Gom 271.Full

PsychologicalEmpowermentand Job SatisfactionAn Analysis of Interactive Effects

Guangping WangPeggy D. LeePenn State University

This research investigates the interactive effects of the psychological empow-erment dimensions on job satisfaction. Using data collected from employeesof multiple organizations, the authors find intriguing three-way interactionsamong the dimensions. Choice has a weak but negative effect on job satis-faction when both competence and impact are high or low but has a strongpositive effect when one of the two dimensions is low and the other is high.Impact has no effect on job satisfaction when choice and competence areboth high or both low. The effect of impact is positive only when one of thetwo dimensions is high and the other is low. In addition, high levels of choiceand competence reinforce the positive effect of meaning on job satisfaction.The results offer important insights for future theory development on psy-chological empowerment.

Keywords: psychological empowerment; job satisfaction; three-wayinteraction

The concept of psychological empowerment has gained wide acceptancein both management theory and practice (Conger & Kanungo, 1988;Donovan, 1994; Hall, 2008; Kanter, 1989; Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas &Velthouse, 1990). A substantial body of research has accumulated dur-ing the past two decades refining the conceptual domain of psycholog-ical empowerment and investigating its antecedents and consequences. Itis generally recognized that the construct consists of four dimensionsmeaning, competence, choice, and impact (Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas &Velthouse, 1990)and is related to various work behaviors, attitudes, andperformance (Fulford & Enz, 1995; Hall, 2008; Koberg, Boss, Senjem, &

Group & OrganizationManagement

Volume 34 Number 3June 2009 271-296

2009 SAGE Publications10.1177/1059601108330089

http://gom.sagepub.comhosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

271

Goodman, 1999; Spreitzer, 1995, 1996; Suzik, 1998). Several fundamentalquestions that have yet to be answered in empowerment research are relatedto the interactive effects of these dimensions on important job outcomes.For instance, do the dimensions influence job outcomes in an additive fash-ion? Do they affect job outcome independently, or are there synergistic orsuppressive effects of these variables? Do the effects of some of the dimen-sions depend on the levels of the other dimensions?Additive effects suggest the influence of one dimension is independent

of the other dimensions and each adds linear variance to measured out-comes. Interactive effects occur when the total effect of empowermentis greater or less than the sum of the individual dimensional effects(for a general discussion on interaction, see Aiken & West, 1992).Although interactive effects are often examined in organizational research(Gomez-Mejia & Balkin, 1989; House, Shane, & Herold, 1996; Kravitz,Bludau, & Klineberg, 2008; Valentine, 1999; Wated, Sanchez, & Gomez,2008), studies on psychological empowerment have addressed only addi-tive effects. It is important to both management research and practice tounderstand potential dimensional interactions. The additive model sug-gests that more empowerment is always better if the individual dimen-sional effects are positive. Managerially, to enhance focal job outcomes,companies could simply increase empowerment on each and all of theindividual dimensions.An interactive model, on the other hand, implies that the dimensions may

interfere with each other and one dimension may either reinforce or suppressthe effects of the other dimensions. When there is a reinforcing effect, thepositive effect of one dimension will be greater in the presence of higher lev-els of the other dimensions. Alternatively, if there is a suppressive effect, thepresence of a high level of one dimension might decrease the effect ofanother dimension (Daniels & Guppy, 1994; Karasek, 1979). Thus, theoristsand practitioners will be challenged to identify the best combination of theempowerment dimensions to maximize the job outcomes. If management isto use empowerment effectively, it is important to understand potential inter-actions among the empowerment dimensions. Accordingly, the goal of thisresearch is to examine the interactions among empowerment dimensions.We focus on job satisfaction as an outcome variable because it is an outcomeof fundamental importance for organizational performance (Ng & Sorensen,2008; Spreitzer, Kizilos, & Nason, 1997). Job performance, motivation,turnover, and organizational commitment have all been shown to be relatedto job satisfaction (Judge, 1993; Martin & Bennett, 1996; Williams &Anderson, 1991). In the following sections, we develop several interaction

272 Group & Organization Management

hypotheses and then report the results of an empirical study. We concludewith a discussion of theoretical and managerial implications.

