-
PsychologicalEmpowermentand Job SatisfactionAn Analysis of
Interactive Effects
Guangping WangPeggy D. LeePenn State University
This research investigates the interactive effects of the
psychological empow-erment dimensions on job satisfaction. Using
data collected from employeesof multiple organizations, the authors
find intriguing three-way interactionsamong the dimensions. Choice
has a weak but negative effect on job satis-faction when both
competence and impact are high or low but has a strongpositive
effect when one of the two dimensions is low and the other is
high.Impact has no effect on job satisfaction when choice and
competence areboth high or both low. The effect of impact is
positive only when one of thetwo dimensions is high and the other
is low. In addition, high levels of choiceand competence reinforce
the positive effect of meaning on job satisfaction.The results
offer important insights for future theory development on
psy-chological empowerment.
Keywords: psychological empowerment; job satisfaction;
three-wayinteraction
The concept of psychological empowerment has gained wide
acceptancein both management theory and practice (Conger &
Kanungo, 1988;Donovan, 1994; Hall, 2008; Kanter, 1989; Spreitzer,
1995; Thomas &Velthouse, 1990). A substantial body of research
has accumulated dur-ing the past two decades refining the
conceptual domain of psycholog-ical empowerment and investigating
its antecedents and consequences. Itis generally recognized that
the construct consists of four dimensionsmeaning, competence,
choice, and impact (Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas &Velthouse,
1990)and is related to various work behaviors, attitudes,
andperformance (Fulford & Enz, 1995; Hall, 2008; Koberg, Boss,
Senjem, &
Group & OrganizationManagement
Volume 34 Number 3June 2009 271-296
2009 SAGE Publications10.1177/1059601108330089
http://gom.sagepub.comhosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
271
-
Goodman, 1999; Spreitzer, 1995, 1996; Suzik, 1998). Several
fundamentalquestions that have yet to be answered in empowerment
research are relatedto the interactive effects of these dimensions
on important job outcomes.For instance, do the dimensions influence
job outcomes in an additive fash-ion? Do they affect job outcome
independently, or are there synergistic orsuppressive effects of
these variables? Do the effects of some of the dimen-sions depend
on the levels of the other dimensions?Additive effects suggest the
influence of one dimension is independent
of the other dimensions and each adds linear variance to
measured out-comes. Interactive effects occur when the total effect
of empowermentis greater or less than the sum of the individual
dimensional effects(for a general discussion on interaction, see
Aiken & West, 1992).Although interactive effects are often
examined in organizational research(Gomez-Mejia & Balkin, 1989;
House, Shane, & Herold, 1996; Kravitz,Bludau, & Klineberg,
2008; Valentine, 1999; Wated, Sanchez, & Gomez,2008), studies
on psychological empowerment have addressed only addi-tive effects.
It is important to both management research and practice
tounderstand potential dimensional interactions. The additive model
sug-gests that more empowerment is always better if the individual
dimen-sional effects are positive. Managerially, to enhance focal
job outcomes,companies could simply increase empowerment on each
and all of theindividual dimensions.An interactive model, on the
other hand, implies that the dimensions may
interfere with each other and one dimension may either reinforce
or suppressthe effects of the other dimensions. When there is a
reinforcing effect, thepositive effect of one dimension will be
greater in the presence of higher lev-els of the other dimensions.
Alternatively, if there is a suppressive effect, thepresence of a
high level of one dimension might decrease the effect ofanother
dimension (Daniels & Guppy, 1994; Karasek, 1979). Thus,
theoristsand practitioners will be challenged to identify the best
combination of theempowerment dimensions to maximize the job
outcomes. If management isto use empowerment effectively, it is
important to understand potential inter-actions among the
empowerment dimensions. Accordingly, the goal of thisresearch is to
examine the interactions among empowerment dimensions.We focus on
job satisfaction as an outcome variable because it is an outcomeof
fundamental importance for organizational performance (Ng &
Sorensen,2008; Spreitzer, Kizilos, & Nason, 1997). Job
performance, motivation,turnover, and organizational commitment
have all been shown to be relatedto job satisfaction (Judge, 1993;
Martin & Bennett, 1996; Williams &Anderson, 1991). In the
following sections, we develop several interaction
272 Group & Organization Management
-
hypotheses and then report the results of an empirical study. We
concludewith a discussion of theoretical and managerial
implications.
Conceptual Background and Hypotheses
Psychological Empowerment
Psychological empowerment is defined as a set of motivational
cogni-tions shaped by a work environment and reflecting an
individuals activeorientation to his or her work role (Spreitzer,
1995). Building on the workof Conger and Kanungo (1988), Thomas and
Velthouse (1990) argued thatfour cognitive assessments represent a
comprehensive task-specific evalua-tion and interpretation that
determines intrinsic task motivation, hence, psy-chological
empowerment. These four assessments are meaning, competence,choice,
and impact.Briefly, meaning refers to the value of a task goal or
purpose, judged in
relation to an individuals own ideals or standards. It reflects
intrinsic inter-est in a task and involves a fit between work role
requirements and onesbeliefs and values (Brief & Nord, 1990;
Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Thecongruence between personal value
and work role expectations contributes tothe belief that work is an
end in itself. Competence stems from Banduras(1986) work on
self-efficacy and is the degree to which an employee feels heor she
is able to perform tasks with skill (Gist, 1987; Thomas &
Tymon,1994). Social cognitive theory and empirical evidence from
diverse fieldssuggest that competence has strong direct effects on
performance (Bandura,1986; Gecas, 1989; Gist & Mitchell, 1992;
Harackiewicz, Sansone, &Manderlink, 1985; Locke, 1991; Locke,
Frederick, Lee, & Bobko, 1984;Ozer & Bandura, 1990; Wang
& Netemeyer, 2002).Choice is the sense of autonomy in
initiating and regulating work and
reflects the degree of self-determination in work behaviors and
processes(Bell & Staw, 1989; Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989;
Spector, 1986). Choiceis a key component of intrinsic motivation,
leading to learning, interest, andresilience in the face of
adversity (Deci et al., 1989; Deci & Ryan, 1985).Impact is the
degree to which an individual feels that he or she can influ-ence
strategic, administrative, or operating outcomes at work
(Ashforth,1989). Impact is associated with high performance and an
absence of with-drawal from difficult situations (Ashforth, 1990).
Individuals who believethat they can affect the system in which
they are embedded and influenceorganizational outcomes tend to be
more motivated (Spreitzer et al., 1997).
