Psychological Empowerment and Organizationalacacia.org.mx/busqueda/pdf/C16P01.pdf · Earlier...

XIII Congreso Internacional de Investigación en Ciencias Administrativas La administración frente a la globalización: Gobernabilidad y Desarrollo

XIII Congreso Internacional de Investigación en Ciencias Administrativas La administración frente a la globalización: Gobernabilidad y desarrollo

5, 6, 7 y 8 de mayo de 2009

Psychological Empowerment as a Moderator of Organizational Commitment: A Conceptual Framework

Shuchi Pandey Student; Master of Business Administration

Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar.

Vivekanand Pandey [email protected]

Assistant Professor

Sherwood College of Management

U.P. Technical University, Lucknow.

Contact Address

Sherwood College of management

Sector- 25, Indira Nagar

Lucknow- 226 016

Ph: 91522 2716630 Extn. 47

Mobile No.: 09415281764


Psychological Empowerment as a Moderator of Organizational

Commitment: A Conceptual Framework 1. Introduction: The world is passing through rapid changes. With the development of science

and technology coupled with radical changes in human thoughts, the old barriers

dividing one nation from the other are giving way to a new class of world society.

The transition from industrial revolution to information revolution has shifted the

focus from muscle power to brain power. Globalization of Indian economy has a

significant impact on business organizations. The competition spurred by the

reform forced corporate to adopt a market oriented approach and to search for

better alternatives for the survival and growth of the organizations.

In this endeavor, the employees, irrespective of the designations and roles

assigned to them, are valuable for the organization. Therefore, if the companies

want to survive in the post- liberalized era, they will have to shed the old ‘control

by command’ technique and employ a more effective management tool of

empowerment. And therefore, in recent years, this concept of empowerment has

become a buzzword in management circles and gained prominence as an

individual level initiative. It started in the era of employee involvement,

symbolized by participative management, managerial practices such as

employee self-management employees (Shipper and Manz) and sharing of

power and responsibility among team members(Conger and Kanungo, 1998).

“Yet, until recently, the literature has lacked consensus on a definition or

operationalization of empowerment in the workplace” Spretizer(1995) for the first

time developed and validated a multidimensonal measure of psychological

empowerment in the context of work. Several studies were conducted using

Spretizer multidimensional construct to measure psychological empowerment.

Menon(2001) developed and validated another multidimensonal measure of

psychological empowerment “ as a logic next step in the research direction

suggested by Conger and Kanungo(1998)”. Despite these multiple measures,

very little work has been done on empowerment. Further more, there has not

been rigorous research on its antecedents, and its consequences.


2. Empowerment: The term ‘empower’ means to enable, to allow or to permit and can be conceived

as both self-initiated by others. It is an interactive process based on synergistic,

not a zero-sum assumption(i.e., one gains only when someone loses) about

power; therein the process of empowerment enhances the power available as

opposed to merely redistributing it.

Empowerment is an antidote to alienation and makes the quality of work-life rich,

active and dynamic, enhancing the ability to make responsibility and achieve

recognition. It is an emerging construct to explain organizational effectiveness. It

is an act of builiding, developing and increasing power through cooperation,

sharing and working together (Rothstein; 1995), empowerment is a

multidimensonal social process that helps people gain control over their own

lives (Nanette and Cheryl; 1999). An empowered workforce is not only committed

to serve customers but also able to act on that commitment. It is this path

provides delight to all our stakeholders: customers, employees, shareholders,

suppliers and communities.

The holistic definition of empowerment is “ the process of sharing power and

providing an enabling environment( by removinh hurdles) in order to encourage

employees to take initative and decisions to take actions at all levels to achieve

organizational and individual.

2.1. Psychological empowerment:

A working definition of psychological empowerment can be proposed as ‘the

psychologically empowered state is a cognitive state characterized by a sense of

perceived control, competence and goal internalization. Empowerment is thus

considered a multifaceted construct reflecting different dimensions of being

psychologically enabled, and is conceived of as a positive additive function of

these three dimensions, each having three empowering factors.


