Influence of Organizational Culture on Psychological Empowerment of Academicians in
Research Universities
Refereed Paper
Ahadi, Sahar ; Turiman, Suandi; Ismail, Maimunah; Omar, Zoharah
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Psychological empowerment of refers to dimensions of autonomy,
professional growth, status, self-efficacy, impact and decision making of the academicians in a university.
Organizational culture can be a powerful influence on the psychological empowerment because it
describes the link between contextual factors and employees’ work behaviors. A question arises: Which
type of culture is needed in a university that helps academicians to feel empowered? This study aimed to
examine the relationship between organizational culture and psychological empowerment of
academicians in research universities in Malaysia.
Methods: The respondents of the study were academicians from four research universities in Malaysia.
The study used a cluster random sampling technique. Ratios of academicians in each university were
considered for distributing the questionnaires. A total of 135 completed questionnaires were obtained out
of 400 distributed. The study utilized Common Methods Variance bias (of AMOS) for factor analysis. A
step-wise regression analysis was performed to predict the influence of organizational culture on the
psychological empowerment dimensions.
Results and conclusion: Results of the study revealed organizational culture associated with
psychological empowerment and its dimensions. The dominant culture in research universities was
hierarchy culture, while the strongest predictor of psychological empowerment was clan culture.
Implications for human resource development in higher education particularly the research universities
were put forth.
Keywords: psychological empowerment, organizational culture, research universities.
Introduction
Pressure, change and uncertainty are some of challenges that higher education faces these days (Bartell,
2003; Machado & Taylor, 2010). Increasing pressures from governments and global markets change the
roles and work style of its academicians and scholars (Altbach, 2004; Douglass, 2005; Gordon &
Whitchurch, 2007; McInnis, 2000; Wood, 2005). These challenges are not only related to structure and
systems but also to the development of academic staff.
Universities increasingly need to compete globally with other knowledge providers for highly qualified staff
with new and different skills in research and teaching activity. Teaching, scholarship, research,
consultancy, community service and administration are the major tasks of academicians in universities in
the globalization era. Making academicians’ career more attractive requires enough consideration on their
empowerment (Meyer, 2005; Short & Greer, 1997; Strazzeri, 2005; Thorndyke, Gusic, George, Quillen, &
Milner, 2006).
Employee empowerment is one of the most successful ways to improve employee motivation,
organizational commitment and job satisfaction, and a great deal of effort has been expended to explore
empowerment in organizations (Henkin & Marchiori, 2003; Laschinger, Finegan, & Wilk, 2009;
Manojlovich & Laschinger, 2002; Wang & Lee, 2009). Empowerment develops professional growth in
abilities and skills, self-efficacy and performance and decreases turnover of employers (Biron &
Bamberger, 2010; Greasley, Bryman, Dainty, Price, Naismith, & Soetanto 2008; Logan & Ganster, 2007;
Seibert, Silver & Randolph, 2004; Yang & Choi, 2009). But implementing empowerment in workplace
requires certain antecedents (Asmawi & Mohan, 2010; 2004; Ghani, Raja Hussin, & Jussef, 2009; Luby,
2006). Related research suggested that organizational culture facilitates empowerment (Hawks, 1999;
Johnson, 2009). Organizational culture has seen as a basic element of decision making for employees’
performance in their tasks.
Countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and the United States provide strategies
and conditions that reduce the uncertainty and maximize the performance and empowerment of
academic staff (Gordon & Whitchurch, 2007; Henkin & Marchiori, 2003). Malaysia has recently reformed
its higher education system resulting in the emergence of four research universities in 2006. The higher
education systems face more global challenges than before. Therefore, governmental and institutional
management are responsible to develop strategic plans for academicians to improve higher education
performance, one of which is their psychological empowermt. But empowerment strategies in higher
education is still at its the infancy stage in Malaysia (Ghani, Raja Hussin & Jusoff, 2009).
The literature shows a lack of study about the relationship between organizational culture and
psychological empowerment among academicians in universities. Universities’ leadership should identify
the dominant type of organizational culture and take actions to balance the organizational culture which is
suitable for increasing the level of psychological empowerment. Since most of the studies on
empowerment especially in the relation with organizational culture have been carried out in western
contexts, and the findings could not be generalized in Malaysia due to different socio cultural contexts,
this study attempts to examine the relation between organizational culture and psychological
empowerment in Malaysian higher education.
The purpose of this study is to examine the organizational culture profile of academicians using
competing values framework; and to investigate the relationship between organizational culture and
psychological empowerment in research universities in Malaysia. Thus the research questions that
guided this study are as follows: 1) What is the dominant organizational culture among lecturers in
research universities in Malaysia? 2) Is there any relationship between organizational culture and
academicians’ psychological empowerment? 3) Which type of organizational culture is a best predictor of
psychological empowerment dimensions?
This paper is organized as follows: After this introductory section, a literature review on psychological
empowerment and organizational culture is given, followed by the study methods that include sampling,
instrumentation and reliability. It then presents results of the descriptive and regression analyses. The
paper ends with conclusions, discussion of the research findings, recommendations for HRD theory and
practice as well as for future research.
Conceptual Framework
The competing values model (Figure 1), is a multidimensional framework to assess organizational culture
and psychological empowerment dimensions. The theoretical underpinnings of psychological
empowerment and organizational culture for this study are based on conceptualization of Short and
Rinehart (1992), who introduced psychological empowerment in education and competing value
framework theory by Cameron and Quinn, (2006).
