Proceedings of 9th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
5 - 6 November 2015, Bayview Hotel, Singapore, ISBN: 978-1-922069-87-0
Antecedents of Structural Empowerment and the
Relationship Between Structural Empowerment and
Performance
**MostefaIder and *Ahmed Salman Al-Sulaiti
The purpose of this paper is to identify in a First step, the Individual, Organizational,
and contextual antecedents, of structural; and then in a second step, investigate the
relationship between structural empowerment and employee and organizational
performance. A series of hypotheses about the relationships between structural
empowerment and its antecedents on one hand , and
between structural
empowerment and individual and organizational performance on a second hand will
be tested. The study is based on data collected through 2 samplesof 52
employees(with 47valid cases) and 59 managers drawn from 20 multinational and
local companies in Qatar. A system approach combined with correlation analysis ,
regression , and analysis of variance will be used to test the various hypotheses
stated in the paper. Data will be analyzed , using the Statistical Package for Social
Science (SPSS) version 21.Finally a conceptual model for empowerment and
performance, as well as a predictive model for empowerment will be presented.
Keywords: Empowerment; structural empowerment; organizational, individual, and
contextual antecedents, organizational and individual performance.
JEL Codes:M10, M14, M16, M19
1. Introduction
The Oxford Dictionary defines empowerment as “ to give somebody the power or
authority to act” ( Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary,1995). Burke (1986, p.5)
defines empowerment as: “To empower, implies the granting of power-delegation of
authority.” Cornwall, J.: and Perlman, B.( 1990, p.87) define empowerment as
“…the process of having power given from the traditionally powerful managers in an
organization and instilled in everyone.” Taking a different perspective , Randolph
(1995, p.20) defines empowerment as “…recognizing and releasing into the
organization the power that people already have in their wealth and useful
knowledge and internal motivation.”
2. Research Objectives
The objective of this study is to investigate the relationships between
organizational, individual, contextual characteristics, Management strategies and
organizational processes, and structural empowerment. The main elements of this
work, consist in:
(a) Presenting the main conceptualizations of structural empowerment,
(b) Present a general model for structural empowerment linking the
Organizational, individual characteristics, contextual factors, management
strategies and organizational processes, as well as individual and
organizational performance (FIG1).
_______________________________________________________
**Dr. MostefaIder,Wroclaw University Of Economics, Faculty of Management , Finance & Informatics, Wroclaw,
Poland, E-mail: iderm07@hotmail.com
*Dr. Ahmed Salman Al-Sulaiti, SBS Swiss Business School, Zurich, Switzerland,
E-mail: mail.alsulaiti@gmail.com
Proceedings of 9th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
5 - 6 November 2015, Bayview Hotel, Singapore, ISBN: 978-1-922069-87-0
(c) Test the relationships between organizational, individual characteristics,
contextual factors, management strategies and organizational processes, and
structural empowerment.
(d) Test the relationships between structural empowerment and individual and
organizational performance.
3. Literature and Theory
We distinguish two perspectives on empowerment: “The relational perspective”
or Structural Empowerment, introduced by Kanter(1977) which is a top-down
approach to empowerment and a second perspective known as the “Psychological
perspective” or psychological empowerment, which is a bottom-up approach to
empowerment ( Conger and Kanungo, 1988),
For Conger and Kanungo (1988), the diffusion of the decision making power
down the hierarchy, alone , will not necessarily result in outcome improvement ,
since it’s “the employee’s perception of empowerment and the employee’s inner
nature “ which matter. Furthermore Conger and Kanungo (1988, p.474), state that
empowerment is the “process of enhancing feelings of self- efficacy among
organizational members” , through the identification of the work conditions and
barriers , which make the employees feel powerless, and removing these
obstacles using formal and informal management techniques by providing efficacy
information.
4. Structural Empowerment
Broadly speaking, literature on empowerment has highlighted two main
conceptualizations of empowerment, namely the two perspectives on empowerment
defined in the previous section: structural and psychological perspectives.
According to Kanter (1993) , the organizational provision of opportunity,
significantly influences workers’ motivation, productivity, commitment and degree of
engagement in work. Kanter defines the structure of power as organizational
attributes that enable workers to mobilize resources. Specifically, she asserts that
high levels of structural empowerementcomes from the access tofour organizational
sources:Information, Support, Resources, and Opportunity:
1. Access to opportunity refers to : “the possibility for growth and movement
within the organization as well as the opportunity to increase knowledge and
skills” (Kanter, 1993; Laschinger et al., 2001, 2004)
2. Acess to resources refers to: “one's ability to acquire the financial means,
materials, time, and supplies required to do the work” (Kanter, 1993;
Laschinger et al., 2001, 2004)
3. Access to information refers to: “ having the formal and informal knowledge
that is necessary to be effective in the workplace (Kanter, 1993; Laschinger et
al., 2001, 2004)
4. Access to support involves receiving feedback and guidance from
subordinates, peers, and superiors (Kanter, 1993; Laschinger et al., 2001,
2004)
Beside these four organizational sources of structural power, Kanter
(1977,1993)
believes that access to theorganizational empowerment
structures,can be enhanced by the formal and informal power, an employee has in
an organization.
5. Formal power is the power an employee is granted in accordance to his
position in the company and the authority associated with that position.
Proceedings of 9th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
5 - 6 November 2015, Bayview Hotel, Singapore, ISBN: 978-1-922069-87-0
6. Informal power derives from the capacity of an employee to use his unique
characteristics , experience, and knowledge, as well as interpersonal skills, to
obtain the respect, admiration of others , and support for himself among
peers, subordinates and cross-functional groups within an organization.
These Six elements constitute the well established multi-dimensional construct
for Structural Empowerment throughout literature.
4.1. Related Works and Discussion
Most of the research work about empowerment was conducted in the
beginning in Canada and in the United States . Later several studies have been
conducted in Europe, but in the Middle East such studies are rare, with the exception
of Iran, where few studies have been conducted. In the rest of the countries of
Middle East and the Arab World in general , and the Gulf Council Cooperation
Countries in particular, the number of studies is meaningless. This observation and
the objectives of the Qatar Vision 2030, which require a more empowered society ,
and a bigger involvement of citizens at the local level in Policy making and the
Design of public services, were at the basis of the motivation of this study. That’s
why we decided to undertake such study in Qatar.
