers to enhancing this participatory decision making. Specifically, this study investigated the perceptions of South African staff members providing HIV/AIDS services at organizations receiving foreign assistance funding from the United States. South Africans have previously been identified as having higher levels of power distance than their American (donor) counterparts (Hofstede, 1984).
Previous research has investigated various facets of participatory decision making, including the types (Alutto and Belasco, 1972), processes (Speer and Zippay, 2005), and outcomes of participatory decision making (Van Der Weshuizen et al., 2012). Foreign assistance researchers have also written extensively about participatory decision making, discussing topics such as power differentials that exist between donor nations and recipient communities in the decision-making process (Tsang et al., 2000), as well as the strategies for participation that should be used throughout various phases of a development project (Donnelly-Roark, 1998). But in the true nature of grounded theory, this study did not seek to impose outside theoretical notions on the concept under study, but instead allowed respondents to shape an understanding of the dynamics surrounding participatory decision making based upon their own perspectives.
A secondary goal of this study was to investigate ways to empower staff members to participate more fully in agency decision making. An investigation of the unique South African perceptions of how this empowerment should occur is of particular importance in ensuring that the empowerment strategies being utilized at these organizations are culturally competent.
Methods
Participants
Two distinct groups of subjects participated in this research. The first group included program directors and managers working at organizations providing services to Persons Living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) in South Africa. The second group included staff members who provide direct service to PLWHAs at these same organizations. One inclusion criterion for both groups of participants was that their employing organization had to receive foreign funding from the United States for the HIV/AIDS services they provided. The two groups were included in this research to achieve a triangulated perspective on the concept under study. Specifically, decision making and empowerment among staff members could only be understood more broadly by asking questions of a diverse range of parties involved in decision-making processes and by investigating the perspectives of both groups concerning power differentials. The number of individuals included in the sample was determined using the concept of theoretical saturation. When informational redundancy appeared to occur during the process of data collection, recruitment and data collection ended (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).
Agencies that participated in this study had previously participated in a larger quantitative study investigating the unique antecedents of organizational commitment among South African staff members working in American-funded HIV/AIDS programs (Barney, 2010). A select group of organizations who had participated in the larger study were identified, using purposive sampling methods, to participate in this smaller qualitative study. Program directors and managers were informed of this study via telephone discussions and asked if they would be willing to allow the researcher to conduct interviews with them and/or some of their staff members. After receiving this initial approval, nonprobability purposive sampling was used to contact additional staff members working at these organizations. Potential study participants were informed of the purpose of the research and were given the opportunity to ask questions. Meeting times were set to administer informed consent and conduct the interviews. An Institutional Review Board provided approval for the study, and further oversight was coordinated with the organizations that participated in the study.
Data collection
Data were collected using face-to-face qualitative interviews. These interviews focused on examining perceptions of participatory decision making and empowerment among South African staff members employed at foreign-funded HIV/AIDS organizations. These interviews also explored the ways in which participatory decision making could be enhanced.
A single interview which lasted approximately 30–45 minutes was conducted with each participant. In two instances, staff members requested to be interviewed with colleagues they worked with. Focus groups were allowed to occur in these instances in order to reflect the more collectivist norms of the cultural groups included in the study. Focus groups generally lasted between 45 and 60 minutes.
Interviews and focus groups were conducted in a semi-structured format, allowing participants to play a role in shaping the direction of the interview process. All interviews and focus groups were conducted in English. Memo writing took place during the data collection process. This process allowed the researcher not only to take notes during the interviews, but also to interpret and generate theory about the concepts that had been discussed by participants (Bryant and Charmaz, 2007). Interviews and focus group discussions were audiotaped. Transcription was performed by the author and a research assistant. The assistant received training and supervision from the author during this process.
Data analysis
A Grounded Theory approach to data analysis was used as part of this study (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Keeping in line with the principles of grounded theory, the researcher entered the field with only a rudimentary understanding of South African power distance, participatory decision making, and empowerment so as not to develop theories and assumptions a priori. Instead, theory emerged based upon respondent data. As a result, a literature review for the study was only conducted during the final stages of data analysis, instead of at the beginning of the study. In order to foster inductive research and avoid a priori assumptions, theory was developed using constant comparative analysis (Kolb, 2012).