2.2. Framework of psychological empowerment:

Empowerment comprises psychological empowering factors as source of

empowerment and empowerment consequences i.e. organizational commitment

as outcomes of empowerment. Empowering factors directly contribute to various

levels of empowerment, and empowerment consequences in turn reference

empowering factors.

Perceived Control (PCON)

Perceived Control includes beliefs about authority, decision-making, availability

of resources, and autonomy in the scheduling and performance of work, etc.

Following three main factors have been considered under perceived control for

the purpose of this study.

Autonomy (AMY)

Autonomy is a job-related characteristic that gives employees some discretion

and control over job-related decisions. This is fundamental in building

responsibilities. Giving coordinates due share in decision-making, keeping them

informed of true situations, and effective communication are the factors, which

help in improving the climate of autonomy in the organization. The autonomy

provides opportunities for self-development and leads in greater empowerment.

Availability for Resources (AR)

A person can give his best to the organization if he is provided with all the

necessary resources required for performance as well as completion of the job.


Decision Making (DM)

Decision Making here in this study refers degree of participation of an employee

in decision making process of the organization which in turn also affect, directly

or indirectly, the future of that employee.

Perceived Competence (PCOM)

Perceived Competence reflects role-mastery, which besides requiring the skillful

accomplishment of one or more assigned tasks, also requires successful coping

with non-routine role-related situations. Following three main factors have been

considered under perceived Competence for the purpose of this study.

Performance-Linked Feedback (PLF)

We believe in ourselves when others recognize our work. Feedback can be

positive or negative. We receive feedback constantly in our social interaction. To

develop the capabilities of the staff, feedback should be given on their

performance and on the effect they have on others around them. It helps them to

know what to do and how well to do.

Low Formalization (LF)

Degree of formalization in organization affects empowerment. Low formalization

increases job involvement, role satisfaction and organizational commitment. High

formalization, poor communication and role conflict leads to lower empowerment.

Organizational Support for Innovation (OSI)

Organizational support for innovation provides encouragement to employees to

use new ideas and risk taking by experimentation. It develops individual

confidence, competence and commitment.

Goal Internalization (GI)

Goal Internalization dimensions captures the energizing property of a worthy

cause or exciting vision provided by the organizational leadership. Following

three main factors have been considered under Goal Internalization for the

purpose of this study.


Open Communication (OC)

Open communication facilities formal interaction between individuals at all levels.

This satisfies the need for affiliation of employees, leading to better interpersonal

relationship among employees which facilitates organizational commitment.

Top Management Attitude (TMA)

Top management attitude to human resource consists of the philophy of twp

management of the organisation. Perception of this philosophy of top

management by employees is the resukting variable. This creates a feelings

among employees about their importance, which increases their self-

commitment.

Opportunity for Self Development to Achieve Goal of Organization (OSD)

Opportunities to develop skills and abilities, and sharing of knowledge (skilled

development) and information improve capabilities for decision-making. This

creates a feeling of satisfaction and thus improves the productivity.

Affective Commitment (AC)

Affective Commitment (AC) is the degree of an employee’s emotional attachment

to, identification with, and involvement in the organization (Allen and Meyer,

1990). AC is defined as the employee’s emotional attachment to the

organization. As a result, he or she strongly identifies with the goals of the

organization and desires to remain a part of the organization. The employee

makes a commitment to the organization because he/she “wants to”. Following

three main factors have been considered under Affective Commitment for the

purpose of this study.

Work Environment Satisfaction (WES)

Satisfaction of employees depends on the difference between the amount of

rewards that the employee receives and the amount he believes he should

receive. Satisfaction is rewards to the boss, subordinates and peers.


Role Satisfaction (RS)

Perception of role, which is in line with values, enhances the individuals’ image

by utilizing their strength, fulfilling individuals’ needs, and providing role

satisfaction.

