Antecedents of Structural Empowerment and the … · Antecedents of Structural Empowerment and the...

Proceedings of 9th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference 5 - 6 November 2015, Bayview Hotel, Singapore, ISBN: 978-1-922069-87-0

Antecedents of Structural Empowerment and the Relationship Between Structural Empowerment and

Performance

**MostefaIder and *Ahmed Salman Al-Sulaiti

The purpose of this paper is to identify in a First step, the Individual, Organizational, and contextual antecedents, of structural; and then in a second step, investigate the relationship between structural empowerment and employee and organizational performance. A series of hypotheses about the relationships between structural empowerment and its antecedents on one hand , and between structural empowerment and individual and organizational performance on a second hand will be tested. The study is based on data collected through 2 samplesof 52 employees(with 47valid cases) and 59 managers drawn from 20 multinational and local companies in Qatar. A system approach combined with correlation analysis , regression , and analysis of variance will be used to test the various hypotheses stated in the paper. Data will be analyzed , using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 21.Finally a conceptual model for empowerment and performance, as well as a predictive model for empowerment will be presented.

Keywords: Empowerment; structural empowerment; organizational, individual, and contextual antecedents, organizational and individual performance. JEL Codes:M10, M14, M16, M19

1. Introduction The Oxford Dictionary defines empowerment as “ to give somebody the power or authority to act” ( Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary,1995). Burke (1986, p.5) defines empowerment as: “To empower, implies the granting of power-delegation of authority.” Cornwall, J.: and Perlman, B.( 1990, p.87) define empowerment as “…the process of having power given from the traditionally powerful managers in an organization and instilled in everyone.” Taking a different perspective , Randolph (1995, p.20) defines empowerment as “…recognizing and releasing into the organization the power that people already have in their wealth and useful knowledge and internal motivation.”

2. Research Objectives

The objective of this study is to investigate the relationships between organizational, individual, contextual characteristics, Management strategies and organizational processes, and structural empowerment. The main elements of this work, consist in:

(a) Presenting the main conceptualizations of structural empowerment, (b) Present a general model for structural empowerment linking the

Organizational, individual characteristics, contextual factors, management strategies and organizational processes, as well as individual and organizational performance (FIG1).

_______________________________________________________ **Dr. MostefaIder,Wroclaw University Of Economics, Faculty of Management , Finance & Informatics, Wroclaw,

Poland, E-mail: [email protected]

*Dr. Ahmed Salman Al-Sulaiti, SBS Swiss Business School, Zurich, Switzerland,

E-mail: [email protected]


(c) Test the relationships between organizational, individual characteristics, contextual factors, management strategies and organizational processes, and structural empowerment.

(d) Test the relationships between structural empowerment and individual and organizational performance.

3. Literature and Theory We distinguish two perspectives on empowerment: “The relational perspective”

or Structural Empowerment, introduced by Kanter(1977) which is a top-down approach to empowerment and a second perspective known as the “Psychological perspective” or psychological empowerment, which is a bottom-up approach to empowerment ( Conger and Kanungo, 1988),

For Conger and Kanungo (1988), the diffusion of the decision making power down the hierarchy, alone , will not necessarily result in outcome improvement , since it’s “the employee’s perception of empowerment and the employee’s inner nature “ which matter. Furthermore Conger and Kanungo (1988, p.474), state that empowerment is the “process of enhancing feelings of self- efficacy among organizational members” , through the identification of the work conditions and barriers , which make the employees feel powerless, and removing these obstacles using formal and informal management techniques by providing efficacy information.

4. Structural Empowerment Broadly speaking, literature on empowerment has highlighted two main

conceptualizations of empowerment, namely the two perspectives on empowerment defined in the previous section: structural and psychological perspectives.

According to Kanter (1993) , the organizational provision of opportunity, significantly influences workers’ motivation, productivity, commitment and degree of engagement in work. Kanter defines the structure of power as organizational attributes that enable workers to mobilize resources. Specifically, she asserts that high levels of structural empowerementcomes from the access tofour organizational sources:Information, Support, Resources, and Opportunity:

1. Access to opportunity refers to : “the possibility for growth and movement within the organization as well as the opportunity to increase knowledge and skills” (Kanter, 1993; Laschinger et al., 2001, 2004)

2. Acess to resources refers to: “one's ability to acquire the financial means, materials, time, and supplies required to do the work” (Kanter, 1993; Laschinger et al., 2001, 2004)

3. Access to information refers to: “ having the formal and informal knowledge that is necessary to be effective in the workplace (Kanter, 1993; Laschinger et al., 2001, 2004)

4. Access to support involves receiving feedback and guidance from subordinates, peers, and superiors (Kanter, 1993; Laschinger et al., 2001, 2004)

Beside these four organizational sources of structural power, Kanter (1977,1993) believes that access to theorganizational empowerment structures,can be enhanced by the formal and informal power, an employee has in an organization.

5. Formal power is the power an employee is granted in accordance to his position in the company and the authority associated with that position.


6. Informal power derives from the capacity of an employee to use his unique characteristics , experience, and knowledge, as well as interpersonal skills, to obtain the respect, admiration of others , and support for himself among peers, subordinates and cross-functional groups within an organization.

These Six elements constitute the well established multi-dimensional construct for Structural Empowerment throughout literature.

4.1. Related Works and Discussion

Most of the research work about empowerment was conducted in the

beginning in Canada and in the United States . Later several studies have been conducted in Europe, but in the Middle East such studies are rare, with the exception of Iran, where few studies have been conducted. In the rest of the countries of Middle East and the Arab World in general , and the Gulf Council Cooperation Countries in particular, the number of studies is meaningless. This observation and the objectives of the Qatar Vision 2030, which require a more empowered society , and a bigger involvement of citizens at the local level in Policy making and the Design of public services, were at the basis of the motivation of this study. That’s why we decided to undertake such study in Qatar.