4.2. Antecedents of Empowerment
In this section, we’ll talk about the individual, organizational , and contextual
antecedents of structural empowerment. Conger and Kanungo (1988) have said
that: Organizational factors, managerial strategies ,and self-efficacy information to
subordinates are the influencers of empowerment. Similarly, according to Thomas
and Velthouse (1990), other factors like an
individual’s work context ,and
personality characteristics play as well an important role in whether an individual is
empowered or not, and shape empowerment cognitions, which in turn, motivate
individual behavior.Spreitzer (1995) has shown that structural characteristics of selfesteem, locus of control, and link to rewards are some critical antecedents of
empowerment. However in general the previous studies have been focusing on
psychological empowerment, and an exhaustive list of antecedents of structural
empowerment has not been yet established.Structural empowerment is not about
employee’s perception or sense of empowerment but about the power that an
employee has in the workplace, and henceidentififying the antecedents of
structural empowerment could be very useful from a managerial perspective.
4.2.1. Influence of Organizational Characteristics on Empowerment
One of the first firm’s characteristics that may play role in structural
empowerment is the firm’s size. In an entrepreneurial configuration , there’s a wide
span control, a low job specialization, and the power is in general concentrated in
the hands of the entrepreneur(owner). Entrepreneurial organizations , are flat
structures , consisting of few layers, making often the decision making process
fast. However, as these small companies start growing , the decision making
process becomes more complex , and centralization of the authority may become a
totally ineffective Management Model. By opposition large firms are bureaucracies,
with many layers, a high degree of job specialization, standardized work processes,
a narrow span control , with many information filters and a slow decision making
process. This type of companies may use a centralized structure in a machine
configuration, and a decentralized structure in a divisional structure. Modern
Proceedings of 9th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
5 - 6 November 2015, Bayview Hotel, Singapore, ISBN: 978-1-922069-87-0
techniques of
production like the Just-In-Time and Total Quality Management
canhardly be implemented successfully in this type of companies
without
employee empowerment. As for the small companies, given the challenges they
face in today’s economy in terms of uncertainty, and intense competition,
empowerment, could be one of the possible strategies , they may use to leverage
their competitive strength and prosper. Because of the low degree of specialization
in small firms, employees perform a bigger variety of tasks than in larger ones,
which make them actually, a good environment for the promotion of empowerment.
Hence, the question of whether the firm’s size is related to empowerment or not is
not quite clear. However, Baird, K.; and Wang,H.( 2010) showed actually , that
there is no relationship between the organization size and employee empowerment.
Culture is the second organizational characteristic that may have an influence on
the fact whether a company is empowered or not. Organizational culture is defined
as a set of values, beliefs, and norms that are shared by members of an organization
(Kowalczyk&Pawlish, 2002). At a basic level, culture may be defined as “the way we
do things around here” or “the way we think about things around here” (Williams et
al, 1994). Organizational culture has been often at the basis of the competitive
advantage of afirm, and companies like HP, and IBM, are good examples of firms
relying on their corpoprate cultures to compete against their rivals. One may wonder
how come organizational culture plays such a strategic role for a
company?Actuallyorganizational culture not only shapes the employee’s behavior
and has an influence on his motivation and morale, but has as well, an impact on
productivity and efficiency; attitude in the workplace, as well as the quality of his
work (Campbell and Stonehouse, 1999). And that’s whyit’s not a coincidence, that
organizational performance itself, is determined, to a large part, by employee
behavior (Hoogervorst, 1998). We are now in the position to state our first
hypothesis:
H1: There’s a positive relationship between organizational culture of a firm and its
level of structural empowerment.
The third organizational characteristic that will probably have an influence on
the fact that a company will be empowered or not is the organizational structure.
Actually organizational culture influences employee’s behavior by using managerial
instruments such as a strategic direction, goals, and structure (Martins & Terblanche,
2003). Clearly, in a company using a centralized , mechanistic structure, one would
not expect to find employees to be empowered. By opposition, in a decentralized ,
organic structure, empowerment might be one of the major strategies used by a
company to compete against others . However the challenges created by
globalization ,technology, and the intensity of competitition , are pushing for the
introduction of new ways of managing in firms. And the new trends observed in
management today, point all in a new direction, where we see many companies
moving from a bureaucratic control to a more humanistic control ( Buchanan and
Huczynski , 1997); thus creating a new environment more favourable for
empowerment. This leads to state our second hypothesis:
H2: There a relationship between the organizational structure of a firm and its level
of structural empowerment.
4.2.2. Influence of Contextual Characteristics on Empowerment
Proceedings of 9th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
5 - 6 November 2015, Bayview Hotel, Singapore, ISBN: 978-1-922069-87-0
Mintzberg was one of the major authors who gave a great importance to the
question of context. He considered , that contexts of age, size, technical system,
environment, and power , all have have an influence on a firm’s
organizationalstructure. For example the more power an organization exerts on its
environment , the more likely it will be centralized. While a firm operating in an
environment , characterized by complexity, like internationalization , will probably opt
for decentralization.
Clearly context is a major
factor
which influences
organizational design, culture, and the ditribution of power within an organization.
The success of implementation of many management techniques and methods in
an organization, quite often depends on the organizational context, and hence it’s
very likely that it has an influence on the process of empowerment.
One of the first types of contexts is, globalization. Globalization, is one of major
forces , driving business today, resulting in the spread of standardization of methods
and products, as well as the diffusion of management techniques. Few authors
studied the relationship between globalization and empowerment, among them
Michna, A.; Meczynska, A.;Kmieciak, R., &Sekowska, R. (2011), who investigated
the relationship between empowerment and internationalization of Polish SMEs.
Marin and Verdier, in their work (Marin, D.; &Verdier, T.,2012), focus on globalization
and the empowerment of talent. Some authors who studied this relationship,
examine this issue from a gender perspective, that is the relationship between
globalization and empowerment of women ( Neumayer, E.; & De Soysa, I. ; 2011).
However the direct relationship between structural empowerment and globalization
has not formally been investigated. We will test in this paper, whether such a
relationship exist or not.
H3: there is a negative relationship between a firm’s degree of globalization and the
structural empowerment level of that firm.
The second type of context ,that may play role in the process of structural
empowerment is the work environment,as it is perceived directly or indirectly by
employees. Work environment is assumed to have an influence on motivation and
behavior ( Wang, J.L.; Zhang, D.J.; Jackson, L.A.; 2013). More importantly, work
unit social structural characteristics , which correspond to the perceptions by
employees of ( role ambiguity, sociopolitical support, access to information about
goals and performance, and work climate), seem to have a big influenceon the
process of empowerment. A participative work unit, with a good access to
information, a strong sociopolitical support, and little role ambiguity is expected to
be related to an environment where employees feel empowered.