Spreitzer (1995) used the intrapersonal concept of empowerment for workplace as described by Thomas
and Velthouse (1990). This psychological perspective of empowerment focuses on the perception of
employee on empowerment. Spreitzer (1995) defined psychological empowerment as an intrinsic task
motivation that manifests itself in cognitions reflecting an individual's orientation to his or her work roles.
Intrinsic task motivation is positively valued experience that an individual derives directly from a task that
produces motivation and satisfaction.
Psychological empowerment entails four cognitions namely, impact, competence, decision making and
meaning. However, as the context of educational workplace differs from business, Short and Reinhart
(1992) introduces psychological empowerment in educational settings that is dependent on six
dimensions. The dimensions are autonomy, professional growth, status, self-efficacy, impact, and
decision making (Wan, 2005; Short & Johnson, 1994). This study uses these dimensions of psychological
empowerment.
Autonomy refers to academicians’ beliefs that they can control certain aspects of their work life (Short &
Johnson, 1994; Womack & Loyd, 2004). Professional growth refers to the degree of opportunities that
university and departments provide for academicians to grow and develop professionally, to learn
continuously and develop certain skills for teaching and research. Status of academicians is often
determined by their effectiveness in the classroom and research (Short & Johnson, 1994). Self-efficacy
refers to the perception of self-knowledge and belief that academicians are personally competent and has
mastered skills necessary to affect desired outcomes while impact refers to when academicians feel they
have an influence on their work place (Womack & Loyd, 2004). Decision-making process in educational
context involves collaborative communication, problem solving sessions, and goal setting.
Organizational culture is a predictor of several workplace behaviors, effectiveness and job performance.
The competing values framework (CVF) conceptualizes the differences between organizational cultures
along two dimensions: structure and focus. The structure dimension ranges from flexibility at one extreme
to control at the opposite extreme. This dimension captures the difference between organizations that
strive for consistent patterns of behaviors and those organizations that attempt to allow their employees
to dictate their own behaviors. The focus dimension ranges from an external focus to an internal focus.
An internal focus emphasizes factors internal to the organization, such as employee satisfaction, while an
external focus emphasizes the organization's ability to function well in its environment (Cameron & Quinn,
2006; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). Thus different types of culture exist in organizations. Based on
competing values framework (CVF), organizations can have the clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy
culture (see Figure 1).
smooth
Adhocracy
Glue: innovation, development
Leadership:
innovator,
entrepreneur, visionary
Theory
of
effectiveness:
innovativeness, vision, and new
resources produce effectiveness
Hierarchy
Glue: formal procedures
Leadership: coordinator, monitor,
organizer
Theory of effectiveness: control
and efficiency with capable
processes produce effectiveness
Market
Glue: goal achievement
Leadership:
hard
driver,
competitor, and producer
Theory
of
effectiveness:
aggressively
competing
and
customer
focus
produce
effectiveness
External long-term
Clan
Glue: loyalty, commitment
Leadership: mentor, facilitator,
team builder
Theory of effectiveness: Human
development and participation
produce effectiveness
competitive
Internal short-term
Flexibility
Control
Figure 1. The Competing Values Framework
Source: Cameron and Quinn (2006, p. 46).
Clan emphasizes shared values and goals, participation, and a sense of family. Adhocracy emphasized
entrepreneurship, creativity, and adaptability, while hierarchy refers to many rules and regulations, clear
lines of authority, and its concern with efficiency (Cameron & Ettington, 1988; Fralinger, 2007; Johnson,
2009). Market emphasizes competition, environmental interaction and customer orientation.
The conceptual framework of this study explains that how each type of organizational culture has an
influence on psychological empowerment. Different types of organizational cultures have different impacts
on psychological empowerment. This means that certain type of organizational culture could facilitate
academicians’ empowerment, while other types of culture could not. In other words, while culture which
emphasizes creativity, adaptability and participation increases the lecturers’ psychological empowerment,
but culture which stresses on adherence to many rules, regulations and clear lines of authority may
decrease their empowerment. Psychological empowerment of academicians has been suggested to be
influenced by the organizational culture (Spreitzer, 1995; Johnson, 2009).
The connection between culture in organization and psychological empowerment built on the body of
research describing the relationship between the aspects of contextual factors and employees’ work
behaviors (Spreitzer, 1996). Organizational culture can be a powerful influence on cognitions of
empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995, 2006). But a question arises: Which type of culture is needed in
universities that helps academicians to feel empowered? This study therefore looks at organizational
culture as one of the determinants to the academicians’ psychological empowerment. Figure 2 portrays
the conceptual framework of this study.
Organizational Culture
Clan
Adhocracy
Psychological Empowerment
Autonomy
Professional Growth
Status
Market
Self-efficacy
Impact
Hierarchy
Decision making
Figure 2. Conceptual Framework of the Study
Literature Review
Psychological Empowerment
Changes and transitions in higher education have the potential to influence the performance of lecturers.
Academicians in universities should be empowered to have the ability to face these changes.
Psychological empowerment may be used as a means to motivate the academicians is in order to
increase their level of performance in teaching and research.
Psychological empowerment includes intrapersonal, interactional, and behavioral empowerment. Several
research efforts focused on psychological empowerment in business and education. Spreitzer’s (1996;
2006) model of psychological empowerment in organizations describes empowerment as a result of an
employees’ perception of her/his personal state or interpersonal interaction.