4.2. Antecedents of Empowerment In this section, we’ll talk about the individual, organizational , and contextual antecedents of structural empowerment. Conger and Kanungo (1988) have said that: Organizational factors, managerial strategies ,and self-efficacy information to subordinates are the influencers of empowerment. Similarly, according to Thomas and Velthouse (1990), other factors like an individual’s work context ,and personality characteristics play as well an important role in whether an individual is empowered or not, and shape empowerment cognitions, which in turn, motivate individual behavior.Spreitzer (1995) has shown that structural characteristics of self-esteem, locus of control, and link to rewards are some critical antecedents of empowerment. However in general the previous studies have been focusing on psychological empowerment, and an exhaustive list of antecedents of structural empowerment has not been yet established.Structural empowerment is not about employee’s perception or sense of empowerment but about the power that an employee has in the workplace, and henceidentififying the antecedents of structural empowerment could be very useful from a managerial perspective. 4.2.1. Influence of Organizational Characteristics on Empowerment

One of the first firm’s characteristics that may play role in structural

empowerment is the firm’s size. In an entrepreneurial configuration , there’s a wide span control, a low job specialization, and the power is in general concentrated in the hands of the entrepreneur(owner). Entrepreneurial organizations , are flat structures , consisting of few layers, making often the decision making process fast. However, as these small companies start growing , the decision making process becomes more complex , and centralization of the authority may become a totally ineffective Management Model. By opposition large firms are bureaucracies, with many layers, a high degree of job specialization, standardized work processes, a narrow span control , with many information filters and a slow decision making process. This type of companies may use a centralized structure in a machine configuration, and a decentralized structure in a divisional structure. Modern


techniques of production like the Just-In-Time and Total Quality Management canhardly be implemented successfully in this type of companies without employee empowerment. As for the small companies, given the challenges they face in today’s economy in terms of uncertainty, and intense competition, empowerment, could be one of the possible strategies , they may use to leverage their competitive strength and prosper. Because of the low degree of specialization in small firms, employees perform a bigger variety of tasks than in larger ones, which make them actually, a good environment for the promotion of empowerment. Hence, the question of whether the firm’s size is related to empowerment or not is not quite clear. However, Baird, K.; and Wang,H.( 2010) showed actually , that there is no relationship between the organization size and employee empowerment.

Culture is the second organizational characteristic that may have an influence on the fact whether a company is empowered or not. Organizational culture is defined as a set of values, beliefs, and norms that are shared by members of an organization (Kowalczyk&Pawlish, 2002). At a basic level, culture may be defined as “the way we do things around here” or “the way we think about things around here” (Williams et al, 1994). Organizational culture has been often at the basis of the competitive advantage of afirm, and companies like HP, and IBM, are good examples of firms relying on their corpoprate cultures to compete against their rivals. One may wonder how come organizational culture plays such a strategic role for a company?Actuallyorganizational culture not only shapes the employee’s behavior and has an influence on his motivation and morale, but has as well, an impact on productivity and efficiency; attitude in the workplace, as well as the quality of his work (Campbell and Stonehouse, 1999). And that’s whyit’s not a coincidence, that organizational performance itself, is determined, to a large part, by employee behavior (Hoogervorst, 1998). We are now in the position to state our first hypothesis: H1: There’s a positive relationship between organizational culture of a firm and its level of structural empowerment. The third organizational characteristic that will probably have an influence on the fact that a company will be empowered or not is the organizational structure. Actually organizational culture influences employee’s behavior by using managerial instruments such as a strategic direction, goals, and structure (Martins & Terblanche, 2003). Clearly, in a company using a centralized , mechanistic structure, one would not expect to find employees to be empowered. By opposition, in a decentralized , organic structure, empowerment might be one of the major strategies used by a company to compete against others . However the challenges created by globalization ,technology, and the intensity of competitition , are pushing for the introduction of new ways of managing in firms. And the new trends observed in management today, point all in a new direction, where we see many companies moving from a bureaucratic control to a more humanistic control ( Buchanan and Huczynski , 1997); thus creating a new environment more favourable for empowerment. This leads to state our second hypothesis: H2: There a relationship between the organizational structure of a firm and its level of structural empowerment. 4.2.2. Influence of Contextual Characteristics on Empowerment


Mintzberg was one of the major authors who gave a great importance to the question of context. He considered , that contexts of age, size, technical system, environment, and power , all have have an influence on a firm’s organizationalstructure. For example the more power an organization exerts on its environment , the more likely it will be centralized. While a firm operating in an environment , characterized by complexity, like internationalization , will probably opt for decentralization. Clearly context is a major factor which influences organizational design, culture, and the ditribution of power within an organization. The success of implementation of many management techniques and methods in an organization, quite often depends on the organizational context, and hence it’s very likely that it has an influence on the process of empowerment. One of the first types of contexts is, globalization. Globalization, is one of major forces , driving business today, resulting in the spread of standardization of methods and products, as well as the diffusion of management techniques. Few authors studied the relationship between globalization and empowerment, among them Michna, A.; Meczynska, A.;Kmieciak, R., &Sekowska, R. (2011), who investigated the relationship between empowerment and internationalization of Polish SMEs. Marin and Verdier, in their work (Marin, D.; &Verdier, T.,2012), focus on globalization and the empowerment of talent. Some authors who studied this relationship, examine this issue from a gender perspective, that is the relationship between globalization and empowerment of women ( Neumayer, E.; & De Soysa, I. ; 2011). However the direct relationship between structural empowerment and globalization has not formally been investigated. We will test in this paper, whether such a relationship exist or not. H3: there is a negative relationship between a firm’s degree of globalization and the structural empowerment level of that firm. The second type of context ,that may play role in the process of structural empowerment is the work environment,as it is perceived directly or indirectly by employees. Work environment is assumed to have an influence on motivation and behavior ( Wang, J.L.; Zhang, D.J.; Jackson, L.A.; 2013). More importantly, work unit social structural characteristics , which correspond to the perceptions by employees of ( role ambiguity, sociopolitical support, access to information about goals and performance, and work climate), seem to have a big influenceon the process of empowerment. A participative work unit, with a good access to information, a strong sociopolitical support, and little role ambiguity is expected to be related to an environment where employees feel empowered. H4: There’s a positive relationship between the Work Unit Social Structural Characteristics of a firm and the level of Structural empowerment in that firm. The Third type of context is Trust. Trust is an essential element in constructive human relationships (Tan & Tan, 2000). In efforts to attain an excellent empowered organization, there should be mutual trust between managers and their staff. Trust in organizations can affect many levels of organizational commitment and turnover intention, whereas trust in one’s supervisor affects innovative behavior and the employee’s satisfaction with the supervisor (Tan & Tan, 2000).As empowerment is essentially, a continuing interpersonal relationship that fosters mutual trust between employers and employees, a relationship between trust and empowerment is quite probable. Such arelationship , will allow individuals to endeavor toward continuous improvement in quality, efficiency, better customer service, and vendor negotiations