The first data analysis phase consisted of open coding, where respondents’ statements were labeled and grouped into categories (Kennedy and Lingard, 2006). The second data analysis phase consisted of axial coding, where theory was developed that linked the categories that were identified during open coding. The third data analysis phase consisted of selective coding, where a central phenomenon was identified connecting each of the categories in the form of a story (Creswell, 2012).
Results
A total of seven organizations agreed to participate in the study. Results indicated that these organizations operated in Gauteng (n = 5) and North West Province (n = 2). Services were delivered in rural (n = 2), urban (n = 1), and peri-urban township areas (n = 4). Some organizations delivered more than one type of HIV/AIDS service to clients, but all of the organizations indicated that they were engaged in HIV/AIDS care services (n = 7), with some also engaged in delivering HIV/AIDS prevention (n = 3) and treatment services (n = 3).
A total of 28 individuals participated in this study. Most of the respondents (n = 25) identified themselves as Black, with a smaller number of individuals identifying themselves as White (n = 3). In all, 24 respondents were female, and 4 were male. As staff members included in this study worked for foreign-funded organizations in South Africa, it was also important to establish the nationality of the respondents. The majority of respondents identified themselves as being of South African nationality (n = 26), with others identifying themselves as being from Europe (n = 1) and another African nation (n = 1).
In terms of agency positions, 6 study participants were agency directors, 6 worked as members of agency management or administration, and 15 participants were staff members who provided direct services to clients such as personal care, hygiene, food preparation, social support, and nursing care. Finally, one respondent was included who did not work for an HIV/AIDS organization, but was instead recruited as a cultural consultant based upon her experience in African customary law.
Data analysis produced a number of themes that help to explain perceptions of participatory decision making among staff members in this high power distance culture. Additional themes emerged that highlight how staff can be empowered to further participate in organizational decision making.
Desire for participatory decision making
Desire among staff members to participate in organizational decision making appeared to be foundational to the study. This desire confirmed that participatory decision making was not an idea being imposed by outside influences, but instead represented a more organic desire of the staff members themselves:
The plan that you give or the decision that you make, it (is) helpful for the organization and the things that we do for the children. When you start the project and you see it running and being successful, then it’s good. It is me. I’ve done well for the organization. I feel proud, because I was part of the decision.
Managers also had a widely shared belief that staff members should be involved in decision making. One manager indicated, ‘They should be involved. They should be part of the decision because that decision is also going to affect them’. Another stated, ‘We (management) would like them (caregivers) to be more involved in everything that we do. At least we should sit with them first before we decide. I think that’s what they want’. The fact that both staff members and managers included in this study prioritized participatory decision making is significant. Although respondents were members of a nation traditionally associated with higher levels of power distance, they still desired to be engaged in participatory decision making at their organizations.
Staff remains quiet
Despite staff members’ widespread desire to be more involved in the decision making of their organization, they remained quiet in meetings with their superiors. This tendency was not only discussed during the course of interviews, but also observed during interactions between staff members and management. One manager acknowledged this tendency, claiming that it was most likely a culturally motivated phenomenon: ‘I think that it’s some part of being cultural, that you cannot just say out what you feel’. Other managers believed the tendency to remain quiet impeded staff members’ ability to participate in organizational decision making. In one instance, a manager recalled having sent experienced staff members to a series of recurring meetings with a provincial healthcare team to serve as a representative of their agency. Although the opportunity was offered to staff members to help empower them and give them leadership opportunities, the manager later rescinded the opportunity because of the staff members’ quietness during those meetings and a failure to actively participate in decision making on the inter-agency team:
They are sitting in the staff meeting with provincial health care; they are just sitting there, and not opening their mouth. So let’s undo it, (it’s) giving us a bad reputation.