Short and Reinhart (1992) defines psychological empowerment in educational settings consists of six
dimensions: autonomy, professional growth, status, self-efficacy, impact and decision making. Workplace
empowerment is a management strategy that has been shown to be successful in creating positive work
environments in educational settings. Conger and Kanungo (1988) defines psychological empowerment
as the process of enhancing the feeling of self-efficacy among the members of an organization.
Empowerment helps employees to increase their innovative behavior and effectiveness. Psychological
empowerment is positively related to creative performance (Wei, Yuan, & Di, 2010).
Cognitive and motivational mechanisms of psychological empowerment explain the effects of
management on work performance (Hall, 2008). Psychological empowerment influences cognition-based
trust and it is a fundamental element in organizational effectiveness (Ergeneli, Saglam, & Metin, 2007).
Higher ratings in dimensions of psychological empowerment are needed to ensure a high level of
empowerment (Brancato, 2006; Ghani, Raja Hussin, & Jussef, 2009; Hancer & George, 2003; Lee & Koh,
2001).
Organizational Culture
According to Hofstede (2001), organizational culture is the collective programming of the mind that
distinguishes the members of one organization from another. Schein (2004) defines organizational culture
as a pattern of shared basic assumptions that is learnt by the organization as it solves its problems of
external adaptation and internal integration that has worked well enough to be considered valid and,
therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to those
problems. Organizational culture shapes organizations and provides a better understanding of complex
organizational components, such as empowerment (Johnson, 2009; Kim, 2008; Sigler & Pearson, 2000).
Similarly in higher education, organizational culture influences on knowledge management (Devi, Chong
& Lin, 2007). Organizational culture plays an important role in the successfulness of the change process
and primary component of functional decision making in universities (Franlinger, 2007; Lincoln, 2010).
Research indicates that specific organizational culture is linked with higher education service quality and
job satisfaction (Tierney, 2008; Trivellas & Dargenidou, 2009)
Within organizations, including universities, culture defines appropriate behavior, connecting and
motivating individuals, while managing the way of information process within institutions, shaping their
internal relations and even values. Academicians, administrators, trustees’ beliefs shape the
organizational culture in higher education (ASHE, 2003). The university culture is full of complexity as the
beliefs and practices of trustees, senior administrators, faculty members, campus community members,
competitors, and society combine to shape the effectiveness of that university.
Four different types of culture namely clan, adhocracy, market and hierarchy in university may have
different influences on academic staff workplace behaviors (Cameron & Quinn, 2006; Fralinger, 2007;
Fralinger, Olson, Pinto-Zipp & DiCorcia, 2010; Gregory, Harris, Armenakis & Shook, 2009; Trivellas &
Dargenidou, 2009). Based on competing values framework the clan culture represents a family-type
organization (Johnson, 2009, Cameron & Quinn, 2006). It emphasizes teamwork and employee
development, as customers are considered partners. This form of organization promotes a human work
environment, with the managerial goal of empowering employees by gaining their participation,
commitment, and loyalty. Leaders are considered mentors or parent figures, as loyalty, tradition, and
commitment are emphasized. Through teamwork, participation, and consensus, a successful internal
climate with a concern for people can be achieved (Cameron & Quinn, 2006). Adhocracy is based on the
term ad hoc, which refers to a temporary, specialized, dynamic unit. The goal of these organizations is to
be innovative and adaptive.
The market culture refers to a type of organization functioning as a market itself. The market operates
primarily through monetary exchange, as competitiveness and productivity in these organizations are
dependent on strong external positioning and control, while the hierarchy culture emphasizes an
environment that is relatively stable, where tasks and functions can be integrated and coordinated,
uniformity in products and services can be maintained, and workers and jobs are under control. In this
culture, success is defined by incorporation of decision-makers of clear authority, standardized rules and
procedures, and control and accountability mechanisms. Individuals follow procedures, and leaders
effectively coordinate and organize activity to maintain a smooth-running organization. Stability,
predictability, and efficiency characterize the long-term concerns of this organization (Cameron & Quinn,
2006). This organizational culture is situational oriented.
Malaysian studies on organizational culture in higher education show that cultural values in universities
will enhance innovation and to abandon those practices that hinder creativity and innovativeness and to
warrant success in managing knowledge (Altbach, 2007; Asmawi & Mohan, 2010; Devi, Chong & Lin,
2007; Yiing & Ahmad, 2009). An effective university culture teaches and exhibits appropriate behavior,
motivates individuals, and governs information processing; these components of culture can shape
internal relations and values.
Relationship between Organizational Culture and Psychological Empowerment
Various researchers have looked into the process of empowerment and concluded a number of
conditions that are essential to the implementation of academicians’ empowerment. The research in
higher education on psychological empowerment focused on organizational workplace outcomes
behaviors but very little on academicians’ culture. Empowerment in workplace cannot be without
environmental contexts because producing empowerment requires changing organizational cultures and
environments. Organizational environments or climates can facilitate or inhibit empowerment (Asmawi &
Mohan, 2010; Contreras-McGavin, 2004).
Psychological empowerment is more likely to succeed when the appropriate organizational culture
contains (Chiang & Jang, 2008; Johnson, 2009; Samad, 2007, Spreitzer, 1995a). The culture that
emphasizes flexibility and autonomy with rewards for participation would facilitate psychological
empowerment. Organizational culture provides an excellent framework for understanding and assessing
the person-environment fit needed for psychological empowerment to succeed within an organization. It
considers individual attitudes, employee behavior, and organizational practices as interconnected
elements within organizational life .