with minimal individual or professional risk and cost. To test this relationship, we state the following hypothesis: H5: There’s a positive relationship between trust in a firm and the level of structural empowerment in that firm. The Fourth type of context is the Industry. Does empowerment depend on industry? Are some industries more favourable for empowerment than others? High-Tech industries are quite often more associated with empowerment than other industries, and there are papers that seem to point in this direction ( Tsung‐HsienKuo, Li‐An Ho, Chinho Lin, Kuei‐Kuei Lai, 2010), and ( Kaka,N.; Madgavkar, A.; Manyika,J. ; Bughin, J.; and Parameswaran,P.; 2014). We know also from other areas in management that industry matters. In strategic management for example, McGahan, A.M.; and Porter,M.E. (1997), showed that organizational performance does indeed depend on the industry. We will show that the structural empowerment level means vary among industries. H6: The average structural empowerment levels for the various industries are different ( The empowerment structural level mean depends on the industry). Beside the question of the firm’s organizational culture, the national culture of the firm country’s origin, or the host country may play a role as well in the empowerment within a company. Using the framework of Hofstede (2010), the power distance dimension of the national culture seems to play an important role in empowerment. But which national culture , the national culture of the firm country’s origin, or the culture of the host country?The question of the impact of the culture of the host country on empowerment has been addressed by M. Oloko and M. Ogutu (2012), who showed, that the power distance of the host country has a moderate effect on the relationship between empowerment and international companies.As for the impact of the national culture of the firm country’s origin on empowerment, the question remains open. 4.2.3. Influence of Individual Characteristics on Structural Empowerment

Individual characteristics are in general much more associated with

psychological empowerment than with structural empowerment. However, having or recruiting employees with along experience in the current position, and equipped with the right knowledge, and skills relevant to the job performed by employees in a firm can enhance the confidence’ employee to take decisions. The concept of knowledge characteristics of the job has been introduced by Humphrey, S.E.; Nahrgang, J.D.; &Morgeson, F.P. (2007). We will show that there is a relationship between the knowledge characteristics of the job ,the total number of years of experience relevant to the current position and structural empowerment. For this purpose ,the following hypotheses , will be tested:

H7: There is a positive relationship between the knowledge characteristics of the job of employees in a firm and the structural empowerment level of that firm.

H8: There is a positive relationship between the total number of years of experience in the current position of employees in a firm and the structural empowerment level of that firm. 4.3. Strategies and Organizational Processes to facilitate Empowerment Implementation.

Robbins (1994) noted that, by giving employees enhanced skills, abilities, and

confidence; management increases the likelihood that the empowerment process will


succeed, that’s why we expect Training to be related to empowerment. Link to rewards has an influence on organizational performance (Dowling and Richardson, 1997) and total quality management (Allen and Kilmann, 2001).Hence, one may expect , that if an organization wishes to empower its employees , it should link sufficient rewards to the desired behavior ( empowerment in our case). Another process that could help to create an environment favourable for empowerment is Job Design in general and the job characteristics model in particular. The Job Characteristics Model is at the basis of what is known as intrinsic motivation; that is, there is nothing more motivating for an employee than the content of the job itself. Higher score on job characteristics , increases performance and leads to a high job satisfaction, and is quite probably, one of those processes , which facilitate the implementation of structural empowerment in a firm.

4.3.1. Job Characteristics Hackman and Oldham (1975) were the First to observe that nothing can be more motivating than the content of the job itself. They played a central role in how work can be redesigned in order for employees to be internally motivated. Intrinsic or internal motivation occurs when an individual performs his job because of the positive internal feelings resulting from doing well. Internally motivated employees, work more effectively, and perform better on their job, than employees driven by external motivating factors (such as an incentive pay, bonuses, etc.). Internal motivation is determined by three psychological states, i.e., experienced meaningfulness, accountability and awareness of results. These psychological states are influenced by the presence of the five core job dimensions, i.e.; skills variety, task identity, task significance, task autonomy, and feedback. These Five Job characteristics have a big impact on the employee’s work outcomes in terms of effectiveness, absenteeism, and lead to employee’s job satisfaction. To find out whether, there is a relationship between the Five Job characteristics and structural empowerment, we state the following hypothesis: H9: There is a positive relationship between the job characteristics model score in a firm and the structural empowerment level of that firm.