Wang, Lee / Psychological Empowerment and Job Satisfaction
273
-
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is a pleasurable or positive emotional state
that is afunction of the perceived relationship between what one
wants from a joband what one perceives it is offering (Locke, 1976,
p. 1300). The job char-acteristics model (Hackman & Oldham,
1980) proposes that critical psycho-logical states such as
experienced meaningfulness, feelings of responsibility,and
knowledge of work results influence job satisfaction. Although
Thomasand Velthouse (1990) and Conger and Kanungo (1988) did not
explicitlyinclude job satisfaction in their models of empowerment,
Thomas andTymon (1994) argued that empowerment is more likely to
manifest athigher levels of job satisfaction. They further argued
that assessments ofempowerment generate intrinsic rewards and thus
should be positivelyrelated to job satisfaction.Empirical support
varies regarding the relationships between the indi-
vidual empowerment dimensions and job satisfaction. Most
available evi-dence is related to additive effects and is in the
form of simple correlations.First, there seems to be strong
evidence of a positive association betweenmeaning and job
satisfaction (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Spreitzer et al.,1997;
Thomas & Tymon, 1994). According to Herzberg (1966), an
impor-tant determinant of job satisfaction is personal meaning.
Kanter (1983) sug-gests that perceived meaningfulness results in
greater commitment andconcentration of energy. Job satisfaction
results from fulfillment of desiredwork values (Locke, 1976). Lack
of meaning in the workplace has beenlinked to apathy and job
dissatisfaction (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).Second, researchers
have suggested that choice is a psychological need
and that meeting this need results in job satisfaction (Conger
& Kanungo,1988; Greenberger, Strausser, Cummings, & Dunham,
1989; Parker, 1993).Studies by Liden, Wayne, Sparrowe, and Bradway
(1993) and Thomas andTymon (1994) show that higher levels of
personal control are related to jobsatisfaction. These results are
consistent with Spectors (1986) seminalreview, in which he
presented evidence for a positive association betweenjob autonomy
and job satisfaction.Third, with regard to the impactsatisfaction
relationship, strong and
consistent evidence is yet to emerge. Ashforth (1989, 1990)
suggested thatperceived lack of opportunity to have an impact on
the organization mightbe related to job satisfaction, and Thomas
and Tymon (1994) reported apositive relationship between impact and
job satisfaction, but Spreitzeret al.s (1997) study did not support
the hypothesized effect of perceivedimpact on satisfaction.
274 Group & Organization Management
-
Finally, the literature has yet to establish a consistent link
between com-petence and satisfaction. Carless (2004) reported that
competence was nega-tively related to job satisfaction, whereas
Spreitzer et al. (1997) reported thatcompetence is positively
related to job satisfaction among subordinates butnot among
supervisors. Other research has reported no relationship
betweenthese variables (Holdsworth & Cartwright, 2003; Siegall
& Gardner, 2000;Thomas & Tymon, 1994).In summary, the
published research suggests a positive correlation
between job satisfaction and two of the dimensions (i.e.,
meaning andchoice), but the record is less consistent regarding the
relationship betweensatisfaction and the other two dimensions
(i.e., impact and competence).There is, however, little
consideration for the possibility of interactionamong the four
dimensions in affecting job satisfaction, which could par-tially
account for the inconsistent and sometimes contradictory
findingswith regard to impact and competence.
Interaction Among Dimensions
The literature on empowerment, job design, stress,
personenvironment fit,status inconsistency, and mental health
suggests possible interactions amongempowerment dimensions.
Although individually each of the dimensions ofmeaning, competence,
choice, and impact may induce job satisfaction as thecurrent
empowerment research indicates, a combination of different levels
ofthe empowerment dimensions may interact in a complicated fashion
that couldlead to job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Spreitzer
(1995; Spreitzer et al., 1997)argued that the four dimensions of
empowerment combine to form a gestalt. Adictionary definition of a
gestalt reads any of the integrated structure or pat-terns that
make up all experience and have specific properties which can
nei-ther be derived from the elements of the whole nor considered
simply as thesum of these elements (Neufeldt & Guralnik, 1997,
p. 567). AlthoughSpreitzer was not explicit as to whether the four
dimensions affect job out-comes additively or interactively, the
notion of gestalt implies that overall expe-rience is not simply
the sum of all individual elements. A lower or higher levelof one
dimension might change the overall constellation and the whole
experi-ence might be affected disproportionately. In fact, various
research streamssuggest possible interactive effects among
psychological empowermentdimensions.A number of researchers
including French, Caplan, and Van Harrison
(1982), Csikszentmihalyi (1975), and Warr (1987) have advocated
the idea
Wang, Lee / Psychological Empowerment and Job Satisfaction
275
-
of optimal levels of job content. That is, employees have a
preferred levelof certain job characteristics. In particular, Warrs
vitamin model of jobcharacteristics and mental health suggests that
extreme (i.e., overly high orlow) levels of job characteristics are
harmful. The vitamin model is based onan analogy with the fact that
vitamins are required for physical health up tocertain level; after
attainment of that level, increased vitamin intake can beharmful.
Consider job autonomy (i.e., choice), for instance.When
autonomylevel is too low, employees have little choice or freedom
and are constrainedto such a degree that they feel suffocated.