H4: There’s a positive relationship between the Work Unit Social Structural
Characteristics of a firm and the level of Structural empowerment in that firm.
The Third type of context is Trust. Trust is an essential element in constructive
human relationships (Tan & Tan, 2000). In efforts to attain an excellent empowered
organization, there should be mutual trust between managers and their staff. Trust in
organizations can affect many levels of organizational commitment and turnover
intention, whereas trust in one’s supervisor affects innovative behavior and the
employee’s satisfaction with the supervisor (Tan & Tan, 2000).As empowerment is
essentially, a continuing interpersonal relationship that fosters mutual trust between
employers and employees, a relationship between trust and empowerment is quite
probable. Such arelationship , will allow individuals to endeavor toward continuous
improvement in quality, efficiency, better customer service, and vendor negotiations
Proceedings of 9th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
5 - 6 November 2015, Bayview Hotel, Singapore, ISBN: 978-1-922069-87-0
with minimal individual or professional risk and cost. To test this relationship, we
state the following hypothesis:
H5: There’s a positive relationship between trust in a firm and the level of structural
empowerment in that firm.
The Fourth type of context is the Industry. Does empowerment depend on
industry? Are some industries more favourable for empowerment than others? HighTech industries are quite often more associated with empowerment than other
industries, and there are
papers that seem to point in this direction
(
Tsung‐HsienKuo, Li‐An Ho, Chinho Lin, Kuei‐Kuei Lai, 2010), and ( Kaka,N.;
Madgavkar, A.; Manyika,J. ; Bughin, J.; and Parameswaran,P.; 2014). We know
also from other areas in management that industry matters. In strategic management
for example, McGahan, A.M.; and Porter,M.E. (1997), showed that organizational
performance does indeed depend on the industry. We will show that the structural
empowerment level means vary among industries.
H6: The average structural empowerment levels for the various industries are
different ( The empowerment structural level mean depends on the industry).
Beside the question of the firm’s organizational culture, the national culture of the
firm country’s origin, or the host country may play a role as well in the empowerment
within a company. Using the framework of Hofstede (2010), the power distance
dimension of the national culture seems to play an important role in empowerment.
But which national culture , the national culture of the firm country’s origin, or the
culture of the host country?The question of the impact of the culture of the host
country on empowerment has been addressed by M. Oloko and M. Ogutu (2012),
who showed, that the power distance of the host country has a moderate effect on
the relationship between empowerment and international companies.As for the
impact of the national culture of the firm country’s origin on empowerment, the
question remains open.
4.2.3. Influence of Individual Characteristics on Structural Empowerment
Individual characteristics are in general much more associated with
psychological empowerment than with structural empowerment. However, having or
recruiting employees with along experience in the current position, and equipped
with the right knowledge, and skills relevant to the job performed by employees in a
firm can enhance the confidence’ employee to take decisions. The concept of
knowledge characteristics of the job has been introduced by Humphrey, S.E.;
Nahrgang, J.D.; &Morgeson, F.P. (2007). We will show that there is a relationship
between the knowledge characteristics of the job ,the total number of years of
experience relevant to the current position and structural empowerment. For this
purpose ,the following hypotheses , will be tested:
H7: There is a positive relationship between the knowledge characteristics of the job
of employees in a firm and the structural empowerment level of that firm.
H8: There is a positive relationship between the total number of years of experience
in the current position of employees in a firm and the structural empowerment level
of that firm.
4.3. Strategies and Organizational Processes to facilitate Empowerment
Implementation.
Robbins (1994) noted that, by giving employees enhanced skills, abilities, and
confidence; management increases the likelihood that the empowerment process will
Proceedings of 9th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
5 - 6 November 2015, Bayview Hotel, Singapore, ISBN: 978-1-922069-87-0
succeed, that’s why we expect Training to be related to empowerment. Link to
rewards has an influence on organizational performance (Dowling and Richardson,
1997) and total quality management (Allen and Kilmann, 2001).Hence, one may
expect , that if an organization wishes to empower its employees , it should link
sufficient rewards to the desired behavior ( empowerment in our case). Another
process that could help to create an environment favourable for empowerment is Job
Design in general and the job characteristics model in particular. The Job
Characteristics Model is at the basis of what is known as intrinsic motivation; that is,
there is nothing more motivating for an employee than the content of the job itself.
Higher score on job characteristics , increases performance and leads to a high job
satisfaction, and is quite probably, one of those processes , which facilitate the
implementation of structural empowerment in a firm.
4.3.1. Job Characteristics
Hackman and Oldham (1975) were the First to observe that nothing can be more
motivating than the content of the job itself. They played a central role in how work
can be redesigned in order for employees to be internally motivated. Intrinsic or
internal motivation occurs when an individual performs his job because of the
positive internal feelings resulting from doing well. Internally motivated employees,
work more effectively, and perform better on their job, than employees driven by
external motivating factors (such as an incentive pay, bonuses, etc.). Internal
motivation is determined by three psychological states, i.e., experienced
meaningfulness, accountability and awareness of results. These psychological states
are influenced by the presence of the five core job dimensions, i.e.; skills variety,
task identity, task significance, task autonomy, and feedback. These Five Job
characteristics have a big impact on the employee’s work outcomes in terms of
effectiveness, absenteeism, and lead to employee’s job satisfaction. To find out
whether, there is a relationship between the Five Job characteristics and structural
empowerment, we state the following hypothesis:
H9: There is a positive relationship between the job characteristics model score in a
firm and the structural empowerment level of that firm.
4.3.2. Link to Rewards
Many studies have revealed the effect of a link to rewards on organizational
performance (Dowling and Richardson, 1997). Similarly, it is maintained that if
management wishes to implement employee empowerment within an organization,
adequate rewards must be linked to the desired employee behavior. Specially, a
suitable reward system is very much needed to encourage employees to work out an
additional decision-making responsibilities that connect this reward system with
employee empowerment. So, management should link empowerment behavior to
rewards, be it financial benefits or promotion opportunities, in order to encourage
employee empowerment within their organization.To establish the relationship
between the link to rewards and structural empowerment, we state the following
hypothesis:
H10: There is a positive relationship between the Link to Rewards in a firm and the
structural empowerment level in that firm.