The impact of fear
After the tendency of staff members to remain quiet emerged as an important theme relating to the concept of participatory decision making, the research explored motivations for this quietness. One important sub-theme relating to why staff remain quiet was staff members’ fear. One manager believed that ‘They are afraid of maybe losing their job’. Another manager indicated that ‘Sometimes there are some things that you want to say but you are afraid to say it in front of people’. One particular staff member confirmed management’s suspicion of staff members’ fear, indicating,
Yeah sometimes people feel … I don’t know how to put it, not brave enough to voice out their issues, they sometimes feel that if they speak out, they might be victimized.
Some respondents indicated that fear and intimidation could sometimes be experienced in relation to members of the management staff, based upon their leadership styles: ‘[Staff] rather keep quiet. But I think it always depends on the leadership. If you are an autocratic leader, obviously you won’t get participation’. Others saw this fear and intimidation being created by other sources of power within the agency, such as the agency board. One manager indicated,
It is an issue because with some board members, the (caregivers) can be intimidated. If there is a meeting where the board has come to talk to us, you know they will make (us feel) small and we end up not talking, and we end up not voicing our complaints and our concerns.
This idea was also shared by a staff member who stated,
We can’t say anything to them because we are afraid of them. They intimidate us. Just by sitting there and talking they are intimidating. So we just sit there and try to be quiet … Because these board members have high positions in the government and in the community. They are untouchable.
Fear and apartheid’s enduring impact
Although fear seemed to be one reason why staff members might remain quiet, a number of respondents referred to the influence that South Africa’s history of apartheid has on organizational relationships today:
… but that is the apartheid. It made us not to be able to talk for ourselves. To be suppressed. To be afraid of the law. To be afraid of the white regime. And then we are always like, we are brainwashed. We can’t come up and talk. That is why you see people like Nelson Mandela. He was imprisoned because he could stand up and talk. And that was against the law of this country. You don’t stand up and talk.
One respondent went so far as to claim that quietness and an inability to participate in agency decision making were not a result of African cultural norms, but instead the result of a history of political oppression:
It’s not the African (cultural) way. It’s the South African way. We are afraid you will go to jail. We are afraid you will be sacked. We are afraid you will be suspended and we are afraid you will be assassinated.
Lack of education
Some respondents indicated that quietness might not be the result of fear, but instead might be due to a lack of education. One manager stated ‘[Some staff] are illiterate people … they haven’t been exposed to or empowered to make decisions in an organization’. Another claimed that a lack of education often leaves individuals more open to the influence of others and less able to influence organizational decision making on their own: ‘I think the level of education also plays a significant role with regard to that … it’s so easy for (others) to make decisions for them and not involve them’.
Education and apartheid
When discussing the issue of a lack of education and the silence that it creates, a number of respondents stated that this particular disadvantage had been created and continues to be experienced as a result of the apartheid regime which placed limitations on the amount of education that Black communities could receive, thereby creating a context of oppression which continues in the context of organizations today:
I remember when … South Africa took over from the United Kingdom and they started ruling this country, and they said Bantu education, you will do grade 1 for 3 years not being aware. The first year you will learn how to pronounce A and then the second year pronounce B. The third year, learn how to pronounce C.
Representatives speak on behalf of the group
Among respondents, the desire to participate in agency decision making and the tendency to remain quiet were reconciled through the use of representatives. More specifically, respondents discussed how a single representative was often relied on by staff members to convey the desires and intentions of the broader group of staff members to the leadership. The presence and role of these representatives were recognized by both managers as well as staff members:
If we are a group then there must be one who is taking the lead. Yes, I found it … you’ll find there’s only one out of all of them who will want to come and talk. But most of the time, they will talk when you (managers) are not at the meeting. The caregivers mainly rely on one person. And that is not right for that one person, because if that person (is) going to control everything for the caregivers, it is not right.
In order to provide a more thorough depiction of the role and importance of a representative among broader South African cultural groups, a cultural consultant was queried about this phenomenon. This consultant indicated that among Black South Africans, these types of representatives are frequently utilized, stating,
So whatever decision needs to be made, there needs to be talks and discussions that occur ahead of time … In what one would call a democracy where each person has one vote, the whole one person one vote thing, it doesn’t work in Africa. What would happen is you have representatives, representing typically each family. And then each of those representatives would take the views of each family to the specific leader.