However, when autonomy is toohigh, employees can feel a lack of
direction or that they have too muchresponsibility, causing them to
experience role stress. The same can be saidfor impact, another
empowerment dimension. When a persons job has lowimpact, the
employee can feel demotivated because he or she believes thathis or
her job has no significance to the organization. A job that
theemployee perceives as having an impact incommensurate with the
employeesrole can be overwhelming and intimidating.Researchers on
job stress have investigated the buffering effect of job
design on the stress process quite extensively. In particular,
Karaseks(1979) job strain model postulates that psychological
strain results from thejoint effects of work demands and
decision-making latitude. The negativeeffect of job demand is
greatest when decision latitude (choice) is minimal,and it
decreases as choice increases. Daniels and Guppy (1994) found
com-plex three-way interactions among job autonomy, locus of
control, andstressors on workers psychological well-being.The
personenvironment fit model builds on the notion that job
charac-
teristics have their primary influence through the equivalence
or discrep-ancy between preferred and perceived environmental
levels (Edwards &Cooper, 1990). When the person and the job fit
well with each other, bothproductivity and psychological well-being
improve. Discrepancies in eitherdirection (i.e., preferred level
being greater or less than perceived level)have negative influences
on employees well-being. Among the empower-ment dimensions, only
meaning directly addresses the correspondencebetween the person and
the job, that is, the fit between the job role require-ments and
the employees beliefs and values (Brief & Nord, 1990;Hackman
& Oldham, 1980). We can thus expect meaning to be
positivelyassociated with job satisfaction regardless of the levels
of the other dimen-sions, based on the personenvironment fit
model.Unlike meaning, competence encompasses not only perceived
congru-
ence between skills required and skills possessed but also
perceived positive
276 Group & Organization Management
-
discrepancy between the two when skills possessed exceed skills
required.A competent person may be just right for the job or
overqualified. Whenoverqualification occurs, dissatisfaction may
result. Impact and choice areperceived job characteristics that are
not necessarily related to personjobfit. A person may or may not
desire a high level of impact and may or maynot be happy with a low
choice job that has little responsibility and decision-making
latitude. Extremely high levels of impact and choice can
presentoverwhelmingly high role expectations that induce role
stress and role ambi-guity to some but may sound challenging and
exciting to others.More seriously, unfit situations may rise when
the various job dimensions
and characteristics present conflicting expectations, which
cause stress, uncer-tainty, perceived status inconsistency, and
frustration (Bacharach, Bamberger,& Mundell, 1993; Edwards
& Cooper, 1990; Harrison, 1978). In the contextof psychological
empowerment, unfit situations may occur at different
con-stellations of the four dimensions.First, from a job design
standpoint, choice may be viewed as a job
demand because of the magnitude of decisions that have to be
made, as areward to the employee because of the intrinsic need
associated with beingable to make ones own decisions, and/or a
necessary enabling condition forcertain jobs to get the job done
(Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Parker, 1993).When competence is low
and impact is also low, high choice may constitutea conflicting
situation that leads to the perception of an excessive
demand(because of low competence) that offers little intrinsic
reward (because oflow impact), and thus high choice may be just as
undesirable as low choicewhen both competence and impact are low.
Alternatively, when competenceis high and impact is high as well,
high choice may be viewed as a neces-sary enabling condition, thus
the effect of choice on satisfaction may be null.When competence is
high but impact is low, high choice is likely to be
perceived as a compensation or reward for ones
overqualification, a bal-ancing factor for an otherwise unfit
situation. Likewise, when competenceis low but impact is high, high
choice may indicate high job demand, butthis demand can be viewed
in a positive light as rewarding because of highjob impact. Thus,
it is possible that the choicesatisfaction relationship ispositive
when competence is high but impact low or when competence islow but
impact high. Therefore, we hypothesize,
Hypothesis 1: The choicesatisfaction relationship will depend on
the levels ofcompetence and impact such that the relationship is
positive only when oneof them is high and the other is low but is
null when both competence andimpact are high or low.
Wang, Lee / Psychological Empowerment and Job Satisfaction
277
-
Following the choicesatisfaction relationship, we examined
impact,which may be viewed as an intrinsic reward, a
responsibility, a demand,and/or a status indicator. On one hand,
when there is little choice on the joband the employee feels
incompetent for the job, one can hardly imagine theimpact may have
any positive effect on satisfaction, as any possible
positivemotivational effect of impact could be overshadowed by the
lack of choiceand competence. On the other hand, when choice and
competence are bothhigh and the employee has the ability and skill
to do the job as he or she seesfit, a corresponding level of impact
on the larger scope should be expectedas a package that comes with
the job to avoid perceptions of status incon-sistency (Bacharach et
al., 1993), operating much as a hygiene factor in
themotivationhygiene theory (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman,
1959). Assuch, the marginal effect of perceived impact may be
minimal. We thereforeexpect impact not to be related to
satisfaction when choice and competenceare both low or both
high.However, when choice is low but competence is high, there is
an imbal-
ance or status inconsistency in the personjob situation. Impact
can be apivotal factor that influences job satisfaction. Low impact
will be detri-mental as it exacerbates the imbalanced situation,
the employees feeling ofoverqualification will be stronger, and the
employee will have a hard timejustifying the situation. High
impact, on the other hand, may operate as areward that compensates
the unfit situation, brings a balancing factor, andsignals a
justifiable reason for the job.Another imbalanced or nonfit
personjob situation arises when choice is
high but competence is low. In this case, the employee is
stretching his orher ability to handle the decision-making demands
associated with highchoice. The job may be perceived as too
demanding for the employee. If thisis accompanied by low impact,
the experience can be characterized as toomuch effort with too
little reward. However, if the perceive level of impactis high, the
employee may feel that it is worthwhile to manage the high
jobdemand. Thus, we hypothesize,
Hypothesis 2: The impactsatisfaction relationship will depend on
the levels ofcompetence and choice such that the relationship is
positive only when oneof them is high and the other is low but is
null when both competence andchoice are high or low.
Finally, as discussed earlier, because meaning reflects the fit
between theemployee and the job, we expect the overall
meaningsatisfaction relation-ship to be positive regardless of the
levels of the other dimensions.
278 Group & Organization Management
-
However, the relationship strength may vary depending on other
empower-ment dimensions. When the other three dimensions are high,
the effect ofmeaning may be reinforced by a more balanced
situation. When somedimensions are low but others are high, the
imbalanced situation may sup-press the positive influence of
meaning. For instance, when competence ishigh but choice and impact
are low, there is a strong feeling of overqualifi-cation, which may
offset the positive effect of meaning to certain degree.When choice
is high but competence is low, the job demand may be per-ceived as
overwhelming and thus may decrease the positive influence ofmeaning
(Karasek, 1979). As such, we hypothesize,
Hypothesis 3: The meaningsatisfaction relationship will be
positive overall butwill be stronger when other empowerment
dimensions are all high than whensome of the other dimensions are
low.
Method
Sample and Data Collection
Survey questionnaires were distributed to the employees in local
for-profit organizations (service, retail and distribution,
research, and manufac-turing) through part-time MBA students of a
state university in thenortheastern United States. A total of 510
surveys from employees werereturned in postage-paid envelopes
directly to the researchers universityaddress. We randomly selected
30 (6%) of the respondents and telephonedthem to validate that they
actually responded, and all of them were truerespondents. A total
of 21 responses were discarded because of excessivemissing data,
resulting in 485 useable responses. The one third of responsesthat
were returned first and one third returned last were compared on
keystudy variables, and no significant differences were detected
via t tests.About half of the respondents (52%) were male, and 76%
of them were
between 20 and 49. Approximately 70% of the sample received at
leastsome college education, whereas 14% received graduate
education. Slightlyfewer than half (44%) were supervisors. The
sample represented more than300 manufacturing and service firms
from diverse industries that includedsoftware (22%), automobile
(20%), banking (13%), construction (13%),communications (10%),
restaurants (8%), accounting (6%), retailing (3%),and others (5%).
The sizes of the companies also varied greatly, with 50%of the
companies employing 300 or fewer employees.
