Introduction The characteristic differences between group empowerment and moment of truth empowerment concern the techniques used and the period of empowering the staff members. For instance, group empowerment includes decisions employees make “on a day-to-day basis” (Lockyer, 2007, p. 111) while the moment of truth is more related to the particular “instant of customer contact” (p. 115). In this respect, the main difference between these two ways of empowering the individuals concerns the moment as a period in the case of a moment of true empowerment and the daily activities in the case of the group empowerment. Also, it is necessary to emphasize that these two methods of improving the quality of services provided to customers through the empowerment of the staff members include a different number of participants. Ways to empower people and gain empowerment using group techniques As suggested in the study by Risler and Holosko (2009), employees empowered with the help of group empowering techniques “have a higher degree of satisfaction among their members” (p. 75). At the same time, Barron-Mckeagney (2002) emphasizes the role of individual empowerment and its contribution to the introduction of group empowerment (p. 13). As contrasted to the idea suggested by Lockyer (2007) about the fact that moment of true empowerment is related to a particular moment, Bodaken and Fritz (2006) think that this technique includes people “who are involved, consistently improving their performance over time” (p. 28), and contribute positively to the quality of services. The role of the moment of truth empowerment was also focused on by Landrum (2006) and Silva (2005) as a good strategy for motivating sportsmen and in management while dealing with customers. In other words, the main differences include the period when results of empowerment are seen and the number of people as group empowerment requires interactions between groups while the moment of truth is the issue of one person. To answer the question concerning the impacts that may result from limiting the range of empowerment, it is necessary to think about the situation presented by Vijay Wanchoo, General Manager, (Corporate Planning, Fortune Park Hotels, New Delhi, India) where lack of empowerment leads to inefficient use of resources including involvement of employees, the time spent for solving the problem, and financial consequences of such limited, if any, empowerment (Lockyer, 2007, p. 110). In this respect, the impacts of limiting the range of empowerment may be negative when the lack of experience of employees that work directly with customers results in the necessity of involvement of the employees that occupy higher positions for the decision-making process. Negative consequences of limiting empowerment can range from lack of effective decision-making to financial losses due to poor reputation caused by inadequate responses to customers’ questions. Lucas (2004) provides an example of negative consequences when “actual levels of discretion and responsibility (were) low because managers deployed various mechanisms to limit empowerment” (p. 165). At the same time, some authors report about the positive aspects of limiting empowerment when it should be done for particular