Proceedings of 9th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
5 - 6 November 2015, Bayview Hotel, Singapore, ISBN: 978-1-922069-87-0
4.3.3. Training
Training and education are recognized by many experts as important in preparing an
organization for change, in accomplishing it, and institutionalizing it as a permanent
part in an organization. To be effective and autonomous in taking decisions, an
employee needs a regular and continuous training. The outcomes of learning are not
only knowledge and understanding, but can be as well emotional and motivational
outcomes, resulting in the form of attitudes towards the learning itself and change in
the organization. Lack of understanding and a proper training contribute often to
employee’s resistance to change. Thus training provides an opportunity to motivate
and empower employees, as well as reducing their resistance to the implementation
of change. Taking a process view of an organization, Training is a process used by a
firm, which facilitates
the implementation of employee’s empowerment and
increases the chances of its successful implementation. Robbins (1994) noted that,
by giving employees enhanced skills, abilities, and confidence; management
increases the likelihood that the empowerment process will succeed.Thus , we state
the following hypothesis:
H11: There is a positive relationship between the trainingin a firm and the structural
empowerment level of that firm.
4.3.4. Transformational Leadership
Various empirical studies showed the existence of a relationship between the
leadership style,
work team success, and
leadership effectiveness. More
specifically, it’s the Transformational leadership(Bass,B.M.; 1998), which is being
suggested to enhance work-oriented values and shapes the self-efficacies of
employees. Organizational leaders need to inspire people, captivate their
imaginations, and raise employees to new levels of personal empowerment so that
the overall organization thrives. Walinskas (2000) theorized that empowering
employees will assist in promoting the vision.
Transformational Leadership Style (Bass,B.M.; 1985: 25) seems to be the style
which most correlate with empowerment (Azman, I. ; Hasan Al-Banna, M.; Ahmad
Zaidi, S.;MohdHamran,M.;andMunirah,H.Y.; 2011), and ( Allameh,S.M.;Hevdari,M.;
and Davoodi, S.M.R.; 2011).
5. Individual and Organizational Performance as an outcome of
Empowerment
Job performance is generally defined as the degree to which an individual
helps the organization achieve its goals. Borman and Motowidlo (1993) introduced
two types of performance: Functional performance and contextual performance.
Task performance is related to the use of technical skills and knowledge to produce
goods or services or to accomplish a specialized task that support the actual
functions of an organization, while contextual performance is related to when an
employee is voluntarily helping colleagues to complete their work assignments,
putting in extra effort to complete a given task, putting in extra hours to get work
done on time, looking for new ways to increase performance, and so forth (Van
Scotter, 2000).In this study, in terms of employee’s performance, we’ll focus on
contextual performance. As for the organizational performance, we will stick to the
financial performance, because of the unwillingness of the majority of organizations
Proceedings of 9th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
5 - 6 November 2015, Bayview Hotel, Singapore, ISBN: 978-1-922069-87-0
to share with us the critical information needed for a Balanced Scorecard. Since task
performance seems to be more related to the individual performance and hence
probably much more to psychological empowerment, we will focus in this paper on
contextual performance.Thus we state the following hypothesis:
H12: There is a positive relationship between the level of the structural
empowerment in a firm and the contextual performance level in that firm.
H13: There is a positive relationship between the level of structural empowerment
in a firm and the financial organizational performance of that firm.
6. General Model For Empowerment and Performance
Based on the current literature review, one can see that there were many attempts to
identify the various antecedents of structural; however a general model linking
organizational, individual, contextual characteristics, management and organizational
processes, and structural empowerment, as well as employee and organizational
performance, has never been presented. A common approach to these issues has
not been developed so far. A general model showing the connections between all
these concepts is presented in Fig 1.
Fig 1.
7. Methods
Our research is concerned with the relationships between organizational,
individual, contextual characteristics and structural empowerment. From the
theoretical point of view, the problem of structural empowerment is analyzed on the
basis of system theory, or a process view of the organization. Hypotheses will be
tested using a correlation tests, and ANOVA. Finally a predictive model for structural
empowerment using a multiple linear regression model will be presented.
Proceedings of 9th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
5 - 6 November 2015, Bayview Hotel, Singapore, ISBN: 978-1-922069-87-0
8. Data Collection and Sampling
The study was carried out at Doha, Qatar, from October 2012 to June 2014. A
survey was administrated to twenty multinational companies operating in Qatar, from
the USA, Europe, Asia, as well as some local and regional companies from the Gulf
Council Cooperation. To conduct this study, we used a cross-sectional research
design consisting of interviews of some top managers, and HR managers of the
participating companies, a pilot study, and an online survey composed of two
questionnaires , one for managers and one for employees.
The purpose of
the interviews was to check whether any form of
empowerment is being used in those companies, to have an idea about the
management and organizational processes used by the companies for the
implementation of empowerment in case empowerment is used, and to have an
evaluation of the empowerment programs and its impact on employee and
organizational performance . Our interviews of HR managers was used as well to
improve the accuracy and quality of our questionnaires before sending them to
employees and managers. Managers and employees who participated in the
survey have been informed by the HR managers , and a letter with all the details
about our research and guidelines for our questionnaires was sent to all
participants.
Interviews with top managers and the questionnaire for managers were used to
collect the information which might be not accessible to employees. As for the
second questionnaire, it was used for employees to collect data for the investigation
of the issues related to empowerment and individual performance. Answers to
questionnaires , were collected using web surveys through the platform Qualtrics.
(www.Qualtrics.com) and analyzed with IBM’s SPSS, Version 21. The response rate
for the two types of questionnaires was 47 for the employees and 59 for
Managers.
8.1. Participants
The sample used for our analysis is based on the questionnaire for emplyees ,
supplemented by the information provided by the questionnaire for managers.
Oour sample consistsof 47 people, with 39 males and 8 females. Four people are
below 25, 16 between 25 and 35, 22 between 35 and 45, and 10 above 45. In terms
of education qualifications, 55.8% had a Bachelor’s degree and 44.2% a Master’s
or Ph.D. In terms of position held, 4 were junior level,8 senior staff members,30 from
Middle Management, and 10Executive Managers. By nationality we had 28 Asians,3
Africans,13 Europeans,5 Americans, and 3 from GCC( Gulf Council Cooperation).
Six people had less 5 years of work experience, 10 between 5 and 10, 12 between
10 and 15,13 between 15 and 20, and 11 more than 20 years of experience.