4.3.2. Link to Rewards

Many studies have revealed the effect of a link to rewards on organizational performance (Dowling and Richardson, 1997). Similarly, it is maintained that if management wishes to implement employee empowerment within an organization, adequate rewards must be linked to the desired employee behavior. Specially, a suitable reward system is very much needed to encourage employees to work out an additional decision-making responsibilities that connect this reward system with employee empowerment. So, management should link empowerment behavior to rewards, be it financial benefits or promotion opportunities, in order to encourage employee empowerment within their organization.To establish the relationship between the link to rewards and structural empowerment, we state the following hypothesis: H10: There is a positive relationship between the Link to Rewards in a firm and the structural empowerment level in that firm.


4.3.3. Training

Training and education are recognized by many experts as important in preparing an organization for change, in accomplishing it, and institutionalizing it as a permanent part in an organization. To be effective and autonomous in taking decisions, an employee needs a regular and continuous training. The outcomes of learning are not only knowledge and understanding, but can be as well emotional and motivational outcomes, resulting in the form of attitudes towards the learning itself and change in the organization. Lack of understanding and a proper training contribute often to employee’s resistance to change. Thus training provides an opportunity to motivate and empower employees, as well as reducing their resistance to the implementation of change. Taking a process view of an organization, Training is a process used by a firm, which facilitates the implementation of employee’s empowerment and increases the chances of its successful implementation. Robbins (1994) noted that, by giving employees enhanced skills, abilities, and confidence; management increases the likelihood that the empowerment process will succeed.Thus , we state the following hypothesis: H11: There is a positive relationship between the trainingin a firm and the structural empowerment level of that firm.

4.3.4. Transformational Leadership

Various empirical studies showed the existence of a relationship between the

leadership style, work team success, and leadership effectiveness. More specifically, it’s the Transformational leadership(Bass,B.M.; 1998), which is being suggested to enhance work-oriented values and shapes the self-efficacies of employees. Organizational leaders need to inspire people, captivate their imaginations, and raise employees to new levels of personal empowerment so that the overall organization thrives. Walinskas (2000) theorized that empowering employees will assist in promoting the vision.

Transformational Leadership Style (Bass,B.M.; 1985: 25) seems to be the style

which most correlate with empowerment (Azman, I. ; Hasan Al-Banna, M.; Ahmad Zaidi, S.;MohdHamran,M.;andMunirah,H.Y.; 2011), and ( Allameh,S.M.;Hevdari,M.; and Davoodi, S.M.R.; 2011).

5. Individual and Organizational Performance as an outcome of Empowerment

Job performance is generally defined as the degree to which an individual

helps the organization achieve its goals. Borman and Motowidlo (1993) introduced two types of performance: Functional performance and contextual performance. Task performance is related to the use of technical skills and knowledge to produce goods or services or to accomplish a specialized task that support the actual functions of an organization, while contextual performance is related to when an employee is voluntarily helping colleagues to complete their work assignments, putting in extra effort to complete a given task, putting in extra hours to get work done on time, looking for new ways to increase performance, and so forth (Van Scotter, 2000).In this study, in terms of employee’s performance, we’ll focus on contextual performance. As for the organizational performance, we will stick to the financial performance, because of the unwillingness of the majority of organizations


to share with us the critical information needed for a Balanced Scorecard. Since task performance seems to be more related to the individual performance and hence probably much more to psychological empowerment, we will focus in this paper on contextual performance.Thus we state the following hypothesis:

H12: There is a positive relationship between the level of the structural empowerment in a firm and the contextual performance level in that firm.

H13: There is a positive relationship between the level of structural empowerment in a firm and the financial organizational performance of that firm.

6. General Model For Empowerment and Performance Based on the current literature review, one can see that there were many attempts to identify the various antecedents of structural; however a general model linking organizational, individual, contextual characteristics, management and organizational processes, and structural empowerment, as well as employee and organizational performance, has never been presented. A common approach to these issues has not been developed so far. A general model showing the connections between all these concepts is presented in Fig 1.

Fig 1.

7. Methods Our research is concerned with the relationships between organizational,

individual, contextual characteristics and structural empowerment. From the theoretical point of view, the problem of structural empowerment is analyzed on the basis of system theory, or a process view of the organization. Hypotheses will be tested using a correlation tests, and ANOVA. Finally a predictive model for structural empowerment using a multiple linear regression model will be presented.


8. Data Collection and Sampling

The study was carried out at Doha, Qatar, from October 2012 to June 2014. A survey was administrated to twenty multinational companies operating in Qatar, from the USA, Europe, Asia, as well as some local and regional companies from the Gulf Council Cooperation. To conduct this study, we used a cross-sectional research design consisting of interviews of some top managers, and HR managers of the participating companies, a pilot study, and an online survey composed of two questionnaires , one for managers and one for employees. The purpose of the interviews was to check whether any form of empowerment is being used in those companies, to have an idea about the management and organizational processes used by the companies for the implementation of empowerment in case empowerment is used, and to have an evaluation of the empowerment programs and its impact on employee and organizational performance . Our interviews of HR managers was used as well to improve the accuracy and quality of our questionnaires before sending them to employees and managers. Managers and employees who participated in the survey have been informed by the HR managers , and a letter with all the details about our research and guidelines for our questionnaires was sent to all participants. Interviews with top managers and the questionnaire for managers were used to collect the information which might be not accessible to employees. As for the second questionnaire, it was used for employees to collect data for the investigation of the issues related to empowerment and individual performance. Answers to questionnaires , were collected using web surveys through the platform Qualtrics. (www.Qualtrics.com) and analyzed with IBM’s SPSS, Version 21. The response rate for the two types of questionnaires was 47 for the employees and 59 for Managers. 8.1. Participants The sample used for our analysis is based on the questionnaire for emplyees , supplemented by the information provided by the questionnaire for managers. Oour sample consistsof 47 people, with 39 males and 8 females. Four people are below 25, 16 between 25 and 35, 22 between 35 and 45, and 10 above 45. In terms of education qualifications, 55.8% had a Bachelor’s degree and 44.2% a Master’s or Ph.D. In terms of position held, 4 were junior level,8 senior staff members,30 from Middle Management, and 10Executive Managers. By nationality we had 28 Asians,3 Africans,13 Europeans,5 Americans, and 3 from GCC( Gulf Council Cooperation). Six people had less 5 years of work experience, 10 between 5 and 10, 12 between 10 and 15,13 between 15 and 20, and 11 more than 20 years of experience. In terms of experience relative to the current position we have 19 with less than 5 years of experience relative to the current position, 12 between 5 and 10,10 between 10 and 15 years,3 between 15 and 20, and 8 more than 20. The participant profiles is given in Table 1.