Different cultural types have different impacts on psychological empowerment. Therefore, researchers
must consider more on different types of organizational culture in order to identify the one which may
enhance the psychological empowerment of academicians in universities (Al-Khalifa & Aspinwall, 2001;
Cai, 2008; Stock, McFadden, & Gowen 2006; Trivellas & Dargenidou, 2010).
There is a knowledge gap in terms of the relationships between organizational culture types and each of
the four dimensions of psychological empowerment especially in the context of higher education.
Therefore, this study is an attempt to fill in this knowledge gap, through which it is expected that it brings
academic and practical insights to the working culture in higher education that emphasizes research and
development.
Methodology
Sample
The respondents of the study were academicians from four research universities in Malaysia of which the
universities obtained their research status in 2006. The study used a cluster random sampling technique.
Ratios of academicians in each university were considered for distributing the questionnaires. A total of
135 completed questionnaires were obtained out of 400 distributed. The study utilized Common Methods
Variance bias (of AMOS) for factor analysis. A step-wise regression analysis was performed to predict the
influence of organizational culture on the psychological empowerment dimensions.
The study questionnaires were sent with a cover letter, followed by a reminder letter in two weeks after.
Prior to data gathering, negotiation were made with the heads of departments in all four universities for
execution of the research. An introductory letter from the head of each department explained the purpose
of the study as well as introduced the researcher to the prospective respondents. The respondents were
given two weeks to complete the questionnaires. Each questionnaire took approximately 15-20 minutes to
be completed.
The academicians were given face-to-face explanations regarding the purpose for their participation. To
encourage better responses, participants did not identify themselves by name or employee number. The
completed questionnaires were picked up after two weeks with reminder letters were to those with no
response.
Measurement and Instruments
The instrument consists of three sections namely, demographic characteristics, psychological
empowerment and organizational culture. Each is explained as follows:
Demographic Characteristics
Demographic characteristics section includes the personal data of respondents of age, gender, work
experience and number of years as faculty member in current department. The data were analyzed using
frequencies and percentages as descriptive measures.
Psychological Empowerment
Psychological empowerment used Faculty Participant Empowerment Scale (FPES) that measures
perception of psychological empowerment within educational setting with six components (Short &
Rinehart, 1992). Autonomy refers to academicians beliefs that they can control certain aspect of their
work life. Professional growth refers to academicians’ perceptions that university provides opportunities
for growing and developing as a professional, learn continuously, and expand one’s skills.
Status refers to the academicians’ sense of esteem ascribed by others to position of academicians. Selfefficacy refers to academicians’ perceptions that they have the skills and ability to help students learn, are
competent in building effective programs for students, and can affect change in student learning. Impact
refers to academicians’ perceptions that have an effect and influence on university life. Decision making
refers to the participation of academicians in critical decisions that directly affect their work (Short &
Rinehart 1992).
A sample item for the dimension of decision making is “I am given the responsibility to monitor Programs”.
A sample item for the dimension of Professional growth reads “I function in a professional environment”.
A sample for status is” I believe that I have earned respect”. A sample for self-efficacy is “I believe that I
am helping students become independent Learners”. Samples for autonomy and impact respectively are
“I have control over daily schedules” and “I believe that I have the ability to get tasks done”.
Organizational Culture
Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) is used for this study. Six dimensions of
organizational culture are namely, dominant characteristics of organization, leadership style and
approach, management of employees, organizational glue, statistical emphases, and criteria success
(Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983; Cameron & Quinn 2006). Modification was done to the instrument from
ipsative scale to a 24-item of 7-point Likert scale (ranging from very strongly disagree to very strongly
agree).
The dominant characteristics of organization are the organization’s most overt features. The leadership
style and approach refers to recognition and use of power by leader within the organization. Management
of employees means the manner in which workers are treated. The organizational glue refers to the
forces or commonalities that bind members of an organization together. Strategic emphases are
motivating factors within an organization. The criteria for success refer to the intrinsic or extrinsic reward
systems. Each of six dimensions contains four items. Item 1 related to clan culture, item 2 related to
adhocracy culture, item 3 related to market culture and item 4 related to hierarchy culture. Scores of the
four culture types were attained by summing up the six items for each culture type.
In the organizational culture scale, a sample item for the dimension of clan culture reads “this university is
a very personal place. It is like an extended family”. For adhocracy culture is “The leadership in the
university is generally considered to exemplify entrepreneurship, innovating or risk taking”. A sample item
for market culture is “this university defines success on the basis of winning in the marketplace and out
placing the competition. Competitive market leadership is the key”. For hierarchy culture, a sample item
reads “The glue that holds this university together is formal rules and policies. Maintain a smooth-running
organization is important”.
Multicollinearity and Common Methods Variance Bias
As all data were from self-report measures, the possibility of common-method bias and multicollinearity
needed to be ascertained. To assess CMV (Common Methods Variance) bias, all variables were
simultaneously factor analyzed by AMOS. In maximum likelihood approach is used. Chi-square is divided
by the degree of freedom to assess model fit. A ratio less than 2.00 would indicate concomitant common
method bias. For these data, the ratio was 5.45 indicating that common-method bias is not problematic in
this study. Hence, the problem of multicollinearity does not exist among the independent variables.