In
terms of experience relative to the current position we have 19 with less than 5
years of experience relative to the current position, 12 between 5 and 10,10 between
10 and 15 years,3 between 15 and 20, and 8 more than 20. The participant profiles
is given in Table 1.
Proceedings of 9th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
5 - 6 November 2015, Bayview Hotel, Singapore, ISBN: 978-1-922069-87-0
And here are the industries from where the participants were coming:
Oil/gas:4;Textile/Fashion:3;Manufacturing/Automotive/Steel/Metals/Aeronautics/Aviat
ion:2;Media/Advertising/PR:3;RealEstate/Construction:3;Finance/Banking/Insurance/
Accouting:4:IT/Telecommunications/Cable/Internet:25;Utilities/Water/Electricity/Ener
gy:3;Consulting:4, Other:1.The industries of the companies participating in our study
is given in Table participating in our study is given in Table 2.
Measurement tools
Structural empowerment is measured on the basis of a six (6)-dimension
construct(Opportunity:3items, Support:3items, Resources:3items,Information:3items,
Formal power: 3items, Informal Power:4 items) known as the Conditions for Work
Effectiveness Questionnaires (CWEQ-I, and CWEQ-II) (Laschinger et al., 2001).
Knowledge Characteristics of the Job is measured using a Three dimensional
construct ( job complexity, 4 items; information processing, 4 items; problem solving,
4 items ) developed by Humphrey, S.E.; Nahrgang, J.D.; &Morgeson, F.P. (2007).
Job Characteristics is measured on the basis of the Five- dimensional construct
developed in the Job Diagnostic Survey ( skills variety, 2 items; task identity, 2 items,
Proceedings of 9th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
5 - 6 November 2015, Bayview Hotel, Singapore, ISBN: 978-1-922069-87-0
task autonomy, 2 items; task significance, 2 items; feedback, 4 items) (Hackman,
J.R.:& Oldham, G.R., 1975).
Trustis measured using a single dimension construct with 5 items developed by
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995).
Employee performance is measured using a one dimensional construct with 8
items for contextual performance developed by Borman and Motowidlo (1993).
Work Unit Social Structural Characteristics is measured using a four (4)dimensional construct( socio-political support, 4 items; work climate, 5 items; role
ambiguity, 3 items; Access To Information About Goals and Performance, 3 items) (
Spreitzer, G.M. , 1995).
Training is measured using a one dimensional construct with 4 items developed by
Smith et al. (2004).
Link to Rewards
is measured using a one dimensionalconstruct with 3
itemsdeveloped by Baird, K. & Wang, H. (2010.
Organizational Culture is assessed using a Four (4)-dimensional construct (support
orientation, 6 items; innovation orientation, 6 items; rules orientation, 3 items; goal
orientation, 6 items) developed by O’Reilly et al. (1991), and known as the
organizational culture profile (OCP) measure.
All items
for (Knowledge Characteristics of the Job; Job Characteristics;
Trust;Employee performance ; Work Unit Social Structural Characteristics ; Training
; Link to Rewards ; Organizational Culture ) are measured using a Likert scale from
1 to 5.
Organizational performance is measured using the averageReturn on Assets
during 2011 and 2013.
Organizational Structureis assessed using a one dimensional construct with
Six(6)-items, developed by Spreitzer, G.M. (1995), with a Likert scale from 1 to 7 (
Strongly Disagree=1, Moderately Disagree=2, Somewhat Disagree=3, Neither
Agree or Disagree=4, Agree=5, Moderately Agree=6. Strongly Agree=7); where 1
corresponds to the most mechanistic structure on the left of the continuum, and 7 to
the most organic structure on the right of the continuum.
Globalization: is assessed using a Five-items construct proposed by Kraemer, K.
L., Gibbs, J. L., &Dedrick, J. (2005). (1) whether the company has its headquarters
abroad (yes/no), coded (HA); (2) whether it has other establishments abroad
(yes/no) coded (EA); (3) international sales as a share of its total sales(0-100%)
coded (ISTS); (4) international procurement as a share of its total procurement (0100%) coded (IPTP), and (5) the degree of international competitive pressure facing
the firm (5-point Likert scale ranging from 1= n o t a t a l l a f f e c t e d t o
5 = significantly affected) coded (DICP).Scores for each of the five items were
rescaled to a 0-1 scale and aggregated, so that the index ranged from 0 to 5. A
higher score indicates a greater degree of company globalization.
8.2. Validity and Reliability
All constructs used in the research have been validated by numerous authors and
showed a high Cronbach's alpha coefficient of internal consistency, and construct
validity ,confirming the reliability and validity of the constructs being used. We have
nevetherless, assessed the reliability and validity of all variables being used in this
research, based on our sample data. Data was analyzed using the Statistical
Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 21.0. An Exploratory Factor Analysis
(EFA) was used to assess the validity of the measurement scales and the Cronbach
Alpha (  ) was calculated for each variable . Using the guidelines proposed by
Nunally& Bernstein(1994) and Hair et al( 2006), a factor analysis with an oblimin
Proceedings of 9th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
5 - 6 November 2015, Bayview Hotel, Singapore, ISBN: 978-1-922069-87-0
rotation was conducted for all the items representing each variable. The KaiserMayer-Olkin Test (KMO), Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (BTS), Eigenvalue, Variance
Explained and Cronbach Alpha (α) are given for each variable in Table 3.
Loading factors for all items representing the variables being used in this
research were bigger than 0.40, which is the minimum acceptable for validity
analysis. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin’s (KMO) value for each variable used in the
research was bigger than 0.60 and all variables were significant in the Bartlett’s
Test of Sphericity, which shows that the measure of sampling adequacy for each
variable was acceptable. All variables had an eigenvalue larger than 1, showing that
the variables met the acceptable standard for validity analysis ( Hair et al, 2006).
All variables had as well a Cronbach Alpha value bigger than 0.70, proving their
internal consistency and meeting the acceptable standard of reliability analysis
(Nunally& Bernstein, 1994).
9. Results
9.1. Relationships Between Organizational Characteristics and Structural
Empowerment
We will test now hypotheses H1and H2 related to the relationships between
organizational characteritics and structural empowerment.
H1: There’s a positive relationship between organizational culture of a firm and its
level of structural empowerment.
H2: There a relationship between the organizational structure of a firm and its level
of structural empowerment.