And here are the industries from where the participants were coming: Oil/gas:4;Textile/Fashion:3;Manufacturing/Automotive/Steel/Metals/Aeronautics/Aviation:2;Media/Advertising/PR:3;RealEstate/Construction:3;Finance/Banking/Insurance/Accouting:4:IT/Telecommunications/Cable/Internet:25;Utilities/Water/Electricity/Energy:3;Consulting:4, Other:1.The industries of the companies participating in our study is given in Table participating in our study is given in Table 2.

Measurement tools

Structural empowerment is measured on the basis of a six (6)-dimension construct(Opportunity:3items, Support:3items, Resources:3items,Information:3items, Formal power: 3items, Informal Power:4 items) known as the Conditions for Work Effectiveness Questionnaires (CWEQ-I, and CWEQ-II) (Laschinger et al., 2001). Knowledge Characteristics of the Job is measured using a Three dimensional construct ( job complexity, 4 items; information processing, 4 items; problem solving, 4 items ) developed by Humphrey, S.E.; Nahrgang, J.D.; &Morgeson, F.P. (2007). Job Characteristics is measured on the basis of the Five- dimensional construct developed in the Job Diagnostic Survey ( skills variety, 2 items; task identity, 2 items,


task autonomy, 2 items; task significance, 2 items; feedback, 4 items) (Hackman, J.R.:& Oldham, G.R., 1975). Trustis measured using a single dimension construct with 5 items developed by Spreitzer, G.M. (1995). Employee performance is measured using a one dimensional construct with 8 items for contextual performance developed by Borman and Motowidlo (1993). Work Unit Social Structural Characteristics is measured using a four (4)-dimensional construct( socio-political support, 4 items; work climate, 5 items; role ambiguity, 3 items; Access To Information About Goals and Performance, 3 items) ( Spreitzer, G.M. , 1995). Training is measured using a one dimensional construct with 4 items developed by Smith et al. (2004). Link to Rewards is measured using a one dimensionalconstruct with 3 itemsdeveloped by Baird, K. & Wang, H. (2010. Organizational Culture is assessed using a Four (4)-dimensional construct (support orientation, 6 items; innovation orientation, 6 items; rules orientation, 3 items; goal orientation, 6 items) developed by O’Reilly et al. (1991), and known as the organizational culture profile (OCP) measure. All items for (Knowledge Characteristics of the Job; Job Characteristics; Trust;Employee performance ; Work Unit Social Structural Characteristics ; Training ; Link to Rewards ; Organizational Culture ) are measured using a Likert scale from 1 to 5. Organizational performance is measured using the averageReturn on Assets during 2011 and 2013. Organizational Structureis assessed using a one dimensional construct with Six(6)-items, developed by Spreitzer, G.M. (1995), with a Likert scale from 1 to 7 ( Strongly Disagree=1, Moderately Disagree=2, Somewhat Disagree=3, Neither Agree or Disagree=4, Agree=5, Moderately Agree=6. Strongly Agree=7); where 1 corresponds to the most mechanistic structure on the left of the continuum, and 7 to the most organic structure on the right of the continuum. Globalization: is assessed using a Five-items construct proposed by Kraemer, K. L., Gibbs, J. L., &Dedrick, J. (2005). (1) whether the company has its headquarters abroad (yes/no), coded (HA); (2) whether it has other establishments abroad (yes/no) coded (EA); (3) international sales as a share of its total sales(0-100%) coded (ISTS); (4) international procurement as a share of its total procurement (0-100%) coded (IPTP), and (5) the degree of international competitive pressure facing the firm (5-point Likert scale ranging from 1= no t a t a l l a f f ec ted to 5=significantly affected) coded (DICP).Scores for each of the five items were rescaled to a 0-1 scale and aggregated, so that the index ranged from 0 to 5. A higher score indicates a greater degree of company globalization.

8.2. Validity and Reliability All constructs used in the research have been validated by numerous authors and showed a high Cronbach's alpha coefficient of internal consistency, and construct validity ,confirming the reliability and validity of the constructs being used. We have nevetherless, assessed the reliability and validity of all variables being used in this research, based on our sample data. Data was analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 21.0. An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was used to assess the validity of the measurement scales and the Cronbach Alpha ( ) was calculated for each variable . Using the guidelines proposed by Nunally& Bernstein(1994) and Hair et al( 2006), a factor analysis with an oblimin


rotation was conducted for all the items representing each variable. The Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin Test (KMO), Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (BTS), Eigenvalue, Variance Explained and Cronbach Alpha (α) are given for each variable in Table 3.

Loading factors for all items representing the variables being used in this research were bigger than 0.40, which is the minimum acceptable for validity analysis. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin’s (KMO) value for each variable used in the research was bigger than 0.60 and all variables were significant in the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, which shows that the measure of sampling adequacy for each variable was acceptable. All variables had an eigenvalue larger than 1, showing that the variables met the acceptable standard for validity analysis ( Hair et al, 2006). All variables had as well a Cronbach Alpha value bigger than 0.70, proving their internal consistency and meeting the acceptable standard of reliability analysis (Nunally& Bernstein, 1994).