Job Involvement (JI)

Job involvement means an individual’s association with the job, staying beyond

working hours to do the job, and willingness to devote one’s free time for the job.

Normative Commitment (NC)

Normative Commitment (NC) is the degree to which an employee feels some

sense of obligation to remain with an organization. The individual commits to and

remains with an organization because of the feeling of obligation. For instance,

the organization may have invested resources to train an employee, who then

feels an obligation to put forth the effort on the job and stay with the organization

to “repay the debt”. It may also reflect an internalized norm, developed before the

person joins the organization, through family or other socialization processes that

one should be loyal to one’s organization. The employee stays with the

organization because he/she “ought to”. Only self-efficacy has been taken into

account for this study.

Self-Efficacy (SE)

The feeling about one’s ability to do a job without much help from the superiors

enhances Self-efficacy.

3. Literature review: Earlier studies related psychological empowerment to access information and

resources, role ambiguity (Spreitzer, 1996), effectiveness, work satisfaction, and

job related strain (Spreitzer et al, 1997). Menon (2001) relates psychological

empowerment to organizational commitment, job involvement, and citizenship

behavior. Bhatnagar (2005) also relates psychological empowerment to

organizational commitment.


A majority of previous research examined how an overall empowerment

composite relates to various outcomes, but we have little understanding

regarding if and how each of the individual dimensions contributes to the

expected outcomes of empowerment (Spreitzer, 1997). In addition, as these

measures have been developed in North America, establishing universal

applicability requires their validation in other cultural settings (Dimitriades, 2005).

Earlier studies on empowerment failed to validate the invariability of these

measures amongst male and. female groups.

4. Hypothesis: Hypothesis 1: Employee psychological empowerment subscales will be positively

related to affective commitment.

Hypothesis 2: Employee psychological empowerment subscales will be positively

related to normative commitment.

5. Methodology: Measures:

Psychological Empowerment

Psychological empowerment was measured using three items, each further

divided in three sub items, a total of nine items based on, though not exactly,

scale developed by Menon (2001). Respondents were asked to use a six-point

scale ranging from “strongly Agree to strongly disagree” to report on perceived

level of empowerment.

Organizational Commitment

Affective and Normative commitment was assessed using questions of Meyer

and Allen’s (1997) organizational commitment questionnaire (OCQ) based on

self-efficacy, Work environment satisfaction, Role Satisfaction and Job

involvement. Affective commitment denotes a sense of belonging and emotional

attachment to the organization (e.g. ‘I would be very happy to spend the rest of

my career with this organization’). Normative commitment denotes the

individual’s obligation to remain with the organization (e.g. ‘my organization


deserves my loyalty because of its treatment towards me’). Items were anchored

by a five point scale ranging from “strongly disagree to strongly agree”).

Sample and Data Collection:

Questionnaire were distributed by the students of MBA to 300 employees

working in five different organizations from government sectors based at

Lucknow, India for measuring the level of empowerment. Questionnaires from

263 respondents were returned. Of the 263 questionnaires, 247 were found to be

valid, for a usable response of 82.33%. Demographic variables like Gender, Age,

Marital Status, Qualification and Experience for each respondent were also

recorded.

6. Data analysis, results and discussion:

Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents Demographic

Variables Profiles

Gender Male: 78.94% Female: 21.06% Age Group Below 35 Years

Lower: 59.11% 35 to 45 Years Middle: 25.91%

Above 45 Years Higher: 14.98%

Marital Status Married: 40.08% Unmarried: 59.92%

Education Diploma Holder: 10.52%

Graduate: 70.04 Post Graduate: 19.44

Work Experience Low: 70.08% Average: 19.02% High: 10.9% Management Level

Junior: 70.08% Middle: 19.02% Senior: 10.9%

Function HR, Production, R&D, Maintenance, Engineering and IT.

6.1. Employment scores:

Mean scores, their ranking and range for Empowering Factor (EF) and

Empowerment Consequences (EC) for the sample are given in Table 2. The

mean of EF is 3.17 and EC is 3.44.