Conceptual Background and Hypotheses

Psychological Empowerment

Psychological empowerment is defined as a set of motivational cogni-tions shaped by a work environment and reflecting an individuals activeorientation to his or her work role (Spreitzer, 1995). Building on the workof Conger and Kanungo (1988), Thomas and Velthouse (1990) argued thatfour cognitive assessments represent a comprehensive task-specific evalua-tion and interpretation that determines intrinsic task motivation, hence, psy-chological empowerment. These four assessments are meaning, competence,choice, and impact.Briefly, meaning refers to the value of a task goal or purpose, judged in

relation to an individuals own ideals or standards. It reflects intrinsic inter-est in a task and involves a fit between work role requirements and onesbeliefs and values (Brief & Nord, 1990; Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Thecongruence between personal value and work role expectations contributes tothe belief that work is an end in itself. Competence stems from Banduras(1986) work on self-efficacy and is the degree to which an employee feels heor she is able to perform tasks with skill (Gist, 1987; Thomas & Tymon,1994). Social cognitive theory and empirical evidence from diverse fieldssuggest that competence has strong direct effects on performance (Bandura,1986; Gecas, 1989; Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Harackiewicz, Sansone, &Manderlink, 1985; Locke, 1991; Locke, Frederick, Lee, & Bobko, 1984;Ozer & Bandura, 1990; Wang & Netemeyer, 2002).Choice is the sense of autonomy in initiating and regulating work and

reflects the degree of self-determination in work behaviors and processes(Bell & Staw, 1989; Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989; Spector, 1986). Choiceis a key component of intrinsic motivation, leading to learning, interest, andresilience in the face of adversity (Deci et al., 1989; Deci & Ryan, 1985).Impact is the degree to which an individual feels that he or she can influ-ence strategic, administrative, or operating outcomes at work (Ashforth,1989). Impact is associated with high performance and an absence of with-drawal from difficult situations (Ashforth, 1990). Individuals who believethat they can affect the system in which they are embedded and influenceorganizational outcomes tend to be more motivated (Spreitzer et al., 1997).

Wang, Lee / Psychological Empowerment and Job Satisfaction 273

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is a pleasurable or positive emotional state that is afunction of the perceived relationship between what one wants from a joband what one perceives it is offering (Locke, 1976, p. 1300). The job char-acteristics model (Hackman & Oldham, 1980) proposes that critical psycho-logical states such as experienced meaningfulness, feelings of responsibility,and knowledge of work results influence job satisfaction. Although Thomasand Velthouse (1990) and Conger and Kanungo (1988) did not explicitlyinclude job satisfaction in their models of empowerment, Thomas andTymon (1994) argued that empowerment is more likely to manifest athigher levels of job satisfaction. They further argued that assessments ofempowerment generate intrinsic rewards and thus should be positivelyrelated to job satisfaction.Empirical support varies regarding the relationships between the indi-

vidual empowerment dimensions and job satisfaction. Most available evi-dence is related to additive effects and is in the form of simple correlations.First, there seems to be strong evidence of a positive association betweenmeaning and job satisfaction (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Spreitzer et al.,1997; Thomas & Tymon, 1994). According to Herzberg (1966), an impor-tant determinant of job satisfaction is personal meaning. Kanter (1983) sug-gests that perceived meaningfulness results in greater commitment andconcentration of energy. Job satisfaction results from fulfillment of desiredwork values (Locke, 1976). Lack of meaning in the workplace has beenlinked to apathy and job dissatisfaction (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).Second, researchers have suggested that choice is a psychological need

and that meeting this need results in job satisfaction (Conger & Kanungo,1988; Greenberger, Strausser, Cummings, & Dunham, 1989; Parker, 1993).Studies by Liden, Wayne, Sparrowe, and Bradway (1993) and Thomas andTymon (1994) show that higher levels of personal control are related to jobsatisfaction. These results are consistent with Spectors (1986) seminalreview, in which he presented evidence for a positive association betweenjob autonomy and job satisfaction.Third, with regard to the impactsatisfaction relationship, strong and

consistent evidence is yet to emerge. Ashforth (1989, 1990) suggested thatperceived lack of opportunity to have an impact on the organization mightbe related to job satisfaction, and Thomas and Tymon (1994) reported apositive relationship between impact and job satisfaction, but Spreitzeret al.s (1997) study did not support the hypothesized effect of perceivedimpact on satisfaction.


Finally, the literature has yet to establish a consistent link between com-petence and satisfaction. Carless (2004) reported that competence was nega-tively related to job satisfaction, whereas Spreitzer et al. (1997) reported thatcompetence is positively related to job satisfaction among subordinates butnot among supervisors. Other research has reported no relationship betweenthese variables (Holdsworth & Cartwright, 2003; Siegall & Gardner, 2000;Thomas & Tymon, 1994).In summary, the published research suggests a positive correlation

between job satisfaction and two of the dimensions (i.e., meaning andchoice), but the record is less consistent regarding the relationship betweensatisfaction and the other two dimensions (i.e., impact and competence).There is, however, little consideration for the possibility of interactionamong the four dimensions in affecting job satisfaction, which could par-tially account for the inconsistent and sometimes contradictory findingswith regard to impact and competence.