Wang, Lee / Psychological Empowerment and Job Satisfaction
279
-
Measures
Psychological empowerment was measured with the 12 items
adaptedfrom Spreitzer (1995) on 5-point Likert scales (1 = strongly
disagree to5 = strongly agree). To minimize response set bias,
three of the items(Meaning No. 3, Competence No. 1, and Choice No.
1) were modified tobe reverse worded. One item (Choice No. 1) was
deleted in the final analy-sis because of the fact that its factor
loading was too low (.31). Job satis-faction was assessed with
three items from Netemeyer, Boles, McKee, andMcMurrian (1997). The
items asked the respondents the degree to whichthey were happy,
satisfied, and felt a sense of personal fulfillment withtheir
present line of work. The items were anchored on 5-point
Likert-type
280 Group & Organization Management
Table 1Construct Measures and Corrected Item to Total
Correlations
CompletelyStandardizedFactor
Measurement Items Loadings
Meaning1. The work I do is very important to me. .892. My job
activities are personally meaningful to me. .843. The work I do is
not very meaningful to me personally. (R) .43Competence1. I do not
have enough confidence in my ability to do my job. (R) .472. I am
self-assured about my capabilities to perform my work activities.
.753. I have mastered the skills necessary for my job. .74Choice1.
I do not have enough autonomy in determining how I do my job. (R)
Dropped2. I can decide on my own how to go about doing my work.
.793. I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom
.86in how I do my job.
Impact1. My impact on what happens in my department is large.
.592. I have a great deal of control over what happens in my
organization. .933. I have significant influence over what happens
in my organization. .91Job satisfaction1. I feel fairly happy with
my present line of work. .792. All things considered (i.e., pay,
promotion, supervisors, coworkers, etc.), .82I am very satisfied
with my line of work.
3. I feel a great sense of personal fulfillment from my line of
work. .89
Note: R = reverse-coded item.
-
scales (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The
measurementitems for key constructs are presented in Table 1.We
also included a number of covariates in the survey to control for
extra-
neous variances in such a cross-sectional study. Perceived
organizational sup-port (Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, &
Lynch, 1997), organizationalclimate for innovation (Scott &
Bruce, 1994), and innovative personality(Hurt, Joseph, & Cook,
1977) have been shown to be relevant to empower-ment as well as job
satisfaction. The scales all achieved satisfactory reliabil-ity
coefficients (Cronbachs alpha ranged from .74 to .86). In
addition,demographic information such as gender, age, education,
supervisory status,and employment status (full-time or part-time)
was also collected.
Analysis and Results
Confirmatory factor analysis was first conducted to ensure
satisfactorypsychometric property of the key measures. We then
computed a summatedscale for each construct and used hierarchical
multiple regression (Aiken &West, 1992) to test our
hypotheses.
Measurement and Dimensionality
We first estimated a confirmatory factor model that included 15
manifestindicators for 5 key latent constructs (job satisfaction,
meaning, compe-tence, choice, and impact). The model was evaluated
with model fit, dis-criminant validity of the constructs, and
internal consistency among theconstruct measures. Model fit was
evaluated using the chi-square statistic,the comparative fit index
(CFI), the TuckerLewis index (TLI), and the rootmean square error
of approximation (RMSEA). Values of .90 and abovehave been
recommended for CFI and TLI, and values of .08 and less havebeen
suggested for RMSEA (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Hu &
Bentler,1995). The fit indices for the measurement model were 2 =
256.65(df = 80), CFI = .96, TLI = .94, and RMSEA = .072.Although
the model fit appeared satisfactory, an examination of the
factor loading structure revealed that the reverse-worded
empowermentitems suffered from relatively low factor loadings. The
first item in thechoice dimension was especially low at .31. The
item was subsequentlydropped, and a new measurement model with 14
manifest indicators and5 latent constructs was estimated. The fit
indices were slightly better thanthe previous model: 2 = 200.16 (df
= 67), CFI = .97, TLI = .95, and
Wang, Lee / Psychological Empowerment and Job Satisfaction
281
-
RMSEA = .068. All but three items had completely standardized
factorloadings greater than .70 (see Table 1).Further testing was
conducted to ensure that psychological empower-
ment was best represented by four dimensions as separate
constructs. Wetested a series of models that specified one-factor,
two-factor, three-factor,four-factor, and second-order four-factor
structures. The four-factor modelfit significantly better than any
other specifications. The four-factor modelhad a chi-square of
117.35 with df = 38. The second-order four-factormodel had the
second best fit (2 = 143.03, df = 40), but the chi-square
dif-ference from that of the four-factor model was significant (2 =
25.68, df =2, p < .01). The chi-square values for the 6
three-factor models rangedfrom 341.71 to 489.35 with df = 41; the
one-factor model had the worstfit (2 = 1006.86, df = 44). Thus, we
conclude that the four-factor modelfits the data best.Table 2
contains the correlations among the model constructs, construct
means, standard deviations, and internal consistency estimates.
As mea-sures of internal consistency, Cronbachs alpha ranged from
.65 to .88, andthe average variance extracted estimates (AVE)
ranged from .44 to .70.Discriminant validity was assessed by
comparing the square of the correla-tion (phi-square) between two
constructs and their average AVE. Evidencesupporting the constructs
discriminant validity is present when phi-squareis less than the
average AVE (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The criterion hasbeen
considered the most stringent test of discriminant validity and was
metfor all possible pairs of constructs. These results indicate an
acceptable fitfor the measurement model.
282 Group & Organization Management
Table 2Means, Standard Deviations, Internal Consistency, and
Correlations
M SD Alpha AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Satisfaction 3.61 1.06 .88 .70 2. Meaning 3.79 0.92 .70 .56
.55*** 3. Competence 4.33 0.70 .65 .44 .07 .13*** 4. Choice 3.91
0.95 .81 .67 .34*** .28*** .25*** 5. Impact 3.22 1.07 .83 .68
.41*** .37*** .06 0.43*** 6. Age 2.57 0.87 .25*** .17*** .10**
.17*** .14*** 7. POS 3.58 1.00 .86 .70 .48*** .23*** .05 .24***
.39*** .02 8. OCI 3.03 0.99 .74 .61 .31*** .17*** .05 .25*** .20***
.01 .37***
Note: AVE = average variance extracted; POS = perceived
organizational support; OCI = organizational cli-mate for
innovation.**p < .05. ***p < .01.