We see from Table 4. that both relationships are significant at level α=0.01. The
Pearson’s coefficient of correlation for the relationship of organizational culture with
Proceedings of 9th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
5 - 6 November 2015, Bayview Hotel, Singapore, ISBN: 978-1-922069-87-0
structural empowerment indicates, a strong linear relationship with R=0.703. The
relationship is positive, that is the stronger the organizational culture , the higher is
structural empowermrnt level. An organization with a high support orientation, high
innovation orientation, high goals orientation, and less rules orientation has a strong
organizational culture.
As for organizational structure, we see as well from Table 4 that the relationship is
significant at level α=0.01.The relationship is negative, that is the more mechanistic
the organizational structure is, the lower the structural empowerment level is. The
more organic the organizational structure of a firm is, the higher
structuralempowermrnt level is. The Pearson’s coefficient of correlation R= -0.414,
suggesting a moderate negative linear relationship between organizational structure
and structural empowerment level in a firm.
9.2.1. Relationships
Empowerment.
BetweenContextual
Characteristics
and
Structural
In this section, we test hypotheses H3,H4, and H5 related to the relationships
between contextual characteritics and structural empowerment.
H3: there is a negative relationship between a firm’s degree of globalization and the
structural empowerment level of that firm.
H4: There’s a positive relationship between the Work Unit Social Structural
Characteristics of a firm and the level of Structural empowerment in that firm.
H5: There’s a positive relationship between trust in a firm and the level of
structural empowerment in that firm.
From Table 6. we see that there is a negative linear relationship between
Globalization of a firm and its structural empowerment level. The relationship is
significant at   0.05 . The Pearson’s coefficient of correlation R= -0.337 for this
relationship, suggesting a moderate linear relationship.
Proceedings of 9th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
5 - 6 November 2015, Bayview Hotel, Singapore, ISBN: 978-1-922069-87-0
As for the work unit social characteristics , Table 4. shows thatthe relationship
between work unit social characteritics and structural empowerment is significant at
level α=0.01. There is a positive linear relationship with structural empowerment
level. The strength of the linear relationship is moderate , R=0.412.
Table 4. shows as well that the relationship between trust and structural
empowerment is significant at level α=0.01. There is a positive linear relationship
with structural empowerment level. The strength of the linear relationship is
moderate , R=0.421.
9.2.2. When It Comes to Structural Empowerment , Industry Matters
In this section, we’ ll show that the structural empowerment of a firm depends on the
industry.
H6: The average structural empowerment levels for the various industries are
different ( The empowerment structural level mean depends on the industry).
To show that industry matters when it comes to structural empowerment, we
conducted an analysis of variance. In order to do that ,we have to make sure that
the assumptions for ANOVA are verified: in our case (1) observations are
independent.(2) our dependent varaiable is approximately normally distributed.(3)
Variances are equal. From Table 8 B. for the LeveneTest , we see that p-value is
=0.605, which is bigger than   0.05 , and hence variances are equal. From Table
8C., we see that the null hypothesis, that is the mean levels of structural
empowerment for the various industries are equal is rejected. The test is significant
at level   0.05 . Hence the mean levels of structural empowerment are different.
Proceedings of 9th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
5 - 6 November 2015, Bayview Hotel, Singapore, ISBN: 978-1-922069-87-0
9.3. Relationships
Empowerment
Between
Individual
Characteristics
and
Structural
In this section, we will test hypotheses H7and H8 related to the relationships
between individual characteritics and structural empowerment.
H7: There is a positive relationship between the knowledge characteristics of the job
of employees in a firm and the structural empowerment level of that firm.
H8: There is a positive relationship between the total number of years of experience
in the current position of employees in a firm and the structural empowerment level
of that firm.
From Table 5. we see that there is a positive linear relationship between the
knowledge characteristics of the job of employees and the structural empowerment
level of a firm . The relationship is significant at   0.05 . The Pearson’s coefficient
of correlation R= +0.364 for this relationship, suggesting a moderate linear
relationship.
The same thing can be said about the total number of years of experience
relative to the current position and the structural empowerment level of firm. The
Proceedings of 9th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
5 - 6 November 2015, Bayview Hotel, Singapore, ISBN: 978-1-922069-87-0
relationship is significant at   0.05 . The Pearson’s coefficient of correlation R=
+0.299 for this relationship, suggesting a weak linear relationship. For the human
resources strategy point of view , a firm intending to implement structural
empowerment is advised to recruit people with these two characteristics.
9.4. Relationships BetweenManagement and
Characteristics and Structural Empowerment.
Organizational
Processes
In this section, we test the hypotheses H9and H10, and H 11 related to the
relationship between managerial and organizational processes and structural
empowerment.
H9: There is a positive relationship between the job characteristics model score in a
firm and the structural empowerment level of that firm.
H10: There is a positive relationship between the Link to Rewards in a firm and the
structural empowerment level in that firm.
H11: There is a positive relationship between the training in a firm and the structural
empowerment level of that firm.
From Table 7. we see that there is a positive linear relationship between
Training, Link to rewards , Job Characteristics , and structural empowerment level of
afirm. All three relationships are significant at level α=0.01. The Pearson’s
coefficient of correlation for the relationship between training and structural
empowerment is R=0.507, suggesting a strong linear relationship . As for for the
relationship between link to rewards and structural empowerment R=0.727,
suggesting again a strong linear relationship. The same thing can be said about the
relationship between job characteristics and structural empowerment, with a
Pearson’s coefficient of correlation R=0.645 suggesting again a strong linear
relationship.
Proceedings of 9th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
5 - 6 November 2015, Bayview Hotel, Singapore, ISBN: 978-1-922069-87-0
9.5. Predictive Model for Structural Empowerment
In this section, we present a predictive model using a multiple linear regression
using the different antecedents of structural empowerment, we identified in this
paper. From Table 8 B. we see that R= 0.852, suggesting a good fit model.
9.6. Relationships Between Structural Empowerment, Individual performance
and Organizational Performance.
In this section, we test the hypotheses related to the relationships between
structural empowerment and employee and organizational performance.
Proceedings of 9th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
5 - 6 November 2015, Bayview Hotel, Singapore, ISBN: 978-1-922069-87-0
H12: There is a positive relationship between the level of the structural
empowerment in a firm and the contextual performance level in that firm.