Open Communication (OC) scored the highest and ranked 1st and Low

Formalization (LF) scored the lowest and ranked 9th among psychological

empowering factors. Among consequences, work environment satisfaction has


the highest score and ranked 1st and self-efficacy has the lowest score and

ranked 4th.

TABLE 2: EMPOWERMENT SCORES

PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT FACTORS

Variables Mean Scores Rank

OSI 3.12 7 TMA 3.24 4 OC 3.36 1 PLF 3.14 6 OSD 3.15 5 AR 3.10 8 DM 3.28 3 ATY 3.31 2 LF 2.85 9 EF 3.17 EMPOWERMENT CONSEQUENCES SE 3.20 4 JI 3.46 2 WES 3.68 1 RS 3.42 3 EC 3.44

TABLE 3: GENDER & EMPOWERMENT


MALE FEMALE Variables MS R MS R OSI 3.25 6 2.68 9 TMA 3.44 2 3.28 4 OC 3.48 1 3.20 5 PLF 3.16 7 3.16 7 OSD 3.42 3 3.30 3 ATY 3.40 4 3.50 1 DM 3.30 5 3.20 6 AR 3.07 8 2.99 8 LF 2.88 9 3.40 2 EF 3.27 3.19

EMPOWERMENT CONSEQUENCES SE 3.07 4 2.60 4 JI 3.54 2 3.50 3 WES 3.75 1 3.57 2 RS 3.40 3 3.60 1 EC 3.44 3.32

The mean score of EF is lower than EC. This is a good sign as the perception

about consequences is better. This will help in improving the empowerment

indirectly through the feedback.

6.2. Demographic variables and empowement: The sample was divided on the basis of demographic variables like gender, age,

marital status, educational qualification and experience.

Gender & Employment:

Males have higher score in OC and lower score in LF. The score of ATY is

highest and OSI is lowest for females, thought the women want to work

innovatively, the organization does not support them, hence attention must be

given to support the women for innovation.


Males scored higher on empowerment and consequences than females. It could

be because generally women are required to play dual roles and handle dual

responsibilities- organizational and domestic. This explains why their

empowerment is lower than men. WES is the highest priority consequence

among the consequences for males whereas RS is highest priority consequence

among the consequences for females. Self-efficacy is on least priority

consequence for both males and females.

Age & Empowerment:

The sample was divided into three groups on the basis of their age. The total age

span up to 55 years was divided into three groups, namely Lower age group

(below 35 years), Middle age group (between 35 to 45 years) and Senior age

group (45 years & above) for which scores are given in Table 4.

TABLE 4: AGE & EMPOWERMENT


Below 35 35 to 45 Above 45 Variables MS R MS R MS R OSI 3.32 7 3.00 8 3.12 4 TMA 3.50 2 2.86 9 3.32 3 OC 3.53 1 3.04 7 2.80 8 PLF 3.44 4 3.14 6 3.04 5 OSD 3.48 3 3.20 4 3.40 2 AR 3.36 5 3.60 1 2.70 9 DM 3.34 6 3.40 2 3.50 1 ATY 3.13 8 3.30 3 2.93 7 LF 2.90 9 3.20 5 3.00 6 EF 3.33 3.19 3.09

EMPOWERMENT CONSEQUENCES

SE 2.98 4 3.00 4 3.13 4 JI 4.02 1 4.20 1 3.70 2 WES 3.54 3 3.20 3 3.75 1 RS 3.75 2 3.80 2 3.43 3 EC 3.57 3.55 3.50


Lower age group feels more empowered followed by Middle age group and

Senior age group. Open communication is highest priority factor among

psychological empowering factors and this results in high job involvement

whereas middle age group’s priority factor is Availability for resources is the

highest priority factor among middle age group persons which again

consequences job involvement and role satisfaction up to a certain extent and

decision making is the supreme priority of senior age group employees which

results in work environment satisfaction.