Respondents were careful to make the distinction that a representative is not a person who has been identified by management to act in an official capacity or who has been promoted to a supervisory role. Instead, these individuals are elected by a group of co-workers, sometimes in an unspoken manner:
We choose this person because of his or her behavior – how he talks. And then the cleverness, the smartness. You can see this person knows what she or he is talking about. And then at the end we can elect that person to lead this group. And then he will listen to what we want to say, take it … and then go and represent us somewhere … even if (we) did not elect that person.
Respondents indicated that these individuals are chosen by a group of peers to represent the group among leadership. Opportunities for the group to participate in organizational decision making are pursued through these representatives.
Representatives co-opted during apartheid
Previously, it was discussed how fear was experienced by some respondents as a continuing effect of apartheid. Although many respondents recognized the importance of representatives in the South African culture, it was also suggested that this cultural office had been used during the time of apartheid to promote control among the broader black community, in a manner reminiscent of how the Nazi regime manipulated members of the Jewish community to ‘police’ those living in Nazi created ghettos:
(During apartheid) the foreman was often the one that was the go between the white people and the black people, the white management or the white owners of the mines, the company or the factory. And the foreman would be used by the white leadership to actually communicate to the rest of the employees, of how things should be done. And vice versa the employees appeal to the foreman to actually speak to the owner on their behalf, so what could then happen is the foreman would have to speak as a ‘we’; ‘We believe’ spoken while everyone else said nothing.
How to improve staff participatory decision making
Training opportunities
In addition to providing descriptions and explanations relating to participatory decision making at their agencies, respondents also provided suggestions for how they believed staff members could be empowered through use of enhanced participatory decision making. One of the first recommendations made by members of management teams was to increase the overall level of education and training of staff members:
Give them opportunities, not just to go back to the universities. Give them the platform to start with matric (high school). If they are willing, do any other training in whatever they want to do.
Some managers forwarded the idea that general education and vocational training were not enough to help develop leadership skills among staff at their agency. Instead, some believed that specific training is needed to focus on developing these leadership and participatory decision-making skills:
Build up a leadership school. Because as we are here now, but we are not here forever. So in addition to a career path, they need to be built up as well so as to be able to take over.
Recognizing the role of representatives
A number of respondents found it important to recognize that in some situations, the responsibility of the representative can go unrecognized by members of management. Respondents discussed this as being a reality among management staff who may be of a different cultural background or among managers who do not value participatory decision making. The result of this could be a perception that a representative is an axe-grinder or a trouble maker, as opposed to a spokesperson for a larger group of staff members in the context of organizational decision making:
In a non-democratic or in an oppressive setup, this (representative) literally puts his neck on the line should he try and stand up for the interest of the rest of the employees.
In the context of disagreement, respondents believed that representatives should not be seen as troublemakers but instead as potential contributors to the decision-making process. Respondents also believed that it was important for members of management to not only listen to the recommendations made by the representative but also account for these viewpoints when decisions are ultimately made by members of the management team. This approach would be important for overcoming misinterpretations regarding management’s relationship with the representative and the potential for manipulation that was often practiced by the apartheid regime. When the value of representatives is recognized by organizational leadership, the collective staff is able to participate in organizational decision making by proxy, thereby creating opportunities for group empowerment.
Planning before a decision
Finally, respondents believed that strategic planning could be used to empower staff members to participate in organizational decision making. One respondent very clearly stated, ‘There must be strategic planning in place. People should gather and hold some sort of summit and come with resolutions … and do consultation before a decision is being taken’. However, in addition to involving broader staff members in the strategic planning of an organization, one respondent recommended that staff should participate in formal preparation prior to strategic planning meetings, free from the presence of management so that staff could come to a consensus about their recommendations for the organization. This added layer of planning would help to address quietness during the planning stages of decision making and would also give representatives the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the recommendations of their colleagues and to build confidence to offer these recommendations:
The main thing is to have one or two meetings before the AGM (annual general meeting), where your staff come together, maybe at a certain level, say the caregivers. You talk among yourselves and come to an agreement. And on that agreement you formulate a policy or a way forward. (Representatives) get a bold confidence now to go the extra level at the AGM … But if you just come like this, you come and sit in an AGM and you will not talk. You will start shivering, so you’ve got to prepare yourself.