From Table 10. we see that there is a positive linear relationship between
Structural empowerment level and employee performance expressed as contextual
performance defined above. The relationship is significant at   0.05 . The
Pearson’s coefficient of correlation R= +0.335 for this relationship, suggesting a
moderate linear relationship.
H13: There is a positive relationship between the level of structural empowerment
in a firm and the financial organizational performance of that firm.
From Table 11. we see that there is a positive linear relationship between the
Structural Empowerment level of a firm and organizational performance expressed
in Return On Assets. The relationship is significant at level α=0.01. The Pearson’s
coefficient of correlation for the relationship between Structural empowerment and
organizational performance expressed in ROA is R=0.447 , suggesting a moderate
linear relationship .
10. Conclusion and Future Research
From our analysis we see that the most important antecedents for structural
empowerment are
organizational culture, training, link to rewards, and job
characteristics. These results are very important from the practical point of view, as
its suggests on which organizational characteristics and process a firm should focus
when it comes to the implementation of structural empowerment. The main
Proceedings of 9th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
5 - 6 November 2015, Bayview Hotel, Singapore, ISBN: 978-1-922069-87-0
antecedent playing the key role for a asucessful implementation of structural
empowerment is the organizational culture, meaning, that a firm willing to implement
structural empowerment should develop and promote a culture stressing goal
orientation, support orientation, innovation orientation, and keep
rules and
procedures at a reasonable level to make sure that these do not increase barriers
for taking initiative, action, and fast decision making .In terms of a future research
we would like to investigate the relationship between leadership style , problem
solving style and empowerment.
References
Allameh,S.M.;Hevdari,M.; and Davoodi, S.M.R.(2011). Studying the relationship
between transformational leadership and psychological empowerment of teachers in
Abade Township. World Conference on Learning, Teaching & Administration – 2011.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 31, 2012, Pages 224–230
Allen, R.S.; Kilmann, R.H. (2001) "The role of the reward system for a total quality
management based strategy", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol.
14 Iss: 2, pp.110 - 131
Azman, I. ; Hasan Al-Banna, M.; Ahmad Zaidi, S.;MohdHamran,M.;andMunirah,H.Y.
(2011). An Empirical Study of the Relationship between Transformational
Leadership, Empowerment and Organizational
commitment.
Business and
Economics Research Journal. Volume 2 . Number 1 . 2011, pp. 89-107
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., &Kalleberg, A. L. (2000). Manufacturing
Advantage: Why High Performance Work Systems Pay Off. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Baird, K.; and Wang,H.( 2010) . Employee empowerment: extent of adoption and
influential factors. Personnel Review. Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 574-599
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership & Performance Beyond Expectations. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Bass, B.M. (1998).Transformational Leadership: Industry, Military & Educational
Impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Becker,G.S.(1964). "Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach". The Journal
of Political Economy76: 169–217
Bertrand, L. (1909). César De Paepe, sa vie, son œuvre . AgenceDechenne.
Bruxelles, Belgique
Borman, W. C., &Motowidlo, S. J. (1993).Expanding the criterion domain to include
elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.),Personnel
selection in organizations (pp. 71-98). New York: Jossey-Bass.
Brockner, J. (1988). Self-esteem at work. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books
Burke, W.W., Leadership as Empowering Others, 1st ed., Jossey-Bass,
California,1986.
Chien, M-H. (2004). A study to improve organizational performance: A view from
SHRM. Journal of American Academy of Business, 4(1/2), 289-291.
Cornwall, J.;and Perlman, B.( 1990). Organizational Entrepreneurship, 1st ed., Irwin,
Massachusetts, 1990.
Conger, J. and Kanungo, R.(1988). The Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory
and Practice. Academy of Management Review, v.13, no.3, pp.471-482, 1988.
Dickson,K.E. (2009), Psychological Empowerment and Job Satisfaction of
Temporary and Part -Time Nonstandard Workers: A Preliminary Investigation,
Southeast
Missouri
State
University;
http://ibam.com/pubs/jbam/articles/vol10/no2/JBAM_10_2_2.pdf
Proceedings of 9th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
5 - 6 November 2015, Bayview Hotel, Singapore, ISBN: 978-1-922069-87-0
Don Hellriegel, D; John W. Slocum,J.W; & Woodman, R.W. Jr. (1995).
Organizational behavior. South-Western College Pub.
Dowling, B.; Richardson, R.(1997) . Evaluating performance-related pay for
managers in the National Health Service. International Journal of Human Resource
Management. Volume 8, Number 3, pp.348-366(19)
Emerson, R.M. (1962). Power-Dependence Relations. American Sociological
ReviewVol. 27, No. 1 , pp. 31-41
Falahi, A.A.; Nazaripour, M.; Salavati,A.(2013). Relationship between Training and
Employee Psychological Empowerment (Case Study: Kermanshah Health Insurance
Office). Journal of Basic and Applied
Scientific Research J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 3(8)258-266, 2013
Fuller, J.B.(1997). The relation between leadership style and empowerment on job
satisfaction of nurses. The Journal of Nursing Administration. 06/1997; 27(5):27-34.
Gkorezis, Petridou, Panagiotis, Eugenia (2008).Employees' Psychological
Empowerment via Intrinsic and Extrinsic Rewards. Academy of Health Care
Management Journal (The Dream Catchers Group, LLC) 4 (1): 17–38.
Hackman , J.R.:& Oldham, G.R. (1975).Development of the Job Diagnostic
Survey.Journal
of
AppliedPsychology60,
159-170;
http://groupbrain.wjh.harvard.edu/jrh/pub/JRH1981_1.pdf
Harrison, J.; St. John, Caron. (2013). Foundations In Strategic Management., Sixth
Edition, Cengage Learning; p-80
Harrison, J. S., & Freeman, R. E. (2004). Is organizational democracy worth the
effort? Academy of Management Executive, 18(3), 49-53.
Herzberg, F. (1968).One More Time :How Do You Motivate Employees? Harvard
Business Review.46(1):53-62.
Hellriegel, D. et al. (2005). Management: A Competency Based Approach, 10th
Edition, Ohio: Thompson Publishers.
Hofstede, Geert H.. (2005) Cultures and organizations: Software of the Mind. 1st
edition, McGraw-Hill USA, 1997
Honold,
L.(1997).
“A
Review
of
the
Literature
on
Employee
Empowerment,”Empowerment in Organizations,v.5,no.4,pp.202-212.