6.3. Marital status, qualification and empowerment: Table 5 shows the empowerment and consequences score for married &

unmarried respondents and also for qualification. Respondents are classified in

three categories viz. Diploma holders, Graduate and Post Graduate for the

purpose measuring empowerment and its consequences.

TABLE 5: MARITAL STATUS, QUALIFICATION & EMPOWERMENT PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT FACTORS

MARITAL STATUS QUALIFICATION

Married Unmarried Diploma Graduate Post Graduate Variables MS R MS R MS R MS R MS R OSI 3.16 6 3.24 6 3.40 6 3.30 8 2.92 9 TMA 3.33 3 3.18 7 3.40 7 3.52 3 3.11 8 OC 3.60 2 3.50 2 3.61 4 3.46 6 3.51 1 PLF 3.14 8 3.07 8 3.19 8 3.25 9 3.07 7 OSD 3.33 4 3.52 1 3.47 5 3.49 4 3.35 2 AR 3.16 5 3.38 5 3.96 3 3.36 7 3.23 3 DM 3.14 7 3.43 4 4.05 2 3.69 2 3.11 6 ATY 3.64 1 3.46 3 4.14 1 3.48 5 3.17 4 LF 2.97 9 2.88 9 2.01 9 3.83 1 3.13 5 EF 3.27 3.30 3.47 3.49 3.18


SE 3.16 4 3.00 4 3.20 4 2.97 4 3.33 2 JI 3.95 1 4.10 1 4.02 1 3.99 1 3.93 1 WES 3.78 2 3.73 2 3.65 2 3.87 2 3.21 3 RS 3.48 3 3.38 3 3.63 3 3.28 3 3.02 4 EC 3.59 3.55 3.63 3.53 3.37


Autonomy is the primary empowerment factor followed by open communication

and top management attitude, revealed by married employees whereas

opportunity for self development scores highest priority followed by open

communication among unmarried employees. Job involvement is the only

consequence scored highest result among empowerment consequences.

Different empowerment factors have been observed among different qualification

background employees. Diploma holders prefer authority followed by decision

making and availability for resources which consequences job involvement,

graduates prefer low formalization followed by decision making and top

management attitude and results job involvement as top scored consequence

whereas post graduates prefer open communication followed by opportunity for

self development and availability for resources and results again job involvement

as empowerment consequence.

6.4. Experience and empowerment: The sample was divided in to three groups, below 10 years experience, 10 to 20

years experience and above 20 years experience for the purpose of this study.


TABLE 5: EXPERIENCE & EMPOWERMENT


EXPERIENCE

Below 10

years 10 to 20 years Above 20 years

Variables MS R MS R MS R OSI 2.37 9 3.27 4 3.27 4 TMA 2.49 8 3.33 3 3.33 3 OC 3.40 4 2.56 8 2.56 8 PLF 3.48 1 2.60 7 2.60 7 OSD 3.48 2 2.00 9 2.00 9 AR 3.46 3 3.83 1 3.00 5 DM 3.38 5 2.78 6 3.80 2 ATY 3.24 6 3.00 5 3.86 1 LF 2.71 7 3.69 2 2.69 6 EF 3.11 3.01 3.01


SE 3.02 4 3.00 4 3.11 3 JI 4.13 1 3.98 1 3.98 1 WES 3.80 2 3.33 2 3.08 4 RS 3.43 3 3.08 3 3.47 2 EC 3.60 3.35 3.41

Performance linked feedback is the first priority empowerment factor followed by

opportunity for self development and availability for resources, as revealed by

low experience employees, availability for resources is the first choice followed

by low formalization and top management attitude, as revealed by 10 to 20 years

experienced employees whereas highly experienced employees prefer autonomy

followed by decision making and top management attitude. All employees

revealed job involvement as first empowerment consequence.

6.5. Validity and reliability analysis: Empowerment factors Correlation

Items within each subscale significantly correlated with each other (mean r =

0.63). These correlations are shown in bold in Table 6. On the other hand, as

expected, the items from dissimilar subscales had relatively low correlations with

each other (mean r = 0.21).