-
Hypothesis Testing
Given the satisfactory results for the measurement items, we
computed asummated scale for each construct and tested the
hypotheses via estimating aseries of hierarchical regression models
with job satisfaction as the dependentvariable. Model 1 included
the control variables only, that is, demographics(age, education,
income, employment status [full-time or part-time], supervi-sory
status, and firm size), perceived organizational support,
innovative per-sonality scale, and organizational climate for
innovation. Only age, perceivedorganizational support, and
organizational climate for innovation were statisti-cally
significant. Therefore, we included only these three variables in
thesubsequent models. Model 2 included the four empowerment
dimensions(meaning, competence, choice, and impact) in addition to
the three control vari-ables.We then added two-way and three-way
interaction terms to the model toform Models 3 and 4, respectively.
The cross-product interaction terms werecreated after the
empowerment dimension variables were mean centered. InTable 3, we
report the results that include the significant interaction
terms.Model 1 shows that age, perceived organizational support, and
organiza-
tional climate for innovation all have a positive association
with job satis-faction. The model explains 32% of the variance in
job satisfaction. The next
Wang, Lee / Psychological Empowerment and Job Satisfaction
283
Table 3Regression Results (Standardized Coefficients)
Independent Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Age 24*** .15*** .15*** .15***POS .43*** .31*** .31*** .32***OCI
.16*** .10*** .10*** .10***Meaning .38*** .35*** .35***Competency
.01 .01 .04Choice .08** .13*** .07*Impact .07* .08* .11***Meaning
choice .06* .07*Meaning impact .11*** .10***Competency choice
impact .13***Meaning competency choice .07*R2 .32 .48 .50 .52
Note: N = 489. POS = perceived organizational support; OCI =
organizational climate forinnovation.*p < .10. **p < .05.
***p < .01.
-
model (Model 2) shows that three of the four empowerment
dimensions aresignificantly and positively related to job
satisfaction, but competence is nota significant predictor of job
satisfaction. Overall, the results are consistentwith the extant
empirical findings and lend a general support to the notionthat
psychological empowerment contributes to positive work outcomessuch
as job satisfaction.Model 3 contains two significant two-way
interaction terms: meaning by
choice and meaning by impact. The final model, Model 4, consists
of the 2
284 Group & Organization Management
Low Competence
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Choice
Job
Sat
isfa
ctio
n
Low Impact
Panel A
High Impact
Low ImpactHigh Impact
High Competence
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Choice
Job
Sat
isfa
ctio
n
Panel B
Figure 1Plot of Competence and Impact Versus Choice
-
two-way and 2 three-way interaction terms in addition to the
main effectterms of the four dimensions and the control variables.
The changes in theF statistic were all significant at the .01 level
as additional terms wereadded from Model 1 to Model 4. Compared to
the main effect model(Model 2), Model 4 explains 4% more variance
in job satisfaction. Basedon Cohen (1988), we calculated the effect
size for interaction to be .08.
Wang, Lee / Psychological Empowerment and Job Satisfaction
285
Low Choice
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Impact
Job
Sat
isfa
ctio
n
Low CompetencePanel A High Competence
Low CompetenceHigh Competence
High Choice
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Impact
Job
Sat
isfa
ctio
n
Panel B
Figure 2Plot of Choice and Competence Versus Impact
-
Because Cohen suggests that interaction effect sizes are
considered small at.02, medium at .15, and large at .35, the
interaction effect size in this studyis between small and medium.To
facilitate interpretation, we plotted the regression slopes in
Figures 1
to 3 based on coefficient estimates from Model 4. The high and
low levelsof the explanatory variables were set at one standard
deviation above andbelow the mean (Cohen & Cohen, 1983).
286 Group & Organization Management
Low Choice
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Meaning
Job
Sat
isfa
ctio
nJo
bS
atis
fact
ion
Low Competence
Panel AHigh Competence
Low CompetenceHigh Competence
High Choice
Meaning
Panel B
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Figure 3Plot of Choice and Competence Versus Meaning
-
Hypothesis 1 proposes that the choicesatisfaction relationship
is nullwhen competence and impact are both high or both low but is
positive whenone is high and the other is low. Panel A of Figure 1
shows that when com-petence level is low, choice is positively
related to job satisfaction onlywhen impact is high. When impact is
low, the choicesatisfaction relation-ship is slightly negative.
That is, when employees have low perceived com-petence, a high
level of choice (perceived as a job demand that leads to
rolestress) should be accompanied by a high level of impact (as a
reward tocompensate for the job demand) to generate a high level of
job satisfaction.When impact is low, high autonomy will generate
greater role stress andlead to lower job satisfaction.Panel B of
Figure 1 shows that at a high competence level, the
choicesatisfaction relationship is positive only when impact is
low and isslightly negative when the impact is high. That is, when
employees perceivethemselves as highly competent, choice is more
important when impact onlarger scope is low. When perceived impact
is high, a high level of choicebecomes an enabling condition that
is expected and has little effect on sat-isfaction. Although Panels
A and B show slightly negative relationshipunder conditions of high
competence and high impact and under low com-petence and low
impact, the slopes are rather flat, and therefore support
forHypothesis 1 is evident.Hypothesis 2 posits that the
impactsatisfaction relationship depends on
the levels of competence and choice, such that the relationship
is null whencompetence and choice are both high or low and is
positive when one is lowand the other is high. Panel A of Figure 2
suggests that at low choice level,the impactsatisfaction
relationship is positive only when competence ishigh. When
competence is low, impact has almost no relationship with
sat-isfaction. Panel B of Figure 2 shows that at a high choice
level, theimpactsatisfaction relationship is positive only when
competence is low.When competence is high, impact has almost no
relationship with satisfac-tion. Thus, the results support
Hypothesis 2.Hypothesis 3 suggests that the positive
meaningsatisfaction relation-
ship is stronger when other dimensions are all high than when
some of thedimensions are low. The two panels in Figure 3 show that
the meaningsatisfaction relationship is always positive regardless
the levels of choiceand competence. However, this positive
relationship is stronger when choiceand competence are both low
(Panel A) or both high (Panel B) than whenone is high and the other
is low. This suggests some support for Hypothesis3 as far as choice
and competence are concerned. It is interesting that
themeaningsatisfaction relationship is also stronger when both
choice and
Wang, Lee / Psychological Empowerment and Job Satisfaction
287
-
competence are low, possibly because meaning becomes the only
bondingelement between the job and the person when other dimensions
are low.