9. Results

9.1. Relationships Between Organizational Characteristics and Structural Empowerment We will test now hypotheses H1and H2 related to the relationships between organizational characteritics and structural empowerment. H1: There’s a positive relationship between organizational culture of a firm and its level of structural empowerment. H2: There a relationship between the organizational structure of a firm and its level of structural empowerment. We see from Table 4. that both relationships are significant at level α=0.01. The Pearson’s coefficient of correlation for the relationship of organizational culture with


structural empowerment indicates, a strong linear relationship with R=0.703. The relationship is positive, that is the stronger the organizational culture , the higher is structural empowermrnt level. An organization with a high support orientation, high innovation orientation, high goals orientation, and less rules orientation has a strong organizational culture.

As for organizational structure, we see as well from Table 4 that the relationship is significant at level α=0.01.The relationship is negative, that is the more mechanistic the organizational structure is, the lower the structural empowerment level is. The more organic the organizational structure of a firm is, the higher structuralempowermrnt level is. The Pearson’s coefficient of correlation R= -0.414, suggesting a moderate negative linear relationship between organizational structure and structural empowerment level in a firm.

9.2.1. Relationships BetweenContextual Characteristics and Structural Empowerment. In this section, we test hypotheses H3,H4, and H5 related to the relationships between contextual characteritics and structural empowerment.

H3: there is a negative relationship between a firm’s degree of globalization and the structural empowerment level of that firm.

H4: There’s a positive relationship between the Work Unit Social Structural Characteristics of a firm and the level of Structural empowerment in that firm. H5: There’s a positive relationship between trust in a firm and the level of structural empowerment in that firm. From Table 6. we see that there is a negative linear relationship between Globalization of a firm and its structural empowerment level. The relationship is significant at 05.0 . The Pearson’s coefficient of correlation R= -0.337 for this relationship, suggesting a moderate linear relationship.


As for the work unit social characteristics , Table 4. shows thatthe relationship between work unit social characteritics and structural empowerment is significant at level α=0.01. There is a positive linear relationship with structural empowerment level. The strength of the linear relationship is moderate , R=0.412. Table 4. shows as well that the relationship between trust and structural empowerment is significant at level α=0.01. There is a positive linear relationship with structural empowerment level. The strength of the linear relationship is moderate , R=0.421.

9.2.2. When It Comes to Structural Empowerment , Industry Matters In this section, we’ ll show that the structural empowerment of a firm depends on the industry. H6: The average structural empowerment levels for the various industries are different ( The empowerment structural level mean depends on the industry). To show that industry matters when it comes to structural empowerment, we conducted an analysis of variance. In order to do that ,we have to make sure that the assumptions for ANOVA are verified: in our case (1) observations are independent.(2) our dependent varaiable is approximately normally distributed.(3) Variances are equal. From Table 8 B. for the LeveneTest , we see that p-value is =0.605, which is bigger than 05.0 , and hence variances are equal. From Table 8C., we see that the null hypothesis, that is the mean levels of structural empowerment for the various industries are equal is rejected. The test is significant at level 05.0 . Hence the mean levels of structural empowerment are different.


9.3. Relationships Between Individual Characteristics and Structural Empowerment In this section, we will test hypotheses H7and H8 related to the relationships between individual characteritics and structural empowerment. H7: There is a positive relationship between the knowledge characteristics of the job of employees in a firm and the structural empowerment level of that firm.

H8: There is a positive relationship between the total number of years of experience in the current position of employees in a firm and the structural empowerment level of that firm. From Table 5. we see that there is a positive linear relationship between the knowledge characteristics of the job of employees and the structural empowerment level of a firm . The relationship is significant at 05.0 . The Pearson’s coefficient of correlation R= +0.364 for this relationship, suggesting a moderate linear relationship.

The same thing can be said about the total number of years of experience relative to the current position and the structural empowerment level of firm. The


relationship is significant at 05.0 . The Pearson’s coefficient of correlation R= +0.299 for this relationship, suggesting a weak linear relationship. For the human resources strategy point of view , a firm intending to implement structural empowerment is advised to recruit people with these two characteristics. 9.4. Relationships BetweenManagement and Organizational Processes Characteristics and Structural Empowerment.

In this section, we test the hypotheses H9and H10, and H 11 related to the relationship between managerial and organizational processes and structural empowerment. H9: There is a positive relationship between the job characteristics model score in a firm and the structural empowerment level of that firm. H10: There is a positive relationship between the Link to Rewards in a firm and the structural empowerment level in that firm. H11: There is a positive relationship between the training in a firm and the structural empowerment level of that firm. From Table 7. we see that there is a positive linear relationship between Training, Link to rewards , Job Characteristics , and structural empowerment level of afirm. All three relationships are significant at level α=0.01. The Pearson’s coefficient of correlation for the relationship between training and structural empowerment is R=0.507, suggesting a strong linear relationship . As for for the relationship between link to rewards and structural empowerment R=0.727, suggesting again a strong linear relationship. The same thing can be said about the relationship between job characteristics and structural empowerment, with a Pearson’s coefficient of correlation R=0.645 suggesting again a strong linear relationship.


9.5. Predictive Model for Structural Empowerment In this section, we present a predictive model using a multiple linear regression using the different antecedents of structural empowerment, we identified in this paper. From Table 8 B. we see that R= 0.852, suggesting a good fit model.

9.6. Relationships Between Structural Empowerment, Individual performance and Organizational Performance. In this section, we test the hypotheses related to the relationships between structural empowerment and employee and organizational performance.


H12: There is a positive relationship between the level of the structural empowerment in a firm and the contextual performance level in that firm.

From Table 10. we see that there is a positive linear relationship between Structural empowerment level and employee performance expressed as contextual performance defined above. The relationship is significant at 05.0 . The Pearson’s coefficient of correlation R= +0.335 for this relationship, suggesting a moderate linear relationship.