Hoogervorst, J.A.P. (1998) Quality and Customer Oriented Behavior: Towards a
Coherent Approach for Improvement, Eburon, Delft
Humphrey, S.E.; Nahrgang, J.D.; &Morgeson, F.P. (2007). Integrating Motivational,
Social, and Contextual Work Design Features: A Meta-Analytic Summary and
Theoretical Extension of the Work Design Literature. Journal of Applied Psychology
, Vol. 92, No. 5, 1332–1356
Kaka,N.; Madgavkar, A.; Manyika,J. ; Bughin, J.; and Parameswaran,P. (2014).
India’s technology opportunity: Transforming work, empowering people. McKinsey
Global Institute. December 2014. India Tech Full Report.
Kanter, R.M. (1993). Men and women of the corporation (2nded.). New York: Basic
Books. Kanter, R.M. (1993).
Kanter, R. M. (1977).Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic
Books; http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/apl-96-5-981.pdf
Kowalczyk, S. &Pawlish, M. 2002, 'Corporate branding through external perception
of organizational culture', Corporate Reputation Review, vol. 5, no. 2/3, pp. 159-77.
Kraemer, K. L., Gibbs, J. L., &Dedrick, J. (2005). Impacts of globalization on ecommerce use and firm performance: A cross-country investigation.The Information
Society, 21(5), 323-340.
Lawler, E. E., III, Mohrman, S. A., & Benson, G. S. (2001). Organizing for High
Performance: The CEO Report on Employee Involvement, TQM, Reengineering, and
Knowledge Management in Fortune 1000 Companies. San Franicsco: Jossey-Bass.
Proceedings of 9th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
5 - 6 November 2015, Bayview Hotel, Singapore, ISBN: 978-1-922069-87-0
Lampel, J., Bhalla, A, Jha, P. (2010) Model Growth: Do Employee-Owned Business
Deliver Sustainable Performance, Cass Business School.
Laschinger, H.K.S.; Finegan, J.E. , Shamian , J.; and Wilk, P. (2001) . Impact of
structural and psychological empowerment on job strain in nursing work settings:
expanding Kanter’s Model. J Nurs Admin.;31(5):260-72.
Laschinger, H.K.S; Finegan,J.E.; Shamian,J.; and Wilk, P.(2004). Longitudinal
analysis of the impact of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction. Journal of
Organizational Behavior (25), 527–545 .
Lawrence, P.R., &Lorsch, J.W. (1967).Organization and environment. Boston:
Harvard University Press
Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (2004). The effects of organizational culture and leadership
style on job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal of Management
Development, 23(4), 321-338.
Mallak, L.A. &Kurstedt, H.A., Jr. (1996). Understanding and Using Empowerment to
Change Organizational Culture. Industrial Management, 38(6), 8-10;
McGahan,A.M.; and Porter, M.E. (1997). How much does industry matter really?
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 (Summer Special Issue), 15–30.
Mechanic, D. (1962). Sources of power of Lower participants in complex
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 349-364.
Mills,P.K.; and Ungson, G.R. (2003). Reassessing the Limits of Structural
Empowerment: Organizational Constitution and Trust as Controls. The Academy of
Management Review. Vol. 28, No. 1 (Jan., 2003), pp. 143-153
Motaghi, M.H, Nikpour A.,Chamanifard, R. (2013). Investigating and ranking the
effective factors for employee empowerment in state agencies of Kerman city
Nthigah, P.M.;Iravo, M.: and Kihoro, J. (2014). Influence of competition intensity
on strategic response of multinational corporations: a study of multinational
corporations in Kenya. Global Business and Economics Research Journal ISSN:
2302-4593 Vol. 3 (5): 1 - 14
O’Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J. and Caldwell, D.F. (1991).People and organizational
culture: a profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit.
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 , No. 3, pp. 487-516.
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary.(1995). Oxford University Press
Potterfield, T.(1999). The Business of Employee Empowerment, 1st ed., Green
Wood Publishing Group, Inc,
QatarVision2030.(2015)http://www.gsdp.gov.qa/portal/page/portal/gsdp_en/qatar_na
tional_vision/qnv_2030_document
Quinn, R.E. and Spreitzer, G.M. (1997).The road to empowerment: seven questions
every leader should consider. Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 37-49.
Randolph, W.A..(1995).Navigating the Journey to Empowerment. Organizational
Dynamics, v. 23, no. 4, pp.19-23.
Riordan, C.M., Vandenberg, R.J., & Richardson, H.A. (2005). Employee Involvement
Climate and Organizational Effectiveness. Human Resource Management, 44(4),
471-488. Rohmetra N. (1998
Salancik, G.R.; and Pfeffer, J. (1974). Organizational decision making as a political
process: The case of a university budget." Administrative Science Quarterly (1974):
135-151.
Scott E. Seibert, Gang Wang, and Stephen H. Courting(2011). Antecedents and
Consequences of Psychological and Team Empowerment in Organizations: A MetaAnalytic Review; http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/apl-96-5-981.pdf
Singh, A.P. (2008). Individual and Organizational Correlates of Employee
Empowerment: Some Indian Evidence. Management Insight (4),59-64.
Proceedings of 9th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
5 - 6 November 2015, Bayview Hotel, Singapore, ISBN: 978-1-922069-87-0
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995). Psychological Empowerment in the Workplace: Dimensions,
Measurement, and Validation. Academy of Management Journal, v.21, no.46,
pp.1442-1465.
Spreitzer, G.M.(1996). Social Structural Characteristics of
Psychological
Empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, v.39, no.2, pp. 483-504, 1996.
Thomas, K. and Velthouse, B., “Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An
‘Interpretive’ Model of Intrinsic Motivation. Academy of Management Review. v.15,
no.4, pp. 666-681, 1990.
Tsung‐HsienKuo, Li‐An Ho, Chinho Lin, Kuei‐Kuei Lai, (2010) "Employee
empowerment in a technology advanced work environment", Industrial Management
& Data Systems, Vol. 110 Iss: 1, pp.24 - 42
Walinskas, K. (2000, November/December). From vision to reality. Industrial
Management, 42(6), 22–23.
Wang, J.L.; Zhang, D.J.; Jackson, L.A. (2013). Influence of self-esteem, locus of
control, and organizational climate on psychological empowerment in a sample of
Chinese teachers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, 43, pp. 1428–1435
Williams, A., Dobson, P. & Walters, M. (1994). Changing Culture: New
Organisational Approaches. (2nd ed). Cromwell Press, Wiltshire.