Discussion
Summary and Theoretical Implications
This study applies the vitamin model, the personenvironment fit
model,and the literature on job stress, job demand, and status
inconsistency to theresearch on psychological empowerment and finds
support for significantinteractive effects. Although research on
job design has long noticed thepotential interaction between job
characteristics and work context (Ferris &Gilmore, 1984) and
between the job and the person (Edwards & Cooper,1990),
research on empowerment appears to have only examined linear
andadditive effects of psychological empowerment on job outcomes
(e.g.,Spreitzer et al., 1997; Thomas &Velthouse, 1990). Our
theoretical analysisand empirical findings contribute to the
literature by demonstrating thecomplicated relationship among
empowerment dimensions and their inter-active effects on a critical
job outcome. Overall, the data offer substantialsupport for our
three interaction hypotheses, thus improving our under-standing of
the dynamics of psychological empowerment. In this sense,
theresearch not only offers empirical evidence for Spreitzers
(1995) argumentthat the four dimensions combine to form a gestalt
to influence employeewell-being but also provides a sense what the
gestalt looks like. The find-ings provide a fresh, more
sophisticated perspective on empowerment andopen new avenues for
future research.In support of Hypothesis 1, we find that choice has
a weak but negative
effect on job satisfaction when both competence and impact are
high or lowbut has a strong positive effect when one of the two
dimensions of compe-tence and impact is low and the other is high.
Consistent with Hypothesis2, we find impact has no effect on job
satisfaction when choice and com-petence are both high or low. The
effect of impact is positive only when oneof the two dimensions is
high and the other is low. Also, supportingHypothesis 3 in general,
our data suggest that high levels of choice andcompetence reinforce
the positive effect of meaning on job satisfaction.It is evident
that the dimensions may reinforce each other in affecting job
outcomes. For instance, in a low competence situation, high
perceived impactcoupled with high choice is able to generate
greater job satisfaction (Figure 1,Panel A). The combination of
intrinsic reward (impact) and job demand
288 Group & Organization Management
-
(choice) seems to work nicely. Similarly, in a low choice
setting, high compe-tence coupled with high impact has a strong
positive effect on job satisfaction(Figure 2, Panel A). In a high
choice setting, high competence makes the pos-itive effect of
meaning on satisfaction even stronger (Figure 3, Panel B).
Suchfindings may help explain why the literature is inconsistent on
the effect ofimpact and competence on job outcomes (e.g., Carless,
2004; Holdsworth &Cartwright, 2003; Siegall & Gardner,
2000; Spreitzer et al., 1997; Thomas &Tymon, 1994), because the
effects of these dimensions are most likely contin-gent on other
empowerment dimensions and/or other job contexts.We also
demonstrate that the empowerment dimensions may suppress
each other. In a low competence and low impact situation,
greater choiceleads to less, rather than more, satisfaction (Figure
1, Panel A). Similarly, acombination of high competence and high
impact suppresses the effect ofchoice on satisfaction; greater
choice actually leads to slightly lower satis-faction (Figure 1,
Panel B). When low choice is combined with low com-petence, impact
has little effect on satisfaction (Figure 2, Panel A), as whenhigh
choice is accompanied by high competence (Figure 2, Panel B).The
finding that a high level on one dimension can reduce the
positive
effect of another is alarming. Contrary to the accepted wisdom
that psy-chological empowerment improves employees psychological
well-beingand other job outcomes (Chen & Chen, 2008; Hall,
2008; Spreitzer, 1995),this study echoes research on job stress
(Karasek, 1979) and job content(Warr, 1987) and demonstrates that
empowerment may sometimes be asource of stress that can even cause
lower satisfaction through a compli-cated interplay among the four
empowerment dimensions. Because choice,impact, and competence can
be interpreted differently under varying situa-tions, consideration
of balance and counterbalance of the stress generators(e.g., choice
as a job demand), reward (e.g., impact), and ones perceivedability
to handle the stress (e.g., competence as qualification or
overquali-fication) seems more important than achieving a high
level on any or allempowerment dimensions. The varying
constellations of the levels ofchoice, competence, meaning, and
impact shed the dimensions in differentlights so that they lead to
different perceptions of the job in terms of stress,demand, and
intrinsic rewards, which will then affect job satisfaction.In sum,
although the empowerment dimensions, when looked at sepa-
rately, may in general have positive main effects on job
satisfaction, individ-ual dimensions interact with each other to
enhance or reduce the influencesof other dimensions on job
outcomes. It appears the received view of the pos-itive effect of
psychological empowerment is overly simplistic and incom-plete. Our
research suggests that the distinct dimensions may be viewed as
Wang, Lee / Psychological Empowerment and Job Satisfaction
289
-
motivators, stressors, enablers, a part of the work context,
and/or an evalua-tion of the jobperson fit. The way one dimension
affects job outcomes is notconstant and additive but may be
enhanced or suppressed by the levels ofother dimensions or the
combination of other dimensions. Thus, empower-ment theorists must
focus on identifying optimal combinations that representbalanced or
fit situations in different work contexts, which are essential
toemployee well-being and other job outcomes.
Managerial Implications
We observe that choice has a positive association with job
satisfactionwhen the competence is low but impact is high (Figure
1, Panel A). Whenthe competence and impact are both low, the
choicesatisfaction relationshipbecomes slightly negative.
Furthermore, when impact is low but competenceis high, the
choicesatisfaction relationship is also positive, but when
bothcompetence and impact are high the relationship is again
slightly negative(Figure 1, Panel B). Managerially, when
empowerment intervention effortsare geared toward increasing
employees perceived choice level, such effortsshould also focus on
improving the felt competence if the impact of the jobis perceived
to be low or improving the perception of job impact if the
per-ceived competence is low. When impact and competence are both
low orhigh, it is probably not a good idea to focus on increasing
the perceived levelof choice, as choice has little effect, or even
a negative effect, on satisfaction.Likewise, from Figure 2, when
choice is low, empowerment programs
should aim for the improvement of both competence and impact to
gen-erate greater job satisfaction, and when competence is low
improvementin both choice and impact should be the dual means of
increasing job sat-isfaction. When choice and competence are both
low or high, interventionprograms should not focus on impact, as
perceived impact has little effecton job satisfaction. Instead, in
these situations, improving the perceivedjob meaning would be the
most helpful in boosting job satisfaction. Asshown in Figure 3, the
positive association between job meaning and jobsatisfaction is
stronger when competence and choice are both low or bothhigh.