Results
Table 1 shows mean, standard deviation, and reliability values (Cronbach’s alpha) for all variables. Most
of the scales had reliabilities around 0.8 or higher, and none are below 0.7. Mean, standard deviation and
reliabilities were analyzed by using SPSS version 15. The descriptive analysis of demographic
information revealed that the mean age of the academicians was 43 years (SD=8.07). On average, they
had 12 years (SD=7.8) of work experience in the current department. The majority was male (54.8%) and
worked full time (80%) (Table 2).
Table 1: Mean, standard deviation and reliability of measurement variables
Instrument
FPES:
Decision Making
Professional Growth
Status
Self-efficacy
Autonomy
Impact
Total Psychological Empowerment
OCAI:
Clan
Market
Adhocracy
Hierarchy
Total Organizational Culture
Mean
4.38
5.00
5.47
5.46
5.11
5.16
32.64
4.29
4.23
4.21
4.59
17.32
SD
Score
Range
Cronbach’s
Alpha
1.04
0.94
0.60
0.69
0.82
0.69
4.59
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-7
6-42
.90
.86
.88
.89
.87
.86
.98
1.16
1.03
1.04
0.76
3.58
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-7
4-28
.87
.82
.81
.72
.94
Table 2: Mean, standard deviation, frequency and percentage of demographic
characteristics of academicians
Frequency Percentage Mean
SD
Gender
Male
74
54.8
Female
61
45.2
Age (years)
43
8.07
26-36
32
23.7
37-46
56
41.5
47-65
47
34.8
Work experience (years)
12
7.83
The mean scores of cultural alternatives (A=Clan, B=Adhocracy, C=Market, D=Hierarchy) presented in
Table 1 are illustrated on a four-quadrant plot (Figure 3). Based on the descriptive analysis the result
shows that hierarchy (M=4.59; SD=0.76) is dominant organizational culture. The hierarchy culture
emphasizes stability, control and predictability. The dominant leadership style in hierarchy culture is that
of the coordinator, organizer or director where rules and policies are the primary bonding mechanism
(Smart and John, 1996).
Flexibility and Discretion
A
A
A
External Focus and Differentiation
Internal Focus and Integration
B
D
C
A
C
A
D
Stability and Control
Figure 3: The Organizational Culture Profile Plot
Note: A=Clan; B=Adhocracy; C=Market; D=Hierarchy
In order to test the relationship between organizational culture and psychological empowerment, simple
regression was done. The result shows the organizational culture of academicians had significant and
high relationship with psychological empowerment(r=0.734).
The regression analysis of criterion variable of psychological empowerment to the predictor variable of
organizational culture is presented in Table 3. Organizational culture was statistically significant
contributor to psychological empowerment (F=89.511, p < 0.01). The
for organizational culture was
0.40 which indicates that 40.0% of the variability in academicians’ psychological empowerment was
accounted for by organizational culture.
Table 3: Simple regression analysis between organizational culture and psychological
empowerment
Variable
df
Constant
89.51
133
.40
Organizational culture
.63**
*p < .05. **p < .01.
For examining the associations between the organizational culture and empowerment components while
accounting for relationships among the culture types themselves, a stepwise regression was done. All
four types of culture were entered at the same time, and the probability of F was 0.05 to enter and 0.10 to
remove.
The results are presented in Table 4. Clan was the strongest predictor of decision making, professional
growth, status, autonomy and impact, while market was the second strongest predictor for decision
making and professional growth. Only adhocracy culture type had significant predictive power on selfefficacy and no significant prediction of hierarchy culture with any of six psychological empowerment
components.
Table 4: Step-wise regression analysis of organizational culture predicting psychological
empowerment components
Empowerment component
Organizational culture
B
SEB
R 2
Decision making
Clan
.66
.12
Market
.48
.14
Professional growth
Clan
.40
.06
Market
.25
.07
Status
Clan
.22
.04
Self-efficacy
Adhocracy
.25
.05
Autonomy
Clan
.26
.05
Impact
Clan
.27
.05
Notes: Only predictors with significant beta weights are shown; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01
B = Unstandardized reg. coefficient, SEB = Standard error B,
.45**
.29**
.49**
.27**
.43**
.38**
.44**
.45**
.38
.05
.43
.05
.18
.14
.18
.20
= Standardized reg. coefficient.
As displayed in Table 4, decision making dimension can be significantly predicted from clan (β = .45; p <
0.01) and market culture (β =.29; p < 0.01). For decision making, a total of 44 %t of variance was
explained with clan and market cultures. Clan culture was strongest predictor of decision making
( R =.38). After clan, market culture predicts decision making ( R =.05). Academics’ decision making
was not positively correlated with neither adhocracy nor hierarchy culture. The results of regression
2
2
analysis for the decision making dimension reveal that academics perceiving clan and market cultures
result higher feeling on participation in decision making in their work place.
Two cultures namely clan (β = .49; p < 0.01) and market (β = .27; p < 0.01) cultures are significantly
predicted professional growth. For professional growth, a total of 47%t of variance was explained with
clan and market cultures. Clan was strongest predictor of professional growth. ( R =.43). After clan,
2
market culture predicts decision making ( R =.05). There is no significant relationship between
professional growth and adhocracy and hierarchy culture. These results show that as the academicians
perceive a higher level of clan and market culture, they feel better professionally. Stepwise regression
analysis results show that clan culture (β = .43; p < 0.01) was significantly predicted status. A total of 18%
2
of variance was explained with clan culture. Clan was the only predictor of status ( R = .18). The results
of stepwise regression showed that for self-efficacy dimension, adhocracy culture (β = .38; p < 0.01) was
2
the only culture which predicts this dimension of psychological empowerment ( R =.14). For selfefficacy, a total of 15% of variance was explained with adhocracy culture. Also, there was no significant
relationship between self-efficacy and market as well as hierarchy culture.