TABLE 6: INTERCORRELATIONS

VAR OSI TMA OC PLF OSD AR DM ATY LF OSI 1 TMA 0.74 1 OC 0.58 0.64 1 PLF 0.22 0.23 0.27 1 OSD 0.26 0.27 0.24 0.56 1 AR 0.24 0.26 0.25 0.31 0.64 1 DM 0.22 0.25 0.30 0.19 0.15* 0.17 1 ATY 0.19 0.24 0.19 0.18 0.13* 0.09 0.69 1 LF 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.23 0.17 0.13* 0.65 (0.33) 1

Note: p< 0.01, *p< 0.05

6.6. Principal component analysis: A principal component analysis with varimax rotation (Table 7) yielded three

factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. A screeplot before the analysis

supported the factor solution. Bartlett’s test of spheritywas significant, and the

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling was acceptable (0.73). In total, the

three factors accounted for 75.7% of the variance. The first factor explained

39.8% of the variance and this factor covered all items of Perceived Competence

scale. The second factor consisted of Goal Internalization scale, explaining

20.3% of the variance, and the third factor consisted of Perceived Control scale,

explaining 15.5% of the variance. As can be seen from Table 7, the items in each

subscale have high loadings on their respective components and relatively low

loadings on the other two factors. All the three subscale had acceptable alpha

reliabilities: Perceived competence (0.88), Goal internalization (0.85) and

Perceived control (0.75).


TABLE 7: PRINCIPLE COMPONENT ANALYSIS RESULT (Factor Loading) Items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3PCOM 3 Organizational support for

Innovation 0.93 0.09 0.05

PCOM 2 Low Formalization 0.90 0.12 0.11 PCOM 1 Performance Linked Feedback 0.83 0.17 0.10 GI 1 Open Communication 0.13 0.89 0.14 GI 2 Top Management Attitude 0.09 0.87 0.14 GI 3 Opportunities for Self

Development 0.15 0.80 0.16

PCON 3 Decision Making 0.05 0.13 0.90 PCON 1 Autonomy 0.02 0.16 0.78 PCON 2 Availability for resources 0.17 0.12 0.72 Eigenvalues 3.59 1.83 1.39 % Variance (Cumulative) 39.80 60.20 75.70

6.7. Confirmatory factor analysis: To test the factor structure of the psychological empowerment measure, a CFA

using LISREL was conducted with correlation matrix as input. Conventional fit

statistics provided in the LISREL output were used to assess fit: Chi-square with

degrees of freedom, the goodness-of-fit (GFI), the Normed-fit index (NFI),

comparative fit index (CFI), and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

(RMSEA). A good fit to the data is indicated by non-significant chi-square, GFI,

NFI and CFI 0.9 and higher, and a RMSEA under 0.10. The resulting fit indices

were as follows:


Chi-square (Chi-square 38.4, d.f. 24),

Goodness-of fit index (GFI) = 0.96, Adjusted goodness-of- fit index (AGFI) = 0.93, Normed fit index (NFI) = 0.97, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.99, and Root-mean-square error approximation (RMSEA) = 0.05.

To validate the invariability of factor structure of three factor psychological

empowerment model between male and female sample, CFA was performed

using LISREL, separately for male & female groups. The results obtained in the

two cases were quite similar, confirming that the model is invariant of gender

differences.

7. Hypothesis testing: Correlation and hierarchical regression (Cohen and Cohen 1975) analyses were

conducted to test the hypotheses. First, hypotheses were tested with correlation

analysis; to test these hypotheses further, regression analysis was used. With

hierarchical regression, perceived competence was initially entered into the

regression equation for each outcome (dependent) variable, followed by

perceived control, and then by goal internalization. This three step procedure

was employed to ascertain the nature of relationship between each of the three

psychological empowerment measures and commitment and also to determine

the unique variance contributed by each of them. This ordering of independent

variables was utilized to understand employees felt empowerment at individual,

departmental and organizational level.