Discussion
One important theme uncovered in this study was that respondents desired more participation in decision making and more use of strategies to further empower them to enhance this participation. At first glance, this finding may seem to contrast with earlier studies suggesting that empowerment strategies seeking to enhance participatory decision making can be harmful to employees from high power distance cultures (Fock et al., 2013; Robert et al., 2000). However, it is important to recognize that although previous studies have found South Africa to have higher levels of power distance than the United States, these studies would also seem to indicate that South Africa is still only a medium power distance culture (Hofstede, 1984). This may help to explain why study participants were amenable to the ideas of participatory decision making and were supportive of particular strategies to empower staff to increase their participation.
Respondents reported that silence appeared to be a barrier to achieving participatory decision making. More specifically, despite a desire for staff to participate in decision making, there was a tendency for staff to remain quiet and not voice recommendations in the presence of leadership. Previous research has found that organizational silence is higher among organizations in high power distance cultures (Huang et al., 2005) and would seem to suggest that the silence reported by respondents in this study may in some way be a function of the high power distance of their culture.
Staff being ‘quiet’ in the presence of management and leadership has also been documented in other contexts such as the United States and has been attributed to a variety of factors such as feelings of futility, the fear of ostracism, or even altruistic tendencies (Brinsfield et al., 2009). However, it is important that the reader does not impose these parallel experiences from Western nations on the experience of ‘silence’ among respondents in this study. Based upon the insights provided by respondents, at least a portion of this silence can be attributed to feelings of fear, but much of that fear was discussed within the socio-political context of the apartheid regime. In a number of cases, staff indicated that they felt as though a fear to speak had been instilled in them through apartheid, that educational disadvantages had been created because of apartheid, and that even the use of representatives had been exploited by members of the earlier apartheid regime. These findings would seem to indicate that management and leadership at these agencies need to identify strategies to actively address the continuing legacy of apartheid, experienced as economic, positional, educational, and other disparities. Efforts to address the legacy of apartheid must extend beyond merely hiring larger numbers of staff from oppressed groups. Instead, management needs to continue to address historical oppression within the work environment through culturally competent empowerment strategies that promote participation and the vertical mobility of these disadvantaged groups within the organizations they serve.
Study participants reported that individual representatives could serve as conduits through which the larger group of staff could participate in organizational decision making. In their desire for participatory decision making, respondents did not prioritize the participation of all staff members in agency planning as one might expect among low power distance cultures, nor did they prioritize a desire to follow leadership without the ability to provide direction at their agency as one might expect among high power distance cultures. Instead, respondents seemed to take a middle of the road approach to participatory decision making, where individual staff members could speak on behalf of the collective. This middle of the road approach to participatory decision making seems to coincide with South Africa’s status as a medium power distance culture (Hofstede, 1984).
In addition to the priorities and barriers respondents identified in relation to participatory decision making, a number of strategies were also suggested about how staff could be empowered to further participate in decision making. One important principle suggested by the study findings involves the recognition and utilization of representatives when promoting participatory decision making. Instead of merely promoting empowerment equitably across larger groups of employees, organizational leadership may need to explore increased decision making among leaders who emerge organically and speak on behalf of their larger group of colleagues. This suggestion receives some support from the existing literature which suggests that indirect involvement of staff members in decision making through use of work councils and labor committees can be useful in some medium power distance nations (Sagie and Zeynep, 2003). Although the current research has not made any findings relating to formalized representation for staff through use of labor unions, the use of representatives who are tasked with making decisions on behalf of larger groups of staff does find support in contexts where a mixing of high and low power distance exists.