2
For autonomy, Clan culture was the only predictor of autonomy (β = .44; p< 0.01) was the only culture
which predicts autonomy ( R =.18). For autonomy, a total of 19% of variance was explained with clan
culture. Stepwise regression analysis results show that clan culture (β = .448; p < 0.01) was significantly
predicted impact. For impact, a total of 21 % of variance was explained with clan culture. Clan was the
2
only predictor of impact ( R =.20).
2
There was no significant relationship between impact and adhocracy culture. Similarly, there were
significant relationships between impact and two other types of market and hierarchy cultures. Clan was
the strongest predictor of decision making, professional growth, status, autonomy and impact, while
market was the second strongest predictor for decision making and professional growth. Only adhocracy
culture type had significant predictive power on self-efficacy and no significant prediction of hierarchy
culture with any of the six psychological empowerment components.
Discussion and Conclusion
The profile graph in Figure 3 shows that the type of dominant culture in research universities from the
academics’ perspective is hierarchy culture. Hofstede (2001) in the study on cultural dimensions in
different countries asserted that Malaysian work environments had high power distance and is based on
hierarchical relationship. Malaysian employees generally accept the manager’s authority (Abdullah,
1996). Therefore, hierarchy is a dominant type of culture in the selected Malaysian universities. This
implies that a hierarchical structure exists between academic staff, administrators, students, alumni, and
probably the external community. The hierarchy culture emphasizes an environment that is stable with
long term perspective, and staff and their roles are under control. Therefore, success is achieved by the
incorporation of standardized rules, formal and structured workplace procedures, and emphasis on rule
reinforcement (Cameron & Quinn, 2006; Smart & St. John, 1996).
The research results reveal that organizational culture is a predictor of faculty psychological
empowerment. The results approve the previous studies that found contextual factors such as
organizational culture contributed to employees’ psychological empowerment (Chiang & Jang, 2008). The
result shows the role of organizational culture on increasing academic staffs’ psychological
empowerment. Organizational culture which is based on an open communication and flexibility allows
academics to participate in decision making and express their opinions and support the feedbacks in
universities. This culture contributes to fostering psychological empowerment among academics in higher
education. Because, psychological empowerment is not a personality trait which can be generalized
across situations, but it is rather a set cognitions changed and shaped by work environments.
Specifically, clan culture was the strongest predictor of psychological empowerment and its five
components except self-efficacy. The clan culture is characterized as having high flexibility, individuality,
and spontaneity as well as internal emphasis. This concurs with what is suggested, i.e. to have
empowered academicians; family-type context is needed.
An effective university culture teaches and exhibits appropriate behavior, motivates individuals, and
governs information processing; these components of culture can shape internal relations and values
more than stereotypical and bureaucratic corporation. Clan culture emphasizes flexibility and discretion
rather than the stability and control of hierarchy. Therefore, as clan culture is a strongest predictor for
academicians’ psychological empowerment more emphasis should be done on making the environment
friendlier to the employees rather than controlling them.
Results of study also indicate that adhocracy culture was a best predictor for self-efficacy dimension of
psychological empowerment. Self-efficacy refers to the academicians confidence in their ability to teach
and do research well. The self-efficacy among academicians in their workplace leads to productivity,
participation, creativity and innovation and being part of the decision-making process. A major goal of an
adhocracy is to foster adaptability, flexibility, and creativity where uncertainty, ambiguity, and information
overload are some of the common characteristics. A high level of self-efficacy in such an environment is
necessary as an evidence for the academicians’ coping strategy. Hence, adhocracy culture is a
contributor to improve self-efficacy of academicians in research universities.
Leaders in universities have to admit the importance of clan culture in the context of higher education. It is
agreeable as suggested by Park and Kim (2009) spending time to maintain group harmony, encouraging
mentoring system among the academics, and giving avenues to academicians to voice ideas in their
respective areas of expertise are some of the strategies that should be adopted by universities. By
creating a greater sense of psychological empowerment on academic staff, more positive gain would be
felt such as on levels of organizational commitment and job satisfaction. An organizational culture that is
conducive to change is one of the important factors that can influence on psychological empowerment.
Empowerment culture is needed in research universities to improve effectiveness and quality of creating
new knowledge which is the main goal of these organizations.
Contribution to HRD
This study makes practical contributions to human resource development (HRD) by giving new insight
about the concept of psychological empowerment in higher education. The knowledge gap in terms of link
between psychological empowerment and organizational culture in a higher education setting is fulfilled.
Determining a relationship between organizational culture and psychological empowerment provides
empirical support for possible systematic educational approaches or organizational changes that can
foster empowerment and performance in higher education. Creating culture of empowerment can
influence academicians’ abilities to become more qualified in their teaching and research responsibilities.
Study findings contribute to a greater awareness and better understanding of the potential influence the
academic culture may have on lecturers’ empowerment in teaching and research responsibilities.