8. Correlation analysis result: Table 8 shows the means, standard deviations and bivariate correlations among

the psychological empowerment subscales and affective and normative

commitment. As expected, goal internalization and perceived control are

significantly and positively correlated with affective and normative commitment.

Perceived competence is significantly and positively correlated only with

normative commitment. Contrary to hypotheses no significant relation is found

between perceived competence and affective commitment.

TABLE 8: CORRELATION COEFFICIENT BETWEEN PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT AND COMMITMENT

Factors GI PCON PCOM ACS GI 1

PCON 0.37 1 PCOM 0.28 0.24 1

AC 0.38 0.23 0.04 1 NC 0.39 0.32 0.17 0.41

Note: p< 0.01

9. MODERATOR MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULT: To test further H1 and H2, hierarchical regression was employed. Table 9 shows

the hierarchical regression results. When analyzing the results with this method,

particular attention was given to the beta coefficients, R2, and change in R2 at

each step. The beta coefficients suggest that affective commitment accrues from

goal internalization (0.33) and perceived control (0.17). Normative commitment is

also explained by goal internalization (0.28) and perceived control (0.25).


TABLE: 9 REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULT

REGRESSION MEASURES DEPENDENT VARIABLE

AC

DEPENDENT VARIABLE

NC 1. PCOM Beta 0.01 0.16 R2 -0.03 0.03 2. PCOM Beta -0.04 0.10 PCON Beta 0.27 0.34*** R2 0.06*** 0.14 ∆R2 0.07*** 0.11*** 3. PCOM Beta -0.12 0.03 PCON Beta 0.17** 0.25*** GI Beta 0.33*** 0.28*** R2 0.16 0.20 ∆R2 0.09*** 0.06*** F Value 14.64*** 19.18*** Note: ***p<0.001, **p<0.01

Goal internalization dimension was found to be positively related to affective

commitment (β = 0.33, p < 0.001) and normative commitment (β = 0.28, p <

=0.001). In addition, goal internalization explained significant variance above and

beyond perceived control and perceived competence dimensions in predicting

affective commitment.

Perceived control was found to be significantly related to normative commitment

(β = 0.25, p < = 0.001) and to a lesser extent with affective commitment (β =

0.17, p < = 0.01).

This study does not find any significant relationship between perceived

competence and commitment.

10. Conclusion: The present study confirms the applicability of chosen psychological

empowerment measure. Results report the invariability of the measure in male

and female gender groups and in diverse educational backgrounds. The present

study suggests that goal internalization and perceived control have significant


positive relation with affective and normative commitment. Individual dimensions

of goal internalization and perceived control augments the organizational

commitment. However, no significant relation was found between perceived

competence and commitment. This may be because of the dynamics prevailing

in the Indian government organizations, where poaching best brains available in

the market is the rule of the day. In addition, success or failure of Indian

government organizations largely depends on the quality of the work force that

they possess. Because of this, competent employees are having multiple job

opportunities in hand and are always looking for the “better” opportunity.

In the present research goal internalization emerged as the first factor in the

principal component analysis, followed by perceived control and perceived

competence. This may be due to the data collected from highly skilled and

educated employees for whom competence is a primary requirement to perform

their job. Goal internalization items also reported high mean scores and little

variance (GI 3 = 5.65, SD 0.49; GI 1= 5.58, SD = 0.54; GI 2= 5.57, SD 0.59). The

practical implications of these results include fostering organizational

commitment.

Following points need to be considered:

• There is a need to give more opportunities to women employees to

develop their skill and abilities to empower them.

• Support for innovation in R&D type of organization needs to be enhanced.

• Government organizations need to emphasize on OSI, OSD and AR.

• There is a need for assigning higher responsibilities and conducting more

effective training.

• Higher qualified employees need to be involved in problem solving

activities.


• Experienced employees need to be provided more opportunities for

development irrespective of their levels.