H13: There is a positive relationship between the level of structural empowerment in a firm and the financial organizational performance of that firm. From Table 11. we see that there is a positive linear relationship between the Structural Empowerment level of a firm and organizational performance expressed in Return On Assets. The relationship is significant at level α=0.01. The Pearson’s coefficient of correlation for the relationship between Structural empowerment and organizational performance expressed in ROA is R=0.447 , suggesting a moderate linear relationship .

10. Conclusion and Future Research From our analysis we see that the most important antecedents for structural

empowerment are organizational culture, training, link to rewards, and job characteristics. These results are very important from the practical point of view, as its suggests on which organizational characteristics and process a firm should focus when it comes to the implementation of structural empowerment. The main


antecedent playing the key role for a asucessful implementation of structural empowerment is the organizational culture, meaning, that a firm willing to implement structural empowerment should develop and promote a culture stressing goal orientation, support orientation, innovation orientation, and keep rules and procedures at a reasonable level to make sure that these do not increase barriers for taking initiative, action, and fast decision making .In terms of a future research we would like to investigate the relationship between leadership style , problem solving style and empowerment.

References Allameh,S.M.;Hevdari,M.; and Davoodi, S.M.R.(2011). Studying the relationship between transformational leadership and psychological empowerment of teachers in Abade Township. World Conference on Learning, Teaching & Administration – 2011. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 31, 2012, Pages 224–230 Allen, R.S.; Kilmann, R.H. (2001) "The role of the reward system for a total quality management based strategy", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 14 Iss: 2, pp.110 - 131 Azman, I. ; Hasan Al-Banna, M.; Ahmad Zaidi, S.;MohdHamran,M.;andMunirah,H.Y. (2011). An Empirical Study of the Relationship between Transformational Leadership, Empowerment and Organizational commitment. Business and Economics Research Journal. Volume 2 . Number 1 . 2011, pp. 89-107 Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., &Kalleberg, A. L. (2000). Manufacturing Advantage: Why High Performance Work Systems Pay Off. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Baird, K.; and Wang,H.( 2010) . Employee empowerment: extent of adoption and influential factors. Personnel Review. Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 574-599 Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership & Performance Beyond Expectations. New York, NY: Free Press. Bass, B.M. (1998).Transformational Leadership: Industry, Military & Educational Impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Becker,G.S.(1964). "Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach". The Journal of Political Economy76: 169–217 Bertrand, L. (1909). César De Paepe, sa vie, son œuvre . AgenceDechenne. Bruxelles, Belgique Borman, W. C., &Motowidlo, S. J. (1993).Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.),Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71-98). New York: Jossey-Bass. Brockner, J. (1988). Self-esteem at work. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books Burke, W.W., Leadership as Empowering Others, 1st ed., Jossey-Bass, California,1986. Chien, M-H. (2004). A study to improve organizational performance: A view from SHRM. Journal of American Academy of Business, 4(1/2), 289-291. Cornwall, J.;and Perlman, B.( 1990). Organizational Entrepreneurship, 1st ed., Irwin, Massachusetts, 1990. Conger, J. and Kanungo, R.(1988). The Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory and Practice. Academy of Management Review, v.13, no.3, pp.471-482, 1988. Dickson,K.E. (2009), Psychological Empowerment and Job Satisfaction of Temporary and Part -Time Nonstandard Workers: A Preliminary Investigation, Southeast Missouri State University; http://ibam.com/pubs/jbam/articles/vol10/no2/JBAM_10_2_2.pdf


Don Hellriegel, D; John W. Slocum,J.W; & Woodman, R.W. Jr. (1995). Organizational behavior. South-Western College Pub. Dowling, B.; Richardson, R.(1997) . Evaluating performance-related pay for managers in the National Health Service. International Journal of Human Resource Management. Volume 8, Number 3, pp.348-366(19) Emerson, R.M. (1962). Power-Dependence Relations. American Sociological ReviewVol. 27, No. 1 , pp. 31-41 Falahi, A.A.; Nazaripour, M.; Salavati,A.(2013). Relationship between Training and Employee Psychological Empowerment (Case Study: Kermanshah Health Insurance Office). Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 3(8)258-266, 2013 Fuller, J.B.(1997). The relation between leadership style and empowerment on job satisfaction of nurses. The Journal of Nursing Administration. 06/1997; 27(5):27-34. Gkorezis, Petridou, Panagiotis, Eugenia (2008).Employees' Psychological Empowerment via Intrinsic and Extrinsic Rewards. Academy of Health Care Management Journal (The Dream Catchers Group, LLC) 4 (1): 17–38. Hackman , J.R.:& Oldham, G.R. (1975).Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey.Journal of AppliedPsychology60, 159-170; http://groupbrain.wjh.harvard.edu/jrh/pub/JRH1981_1.pdf Harrison, J.; St. John, Caron. (2013). Foundations In Strategic Management., Sixth Edition, Cengage Learning; p-80 Harrison, J. S., & Freeman, R. E. (2004). Is organizational democracy worth the effort? Academy of Management Executive, 18(3), 49-53. Herzberg, F. (1968).One More Time :How Do You Motivate Employees? Harvard Business Review.46(1):53-62. Hellriegel, D. et al. (2005). Management: A Competency Based Approach, 10th Edition, Ohio: Thompson Publishers. Hofstede, Geert H.. (2005) Cultures and organizations: Software of the Mind. 1st edition, McGraw-Hill USA, 1997 Honold, L.(1997). “A Review of the Literature on Employee Empowerment,”Empowerment in Organizations,v.5,no.4,pp.202-212. Hoogervorst, J.A.P. (1998) Quality and Customer Oriented Behavior: Towards a Coherent Approach for Improvement, Eburon, Delft Humphrey, S.E.; Nahrgang, J.D.; &Morgeson, F.P. (2007). Integrating Motivational, Social, and Contextual Work Design Features: A Meta-Analytic Summary and Theoretical Extension of the Work Design Literature. Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 92, No. 5, 1332–1356 Kaka,N.; Madgavkar, A.; Manyika,J. ; Bughin, J.; and Parameswaran,P. (2014). India’s technology opportunity: Transforming work, empowering people. McKinsey Global Institute. December 2014. India Tech Full Report. Kanter, R.M. (1993). Men and women of the corporation (2nded.). New York: Basic Books. Kanter, R.M. (1993). Kanter, R. M. (1977).Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books; http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/apl-96-5-981.pdf Kowalczyk, S. &Pawlish, M. 2002, 'Corporate branding through external perception of organizational culture', Corporate Reputation Review, vol. 5, no. 2/3, pp. 159-77. Kraemer, K. L., Gibbs, J. L., &Dedrick, J. (2005). Impacts of globalization on e-commerce use and firm performance: A cross-country investigation.The Information Society, 21(5), 323-340. Lawler, E. E., III, Mohrman, S. A., & Benson, G. S. (2001). Organizing for High Performance: The CEO Report on Employee Involvement, TQM, Reengineering, and Knowledge Management in Fortune 1000 Companies. San Franicsco: Jossey-Bass.