This study has notable implications for HRD frontiers; especially the ones who are interested in
organizational effectiveness and development in educational settings by knowing which type of
organizational culture is predictive to academicians’ psychological empowerment. Human resource
practitioners and experts can take actions to create an organizational culture that supports psychological
empowerment of academicians because culture tends to be embedded in and transmitted through the
behavior of universities’ leaders. Empowerment may be an important solution for attracting, keeping, and
motivating employees. Academicians’ performance, productivity and professionalization are the issues
which are important in overall function of higher education particularly the research universities. The
findings of this study may provide better knowledge to HRD practitioners and leadership about factor
which can help them to achieve performance and effectiveness of academicians. The norms and shared
values eventually permeate to the procedures and outcomes in workplace. Therefore, it is important for
HRD practitioners and leaderships to examine the norms and values and how it could foster or impede
empowerment. This study provides insight on important role organizational culture has on empowerment
dimensions which in turn affect on lecturers’ workplace outcomes behaviors.
References
Abdullah, A. (1996). Going glocal, Kuala Lumpur, SL: Malaysian Institute of Management.
Al- Khalifa, K. N., & Aspinwall, E. M. (2001). Using the competing values framework
investigates the culture of Qatar industries, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
12(4), 417- 428.
Altbach, P. G. (2007). Peripheries and centers: Research universities in developing countries, Higher
Education Management and Policy, 19(2) 1-24.
Altbach, P. G. (2004). Globalization and the university: myths and realities in an unequal world, Tertiary
Education and Management, 10(1) 3-25.
ASHE (2003). ASHE higher education report - governance in the twenty-first-century university:
approaches to effective leadership and strategic management, ASHE Higher Education Report,
30(1), 41-49.
Asmawi, A., & Mohan, A. V. (2010). Understanding patterns of organizational culture: A study in
Malaysian R&D institutions, Management of Innovation and Technology (ICMIT), 2010 IEEE
International Conference, Singapore, June 2010, (pp.324-329),Singapore.
Bartell, M. (2003). Internationalization of universities: A university culture-based framework, Journal of
Higher Education, 45(1), 43-70.
Biron, M. & Bamberger, P. (2010) The impact of structural empowerment on individual well-being and
performance: taking agent performances, self-efficacy and operational constraints into account,
Human Relations, 63(2), 163-191.
Brancato, V. (2006). Enhancing psychological empowerment for nurses. The Pennsylvania Nurse. 61(2),
31-33.
Cameron, K. S., and Quinn, R. E. (2006). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chiang, C. F., and Jang, S. S. (2008). The antecedents and consequences of psychological
empowerment: The case of Taiwan's hotel companies. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism research,
32(1), 40-61.
Cai, Y. (2008). Quantitative assessment of organizational cultures in post-merger universities. Cultural
Perspectives in Higher Education, 3, 213-226.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice.
Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471-482.
Devi, R. S., Chong, S. C. & Lin, B. (2007). Organizational culture and KM processes from the perspective
of an institution of higher learning, International Journal of Management in Education, 1(1), 57-79.
Douglass, J. (2005). How all globalization is local: Countervailing forces and their influence on
Higher education markets, Higher Education 18, 445-473.
Ergeneli, A. Saglam, G., & Metin, S. (2007). Psychological empowerment and its relationship to trust in
immediate managers Journal of Business Research, 60 41–49 Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V7S-4M93P95Fralinger, B. (2007).
Organizational culture at the university level: A study using the OCAI
instrument. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 4(11), 85-98.
Fralinger, B., Olson, V., Pinto-Zipp, G., & DiCorcia, M. (2010). Organizational Culture at the university
level: a follow-up study using the OCAI instrument, 2010 EABR & ETLC Conference
Proceedings, June7-10 Dublin, Ireland.
Ghani, A. Z., Raja Hussin, T. A. B., & Jussef, K. (2009). Antecedents of Psychological Empowerment in
the Malaysian Private Higher Education Institutions, Journal of International Education Studies,
2(3) 161-165. Retrieved from
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ies/article/viewFile/3341/3007
Greasley, K., Bryman, A., Dainty, A., Price, A., Naismith, N., & Soetanto, R. (2008). Understanding
empowerment from an employee perspective: What does it mean and do they want it? , Team
Performance Management, 14 (1) 39 – 55
Gregory, B. T., Harris, S. G., Armenakis, A. A., & Shook, C. L. (2009). Organizational culture and
effectiveness: A study of values, attitudes, and organizational outcomes, Journal of Business
Research, 62(7), 673–679.
Gordon, G., & Whitchurch, C. (2007). Managing human resources in higher education: the implications of
a diversifying workforce. Higher Education Management and Policy,19 (2), 135-155. Retrieved
from eprints.ioe.ac.uk/.../GordonandWhitchurch2007ManagingHumanResources135.pdf
Hall, M. (2008). The effect of comprehensive performance measurement systems on the role clarity,
psychological empowerment and managerial performance, Accounting, Organization and Society,
33(2/3) 141-163.
Hancer, M. R., & George R. T. (2003). Psychological Empowerment of Non-Supervisory Employees in
Full-Service Restaurants. Hospitality Management 22, 3-16.
Henkin, A. B., & Marchiori, D. M. (2003). Empowerment and organizational commitment of chiropractic
faculty, Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 26(6), 275-281.
Hofstede, G.
(2001). Culture's consequences, comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and
organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Johnson, B.A. (2009). Empowerment of nurses through organizational culture, Nursing Education
Perspectives, 30(1) 8-13.
Kim, T. K. (2008). How Organizational Culture Affects the Empowerment of Social Workers?: Application
of Multilevel Modeling to Social Work Research, society for social work and research The SSWR
Annual Conference, Jan 2008, USA.
Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., & Wilk, P. (2009).Context matters the impact of unit leadership and
empowerment on nurses’ organizational commitment, the journal of Nursing Administration, 39(5)
228-235.