Another recommendation that respondents made about how staff can be empowered to participate in organizational decision making involved the use of formalized participation opportunities. Respondents suggested that agency leadership could have staff members engage in collaborative planning with colleagues prior to participating in decision making meetings with members of management. This collaborative planning may allow staff members, who have traditionally relied upon the directives of hierarchal management structures, the opportunity to brainstorm their ideas and recommendations and to choose a representative to convey those messages to leadership. Respondents also suggested that providing formal education and leadership training opportunities may also be helpful in developing leadership among agency staff. It is important to recognize, however, that some researchers have found that formalized opportunities for involvement may not be enough to increase participatory decision making among staff in high power distance cultures (Huang et al., 2005). Instead, these researchers have found that participation in decision making can only be enhanced in these situations when formalized opportunities are matched with a participative organizational climate that encourages the sharing of different opinions and even opposing viewpoints with an organization. Further research is needed to confirm this phenomenon among these South African organizations.
Some respondents did share that silence at their agencies might be a result of a particularly intimidating leaders or even the result of more autocratic leadership styles. These leadership styles may be counter to what Huang et al. (2005) described as a participative organizational climate. Further research is recommended regarding the use of different leadership styles among high power distance cultural groups. Research has suggested that particular types of leadership such as transformational leadership and relational leadership may be useful for enhancing empowerment among high power distance societies (Gill et al., 2010). Experimental designs are recommended to compare the effectiveness of traditional autocratic leadership styles with other leadership styles in their ability to promote empowerment and participatory decision making among medium and high power distance cultural groups. Previously, Hofstede (1993) had noted the cultural imperialistic tendencies of Westerners relating to the concept of power distance: ‘North and West Europeans have trouble with the vertical society of nearly all Third World countries. They believe the first thing these Third World countries need is the elimination of their power inequalities’ (p. 395). Future empirical studies comparing the effectiveness of alternative leadership styles may be necessary when agencies consider removing autocratic management approaches in favor of alternative strategies to enhance participation. It is only with these empirical studies that these organizations will be able to determine whether innovative leadership styles could be effective among high power distance groups to empower and enhance participatory decision making.
It is important to acknowledge the limitations of this study. First, the sampling design in this study utilized qualitative nonprobabilistic sampling. This means that respondents were not chosen in a way that ensured they were representative of all staff members working for American-funded HIV/AIDS organizations in South Africa, so results cannot be generalized beyond the sample. Future research may also need to go into greater depth to consider the levels of power distance and prioritization of empowerment that may exist at different levels across South Africa’s 11 official language groups.
It is important to recognize that a number of factors may have influenced participants’ perceptions of participatory decision making. Because the majority of organizations chosen to participate in this study provide HIV/AIDS care services, findings may not have emphasized the priorities of staff working in HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention programs in South Africa. For example, the suggestion to empower staff through use of formal education may have been particular to HIV/AIDS care organizations with positions that require lower levels of education (i.e. home health aides), in contrast to HIV/AIDS treatment organizations with positions that require higher levels of education (i.e. nursing staff). Social workers who are invested in empowering staff members at local agencies are encouraged to conduct further research to determine whether positional requirements and organizational objectives create different expectations concerning staff participation in decision making.
On an organizational level, it should also be noted that all of the agencies that participated in the study received foreign HIV/AIDS funding from the US government. Theorists have noted that nonprofit organizations that receive foreign assistance may themselves be heavily influenced by foreign funding sources and have fewer opportunities for empowerment (Jalali, 2013). In relation to this study, it should be recognized that results cannot be generalized to HIV/AIDS organizations that do not receive foreign funding, as the experiences with empowerment at these agencies may be different. Future research will be needed to study the different experiences with participatory decision making among agencies that receive foreign funding as opposed to funding from the South African government or grass roots movements. The temporary nature of foreign funding may also create different experiences with empowerment at these South African organizations. Previous researchers have found that the temporal investment of staff at agencies can have a direct influence on empowerment. Although this previous research has focused on different types of empowerment experienced by full-time employees and volunteers (Ashcraft and Kedrowicz, 2002), it stands to reason that different patterns of participatory decision making may be created by the contractual nature of foreign funding. Future research is needed to investigate the different experiences with empowerment created by different patterns of funding stability.
Footnotes
Funding
The author received a grant from Stockton University for part of this research.