Lampel, J., Bhalla, A, Jha, P. (2010) Model Growth: Do Employee-Owned Business Deliver Sustainable Performance, Cass Business School. Laschinger, H.K.S.; Finegan, J.E. , Shamian , J.; and Wilk, P. (2001) . Impact of structural and psychological empowerment on job strain in nursing work settings: expanding Kanter’s Model. J Nurs Admin.;31(5):260-72. Laschinger, H.K.S; Finegan,J.E.; Shamian,J.; and Wilk, P.(2004). Longitudinal analysis of the impact of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior (25), 527–545 . Lawrence, P.R., &Lorsch, J.W. (1967).Organization and environment. Boston: Harvard University Press Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (2004). The effects of organizational culture and leadership style on job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal of Management Development, 23(4), 321-338. Mallak, L.A. &Kurstedt, H.A., Jr. (1996). Understanding and Using Empowerment to Change Organizational Culture. Industrial Management, 38(6), 8-10; McGahan,A.M.; and Porter, M.E. (1997). How much does industry matter really? Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 (Summer Special Issue), 15–30. Mechanic, D. (1962). Sources of power of Lower participants in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 349-364. Mills,P.K.; and Ungson, G.R. (2003). Reassessing the Limits of Structural Empowerment: Organizational Constitution and Trust as Controls. The Academy of Management Review. Vol. 28, No. 1 (Jan., 2003), pp. 143-153 Motaghi, M.H, Nikpour A.,Chamanifard, R. (2013). Investigating and ranking the effective factors for employee empowerment in state agencies of Kerman city Nthigah, P.M.;Iravo, M.: and Kihoro, J. (2014). Influence of competition intensity on strategic response of multinational corporations: a study of multinational corporations in Kenya. Global Business and Economics Research Journal ISSN: 2302-4593 Vol. 3 (5): 1 - 14 O’Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J. and Caldwell, D.F. (1991).People and organizational culture: a profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 , No. 3, pp. 487-516. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary.(1995). Oxford University Press Potterfield, T.(1999). The Business of Employee Empowerment, 1st ed., Green Wood Publishing Group, Inc, QatarVision2030.(2015)http://www.gsdp.gov.qa/portal/page/portal/gsdp_en/qatar_national_vision/qnv_2030_document Quinn, R.E. and Spreitzer, G.M. (1997).The road to empowerment: seven questions every leader should consider. Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 37-49. Randolph, W.A..(1995).Navigating the Journey to Empowerment. Organizational Dynamics, v. 23, no. 4, pp.19-23. Riordan, C.M., Vandenberg, R.J., & Richardson, H.A. (2005). Employee Involvement Climate and Organizational Effectiveness. Human Resource Management, 44(4), 471-488. Rohmetra N. (1998 Salancik, G.R.; and Pfeffer, J. (1974). Organizational decision making as a political process: The case of a university budget." Administrative Science Quarterly (1974): 135-151. Scott E. Seibert, Gang Wang, and Stephen H. Courting(2011). Antecedents and Consequences of Psychological and Team Empowerment in Organizations: A Meta-Analytic Review; http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/apl-96-5-981.pdf Singh, A.P. (2008). Individual and Organizational Correlates of Employee Empowerment: Some Indian Evidence. Management Insight (4),59-64.


Spreitzer, G.M. (1995). Psychological Empowerment in the Workplace: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation. Academy of Management Journal, v.21, no.46, pp.1442-1465. Spreitzer, G.M.(1996). Social Structural Characteristics of Psychological Empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, v.39, no.2, pp. 483-504, 1996. Thomas, K. and Velthouse, B., “Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An ‘Interpretive’ Model of Intrinsic Motivation. Academy of Management Review. v.15, no.4, pp. 666-681, 1990. Tsung‐HsienKuo, Li‐An Ho, Chinho Lin, Kuei‐Kuei Lai, (2010) "Employee empowerment in a technology advanced work environment", Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 110 Iss: 1, pp.24 - 42 Walinskas, K. (2000, November/December). From vision to reality. Industrial Management, 42(6), 22–23. Wang, J.L.; Zhang, D.J.; Jackson, L.A. (2013). Influence of self-esteem, locus of control, and organizational climate on psychological empowerment in a sample of Chinese teachers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, 43, pp. 1428–1435 Williams, A., Dobson, P. & Walters, M. (1994). Changing Culture: New Organisational Approaches. (2nd ed). Cromwell Press, Wiltshire.

Antecedents of Structural Empowerment and the … · Antecedents of Structural Empowerment and the...

Documents

Transcript of Antecedents of Structural Empowerment and the … · Antecedents of Structural Empowerment and the...