Lee, M. & Koh, J. (2001). Is empowerment really a new concept? International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 12(4) 684-695.
Lincoln, S. (2010). From the individual to the world: how the competing values framework can help
organizations improve global strategic performance, Emerging Leadership Journeys, 3 (1), 3-9.
Retrieved from
http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/elj/vol3iss1/Lincoln_ELJV3I1_pp3-9.pdf
Logan, M. S. & Ganster, D.C. (2007). The effects of empowerment on attitudes and performance: the role
of social support and empowerment beliefs, Journal of Management Studies, 44(8), 1523-1550.
Machado, M. L. & Taylor, J. S. (2010). the struggle for strategic planning in European higher education:
the case of Portugal, Journal of Research in Higher Education, 1(1),2010 retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/10198/2280
Manojlovich, M., & Laschinger, H. K. S. (2002). The relationship of empowerment and selected
personality characteristics to nursing job satisfaction, Journal of Nursing Administration, 32(11)
586-595.
McInnis, C. (2000). Towards new balance or new divide? The changing work roles of academicians in
Australia, In M. Tight (ed.), International Perspectives on Higher Education Research, Vol. 1 (pp.
117 - 145), Bingley, UK Emerald.
Meyer, D. (2005), Making academic careers more attractive – three basic principles, OECD
Conference on Trends in the Management of Human Resources, Paris, 25-26 August
Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing
values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29(3), 363–377.
Samad, S. (2007). Social structural characteristics and employee empowerment: The role of proactive
personality, International Review of Business Research Papers, 3 (4) 254-264 retrieved from
http://www.bizresearchpapers.com/Samad.pdf.
Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership, (3rd ed), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004) Taking empowerment to the next level: a multiplelevel model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Journal of Academy Management,
47(3), 332-349.
Short, P. M. & Greer, J. T. (1997). Leadership in empowered schools, themes from innovative efforts.
New Jersey: Merrill.
Short, P. M., & Johnson, P. E. (1994). Exploring the Links among Teacher Empowerment, Leader Power,
and Conflict. Education, 114(4), 581-593.
Short, P. M., & Rinehart, J. S. (1992). Empowerment within the School Environment School Participant
Empowerment Scale: Assessment of Level of. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
52(4), 951-961.
Siegall, M., & Gardner, S. (2000). Contextual factors of psychological empowerment. Personnel Review,
29(6), 703-722.
Sigler, T. H., & Pearson, C. M. (2000). Creating an empowering culture: examining the relationship
between organizational culture and perceptions of empowerment, Journal of Quality
Management, 5(1), 27-52.
Smart, J. C., & St. John, E. P. (1996). Organizational culture and effectiveness in higher education: A test
of the "Culture Type" and "Strong Culture" hypotheses. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 18(3), 219-241.
Spreitzer, G. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and
validation.
Academy
of
Management
Journal,
38(5).
Retrieved
from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/256865
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of
Management Journal, 39(2), 483-504. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/256789
Stock, G. N., McFadden, K. L., & Gowen, C. R. (2006). Organizational culture, critical success factors and
the reduction of hospital errors. International Journal of Production Economics, 106, 368-92.
Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article.
Strazzeri, L. (2005). managing motivation and commitment versus compensation and research
institutions, OECD Conference in Trends in the Management of Human Resources, 25-26
August, 2005, Paris.
Thomas, K., & Velthouse, B. (1990). Cognitive element of empowerment: An interpretive model of intrinsic
motivation.
Academy
of
Management
Review,
15(4),
666-681.retrieved
from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/258687
Thorndyke, L. E., Gusic, M. E., George, J. H. , Quillen, D. A., & Milner, R. J. (2006). Empowering junior
faculty: Penn State's faculty development and mentoring program. Journal of the Association of
American Medical Colleges, 81(7), 668-673.
Tierney, W. G. (2008). Trust and organizational culture in higher education, cultural perspectives on
higher education, 1, 27-41.
Trivellas, P., & Dargenidou, D. (2009). Organizational culture, job satisfaction and higher education
service quality: The case of Technological Educational Institute of Larissa, The TQM Journal, 21
(4), 382-399.
Wan, E. (2005). Teacher empowerment as perceived by teachers in Hong Kong, Teachers College
Record,
107,
842-861.
Retrieved
from
http://www.emb.gov.hk/index.aspx?langbo=1&nodeID=2075.
Wang, G., & Lee, P. D. (2009). Psychological empowerment and job satisfaction: an analysis of
interactive effects, Group Organization Management, 34(3) 271-296
Wei, F., Yuan, X., & Di, Y. (2010). Effects of transactional leadership, psychological empowerment and
empowerment climate on creative performance of subordinate: A cross-level study. Frontiers of
Business Research in China, 4(1), 29-46.
Wood, F. (2005). National capacity, competitiveness and scientific excellence. OECD Conference on
Trends in the Management of Human Resources, 25-26 August, Paris.
Womack, C. E., & Loyd, G. (2004). Quit essential Leadership: Leading by Design College Quarterly, 7(2).
Yang, S. & Choi, S. O. (2009). Employee empowerment and team performance: Autonomy, responsibility,
information, and creativity Team Performance Management, 15 (5/6) 289-301.
Yiing, L. H., & Ahmad, K. Z. (2009). The moderating effects of organizational culture on the relationships
between leadership behavior and organizational commitment and between organizational
commitment and job satisfaction and performance, Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 30 (1) 53 – 86.