Nevertheless, job meaningfulness is the most important
dimensionamong the four empowerment dimensions for job
satisfaction, which hasa positive effect on satisfaction regardless
of other dimensional levels.Job training leading to greater felt
competence should accompany
increases in job choice or impact. If employees felt competence
is notimproved in low impact situations or if felt impact is not
improved in lowcompetence situations, increased perceived choice
may create problems
290 Group & Organization Management
-
such as role ambiguity and role stress that they do not feel to
have the capa-bility or motivation to handle. This could contribute
to negative job out-comes such as lower job satisfaction. The
moderating role of competenceand impact in the choicesatisfaction
relationship should be carefully mon-itored in practice, as should
the role of competence and choice in theimpactsatisfaction
relationship.In sum, our findings suggest that empowerment programs
should focus
on reaching optimal levels on the individual dimensions to
create a balancedcombination that will result in the most positive
outcomes. Although all fourdimensions of empowerment are important,
as Spreitzer et al. (1997) andmany others have suggested, it is
essential to achieve balanced combinationsto create maximal job
outcomes. The meaning dimension appears to have aconsistently
strong positive effect on satisfaction, which is also
consistentwith much of the extant research. As such, a program that
emphasizes a highlevel of meaning should generally do well in terms
of generating employeejob satisfaction. However, at an average
level of job meaning, a combinationof too high levels of choice,
competence, and impact may actually workagainst employee well-being
(e.g., job satisfaction).
Limitations and Future Research Directions
Our analysis on interactive effects is a significant addition to
the exist-ing empowerment literature, where only linear
relationships and additiveeffects are documented. Like all
research, however, this study has limita-tions. First, the use of
cross-sectional data precludes any inference ofcausality. Although
it makes theoretical sense to argue that psychologicalempowerment
affects job satisfaction, the reverse could very well be true.Job
satisfaction could make the individual feel that his or her job is
mean-ingful and motivate him or her to learn and develop higher
levels of skillsand thus feel more empowered. As such, longitudinal
studies such as thatof Laschinger, Finegen, Shamian, and Wilk
(2004) are highly encouraged.A second limitation concerns the
possible common method variance
(CMV) because all constructs were measured with a paper and
pencil sur-vey instrument on the same respondent at the same point
of time.As it is dif-ficult to identify the specific sources of CMV
such as social desirability,positive or negative affectivity,
and/or acquiescence, we relied on Podsakoff,MacKenzie, Lee, and
Podsakoffs (2003) recommendation to use a singlecommon method
factor approach to assess the extent of this problem. Weused the
latent method factor technique advanced byWilliams
andAnderson(1994) and compared two structural equation models that
included a
Wang, Lee / Psychological Empowerment and Job Satisfaction
291
-
same-source factor in addition to the four predictor constructs
(empower-ment dimensions) and job satisfaction. The two comparison
models werethe constrained model with factor loadings of all
indicator items on thesame-source factor constrained to zero and
the unconstrained model withloadings of all items on the
same-source factor freely estimated. Althoughthe unconstrained
model fit better than the constrained model as indicatedby a
chi-square difference test, the path coefficient estimates from
empow-erment dimensions to job satisfaction were almost identical
and mirroredthose obtained from the regression model. As such, we
conclude that CMVmight not be a serious problem for our study.
Nevertheless, future studiesshould strive to minimize the CMV by
procedural as well as statisticalremedies (Podsakoff et al.,
2003).Third, because we collected data from multiple organizations,
there
could be intraorganizational random effects that have not been
accountedfor in our models. To assess the extent of this problem,
we ran randomintercept models via Hierarchical Linear Model 2
(HLM2) at Level 2 (orga-nizational level) and found that although
the intercept and some of theslopes were significantly different
across organizations (2 ranged from13.7 [p > .10, not
significant] to 25.7 [p < .01], df = 10), based on the 11cases
that had sufficient data, the intraclass correlations were
calculated tobe less than .10, which is deemed rather small. The
fixed effect coefficientswere fairly identical to those obtained
from the Ordinary Least Square(OLS) models. We conclude that
although there may be some company-level variances in the data, the
majority of the variances are at the individ-ual level.Last, this
research focuses on the interaction effects on one job out-
come variable, that is, job satisfaction. Future research should
examineother workplace outcome variables such as performance,
learning, teamwork, and creativity in relation to these dimensions.
Antecedents of psy-chological empowerment should also be
investigated. Simultaneous esti-mation of models that incorporate a
comprehensive set of antecedents andoutcomes will allow researchers
to gain a fuller understanding of psycho-logical empowerment in the
workplace. In addition, situational variablesthat may potentially
moderate the dimensional effects on outcome vari-ables should be
identified and investigated. Such research will not onlyenrich our
theoretical understanding of psychological empowerment butalso shed
important light on managing workplace attitudes and behaviorthrough
meaningful empowerment programs and interventions.
292 Group & Organization Management
-
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1992). Multiple regression:
Testing and interpreting interactions.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ashforth, B. E. (1989). The experience of powerlessness in
organizations. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes,
43, 207-242.
Ashforth, B. E. (1990). The organizationally induced
helplessness syndrome: A preliminarymodel. Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, 7, 30-36.
Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Mundell, B. (1993).
Status inconsistency in organizations:From social hierarchy to
stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 21-36.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
social-cognitive view.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bell, N. E., & Staw, B. M. (1989). People as sculptors
versus sculpture. NewYork: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Brief, A. P., & Nord, W. R. (1990). Meanings of occupational
work. Lexington, MA:Lexington Books.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of
assessing model fit. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.
Carless, S. A. (2004). Does psychological empowerment mediate
the relationship between psy-chological climate and job
satisfaction? Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(4),
405-406.
Chen, H., & Chen, Y. (2008). The impact of work redesign and
psychological empowermenton organizational commitment in a changing
environment: An example from Taiwansstate-owned enterprises. Public
Personnel Management, 37(3), 279-302.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behav-ioral sciences (2nd
ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. (1988). The empowerment process:
integrating theory and practice.Academy of Management Review,
13(3), 471-482.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Daniels, K., & Guppy, A. (1994).
Occupational stress, social support, job control, and psy-
chological well-being. Human Relations, 47(12), 1523-1544.Deci,
E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination
in a work organization.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 580-590.Deci, E. L., &
Ryan, R. M. (1985). The support of autonomy and control of
behavior. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024-1037.Donovan, M.
(1994). The empowerment plan. Journal for Quality and
Participation, 17(4), 12-14.Edwards, J., & Cooper, C. (1990).
The person-environment fit approach to stress: Recurring
problems and some suggested solutions. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 11, 293-307.Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S.,
& Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational support,
discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82(5), 812-820.Ferris, G. R., & Gilmore, D.
C. (1984). The moderating role of work context in job design
research: A test of competing models. Academy of Management
Journal, 27(4), 885-892.Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981,
February). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of
Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.French, J. R. P., Caplan, R. D.,
& Van Harrison, R. (1982). The mechanisms of job stress and
strain. NewYork: John Wiley.
Wang, Lee / Psychological Empowerment and Job Satisfaction
293
-
Fulford, M. D., & Enz, C. A. (1995). The impact of
empowerment on service employees.Journal of Managerial Issues,
7(2), 161-175.