Managers need to internalize the corporate goals and have to create an

environment, where employees should feel a sense of control over resources

and decision- making. Again, since the competent employees are always looking

for better opportunities, managers should provide training and development to

these employees, by doing this normative commitment can be enhanced among

the employees.

11. LIMITATION AND SCOPE FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: This study examines the relationship between empowerment and its

consequences. In the future, studies must concentrate to further strengthen the

theoretical foundation of psychological empowerment. Future research should

compare and contrast the factor structure of the psychological empowerment

with data collected not only from different companies of India but also from

companies of different countries.


REFERENCES:

Allen N J and Meyer J P (1990), “The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance and Normative Commitment to the Organization”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63, pp. 1-18.

Beckhard R (1969), Organization Development Strategies and Models, Reading, Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts.

Bennis W and Nanus B (1985), Leaders, Harper and Row, New York.

Bhatnagar J (2005), “The Power of Psychological Empowerment as an Antecedent to Organizational Commitment in Indian Managers”, Human Resources Development International, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 419-433.

Cohen J and Cohen P (1975), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Conger J A and Kanungo R N (1988).’ The Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory and practice,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. .13. No. 3 PP, 471-482.

Conger J A and Kanungo R N (1988), “The Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory and Practice”, Academy of Management Review, Vol.13, No. 3, pp. 471-482

Dimitriades Z S (2005), “Employee Empowerment in the Greek Context, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 80-92.

Gupta KS (2002), “Empowerment Inventory,” The Annual 2002 Training, Vol.1 Josey Bass.

Joiner BL (1994), Fourth Generation Management: New Business Consciousness, McGraw-Hill Delhi.

Kanter R M (1979), “Power Failures in Management Circuits”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 57, No 4, pp. 65-75.

Kanungo R A (1992), “Alienation and Empowerment: Some Social Ethical Imperatives in Business” Journal of Business Ethics, No. 11, pp, 413-422.

Menon S T (2001), “Employee Empowerment: An Integrative Psychological Approach”, Appeal Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp.153-180.

Meyer J P and Allen N J (1997), “Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and Application”, Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications, California.

Michael M and Reynolds A (1996), “Learning Across Borders,” World Executive Digest, May, 24.


Nanette Page and Cheryl E Czube (1990), “Empowerment: What is it? Journal of Extension, vol. 37, No. 5.

Rama Krishna Y and Madhusudhan Prasad V (2007), “Transformational Leadership: A Contemporary Leadership Development Program for Knowledge Workers”, The lcfaian Journal of Management Research, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 76-86.

Rothstein L R (1995), “The Empowerment Effort,” Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp, 20-31.

Shipper F and Manz C C (1992), “Employee Self-management without Formally Designated Teams: An Alternative Road to Empowerment”, Organizational Dynamics, Winter, pp. 48-61.

Spreitzer G M (1995), “Psychological Empowerment in Workplace: Construct Definition, Measurement and Validation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, pp. 1442-1465.

Spreitzer G M (1996), “Social Structural Characteristics of Psychological Empowerment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 483-504.

Spreitzer G M (1997), “Toward a Common Ground in Defining Empowerment”, Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 10, pp. 31-62.

Spreitzer G M, de Janasz S C and Quinn R E (1999), “Empowered to Lead: The Role of Psychological Empowerment in Leadership”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 511-526.

Spreitzer G M, Kizilos M A and Nason S W (1997), “A Dimensional Analysis of the Relationship between Psychological Empowerment and Effectiveness, Satisfaction, and Strain”, Journal of Management, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 679-704.

Thomas K W and Velthouse B A (1990), “Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An “Interpretive” Model of Intrinsic Task Motivation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 666-668.

Zimmerman M A (1984,)” Taking aim on Empowerment Research: on the Distinction between individual psychological conception,” American Journal of community Psychology, Vol. 18 No.1 pp. 169-177.

Date post:	10-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Psychological Empowerment and Organizationalacacia.org.mx/busqueda/pdf/C16P01.pdf · Earlier...

Documents