Gecas, V. (1989). The social psychology of self-efficacy. Annual
Review of Psychology, 15,291-316.
Gist, M. E. (1987, April). Self-efficacy: Implications for
organizational behavior and humanresource management. Academy of
Management Review, 17, 183-211.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A
theoretical analysis of its determinantsand malleability. Academy
of Management Review, 17(2), 183-211.
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Balkin, D. B. (1989). Effectiveness of
individual and aggregate com-pensation strategies. Industrial
Relations, 28, 431-445.
Greenberger, D. B., Strausser, S., Cummings, L. L., &
Dunham, R. (1989). The impact of per-sonal control on performance
and satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision
Processes, 43, 29-51.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Hall, M. (2008). The effect of
comprehensive performance measurement systems on role clar-
ity, psychological empowerment and managerial performance.
Accounting, Organizationsand Society, 33(2-3), 141-163.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Sansone, C., & Manderlink, G. (1985).
Competence, achievement moti-vation and intrinsic motivation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 493-508.
Harrison, R. (1978). Person-environment fit and job stress in
blue collar stress (C. Cooper &M. Smith, Eds.). Chichester, UK:
Wiley.
Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland, OH:
World.Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The
motivation to work (2nd ed.). New
York: John Wiley.Holdsworth, L., & Cartwright, S. (2003).
Empowerment, stress and satisfaction: An exploratory
study of a call centre. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 24(3), 131-140.House, R. J., Shane, S. A.,
& Herold, D. M. (1996). Rumors of the death of
dispositional
research are vastly exaggerated. Academy of Management Review,
21(1), 203-224.Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating
model fit. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Hurt, H. T., Joseph, K., &
Cook, C. D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of
innovativeness.
Human Communication Research, 4(1), 58-65.Judge, T. A. (1993).
Does affective disposition moderate the relationship between job
satis-
faction and voluntary turnover? Journal of Applied Psychology,
78(3), 395-401.Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. NewYork:
Simon & Schuster.Kanter, R. M. (1989). The new managerial work.
Harvard Business Review, 66, 85-92.Karasek, R. A., Jr. (1979). Job
demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications
for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24,
285-309.Koberg, C. S., Boss, R. W., Senjem, J. C., & Goodman,
G. E. (1999). Antecedents and out-
comes of empowerment. Group & Organization Management, 24,
71-91.Kravitz, D. A., Bludau, T. M., & Klineberg, S. L. (2008).
The impact of anticipated conse-
quences, respondent group, and strength of affirmative action
plan on affirmative actionattitudes. Group & Organization
Management, 33, 361-391.
Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegen, J. E., Shamian, J., &Wilk, P.
(2004). A longitudinal analysis ofthe impact of workplace
empowerment on work satisfaction. Journal of
OrganizationalBehavior, 25, 527-545.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Sparrowe, R. T., & Bradway, L.
(1993). Empowerment and effective-ness study: Feedback report
(Technical report 1). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
294 Group & Organization Management
-
Locke, E. A. (1991). The motivation sequence, the motivation
hub, and the motivation core.Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 288-299.
Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1984).
Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and taskstrategies on task
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), 241-251.
Martin, C. L., & Bennett, N. (1996). The role of justice
judgments in explaining the relation-ship between job satisfaction
and organizational commitment. Group & OrganizationManagement,
21, 84-104.
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., McKee, D. O., & McMurrian,
R. (1997, July). An investigationinto the antecedents of
organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling
context.Journal of Marketing, 61, 85-98.
Neufeldt, V., Guralnik, D. B. (1997), Websters new world college
dictionary (3rd ed.). NewYork: Simon & Schuster.
Ng, T. W. H., & Sorensen, K. L. (2008). Toward a further
understanding of the relationshipbetween perceptions of support and
work attitudes:A meta-analysis.Group & OrganizationManagement,
33, 243-268.
Ozer, E. M., & Bandura,A. (1990). Mechanisms governing
empowerment effects: A self-efficacyanalysis. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 472-486.
Parker, L. (1993). When to fix it and when to leave:
Relationships among perceived control,self-efficacy, dissent, and
exit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 949-959.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. L., & Podsakoff,
N. P. (2003). Common methodbiases in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended reme-dies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of
innovative behavior: A path model ofindividual innovation in the
workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580-607.
Siegall, M., & Gardner, S. (2000). Contextual factors of
psychological empowerment.Personnel Review, 29(6), 703.
Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A
meta-analysis of studies concerningautonomy and participation at
work. Human Relations, 39, 1005-1016.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the
workplace: Dimensions, mea-surement, and validation. Academy of
Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of
psychological empowerment.Academy of Management Journal, 39(2),
483-504.
Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. (1997). A
dimensional analysis of therelationship between psychological
empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, andstrain. Journal of
Management, 23(5), 679-704.
Suzik, H. A. (1998). Transmission plant is winner with
empowerment. Quality, 37(4), 90-91.Thomas, K., & Tymon,W.
(1994). Does empowerment always work: Understanding the role of
intrinsic motivation and personal interaction. Journal of
Management Systems, 6(3), 39-54.Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B.
A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An interpre-
tive model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management
Review, 15(4), 666-681.Valentine, S. (1999). Assessing
organizational behavior models: A comparison of linear and
nonlinear methods. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(5),
1028-1044.Wang, G., & Netemeyer, R. G. (2002). The effects of
job autonomy, customer demandingness,
and trait competitiveness on salesperson learning, self
efficacy, and performance. Journalof the Academy of Marketing
Science, 30(3), 217-228.
Warr, P. B. (1987). Work, unemployment, and mental health.
Oxford, UK: Oxford UniversityPress.
Wang, Lee / Psychological Empowerment and Job Satisfaction
295
-
Wated, G., Sanchez, J. I., & Gomez, C. (2008). Two-factor
assessment of the beliefs that influ-ence attitudes toward
privatization. Group & Organization Management, 33,
107-136.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction
and organizational commitment aspredictors of organizational
citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management,17(3),
601-617.
Williams, L. J., &Anderson, S. E. (1994). An alternative
approach to methods effects by usinglatent variable models:
Applications in organizational behavior research. Journal ofApplied
Psychology, 79(3), 323-331.
Guangping Wang, PhD, Louisiana State University, is an associate
professor of marketing atThe Pennsylvania State University. His
research focus on personal selling effectiveness, salesmanagement
in business markets, customer relationship management, and
organizationalbehavior.
Peggy D. Lee, PhD, The George Washington University, is an
assistant professor in theManagement Division at Pennsylvania State
UniversityGreat Valley. Her research interestsinclude supply chain
integration and the application of social capital and social
network theoryto the buyer-supplier relationship.
296 Group & Organization Management