Interaction Among Dimensions

The literature on empowerment, job design, stress, personenvironment fit,status inconsistency, and mental health suggests possible interactions amongempowerment dimensions. Although individually each of the dimensions ofmeaning, competence, choice, and impact may induce job satisfaction as thecurrent empowerment research indicates, a combination of different levels ofthe empowerment dimensions may interact in a complicated fashion that couldlead to job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Spreitzer (1995; Spreitzer et al., 1997)argued that the four dimensions of empowerment combine to form a gestalt. Adictionary definition of a gestalt reads any of the integrated structure or pat-terns that make up all experience and have specific properties which can nei-ther be derived from the elements of the whole nor considered simply as thesum of these elements (Neufeldt & Guralnik, 1997, p. 567). AlthoughSpreitzer was not explicit as to whether the four dimensions affect job out-comes additively or interactively, the notion of gestalt implies that overall expe-rience is not simply the sum of all individual elements. A lower or higher levelof one dimension might change the overall constellation and the whole experi-ence might be affected disproportionately. In fact, various research streamssuggest possible interactive effects among psychological empowermentdimensions.A number of researchers including French, Caplan, and Van Harrison

(1982), Csikszentmihalyi (1975), and Warr (1987) have advocated the idea


of optimal levels of job content. That is, employees have a preferred levelof certain job characteristics. In particular, Warrs vitamin model of jobcharacteristics and mental health suggests that extreme (i.e., overly high orlow) levels of job characteristics are harmful. The vitamin model is based onan analogy with the fact that vitamins are required for physical health up tocertain level; after attainment of that level, increased vitamin intake can beharmful. Consider job autonomy (i.e., choice), for instance.When autonomylevel is too low, employees have little choice or freedom and are constrainedto such a degree that they feel suffocated. However, when autonomy is toohigh, employees can feel a lack of direction or that they have too muchresponsibility, causing them to experience role stress. The same can be saidfor impact, another empowerment dimension. When a persons job has lowimpact, the employee can feel demotivated because he or she believes thathis or her job has no significance to the organization. A job that theemployee perceives as having an impact incommensurate with the employeesrole can be overwhelming and intimidating.Researchers on job stress have investigated the buffering effect of job

design on the stress process quite extensively. In particular, Karaseks(1979) job strain model postulates that psychological strain results from thejoint effects of work demands and decision-making latitude. The negativeeffect of job demand is greatest when decision latitude (choice) is minimal,and it decreases as choice increases. Daniels and Guppy (1994) found com-plex three-way interactions among job autonomy, locus of control, andstressors on workers psychological well-being.The personenvironment fit model builds on the notion that job charac-

teristics have their primary influence through the equivalence or discrep-ancy between preferred and perceived environmental levels (Edwards &Cooper, 1990). When the person and the job fit well with each other, bothproductivity and psychological well-being improve. Discrepancies in eitherdirection (i.e., preferred level being greater or less than perceived level)have negative influences on employees well-being. Among the empower-ment dimensions, only meaning directly addresses the correspondencebetween the person and the job, that is, the fit between the job role require-ments and the employees beliefs and values (Brief & Nord, 1990;Hackman & Oldham, 1980). We can thus expect meaning to be positivelyassociated with job satisfaction regardless of the levels of the other dimen-sions, based on the personenvironment fit model.Unlike meaning, competence encompasses not only perceived congru-

ence between skills required and skills possessed but also perceived positive


discrepancy between the two when skills possessed exceed skills required.A competent person may be just right for the job or overqualified. Whenoverqualification occurs, dissatisfaction may result. Impact and choice areperceived job characteristics that are not necessarily related to personjobfit. A person may or may not desire a high level of impact and may or maynot be happy with a low choice job that has little responsibility and decision-making latitude. Extremely high levels of impact and choice can presentoverwhelmingly high role expectations that induce role stress and role ambi-guity to some but may sound challenging and exciting to others.More seriously, unfit situations may rise when the various job dimensions

and characteristics present conflicting expectations, which cause stress, uncer-tainty, perceived status inconsistency, and frustration (Bacharach, Bamberger,& Mundell, 1993; Edwards & Cooper, 1990; Harrison, 1978). In the contextof psychological empowerment, unfit situations may occur at different con-stellations of the four dimensions.First, from a job design standpoint, choice may be viewed as a job

demand because of the magnitude of decisions that have to be made, as areward to the employee because of the intrinsic need associated with beingable to make ones own decisions, and/or a necessary enabling condition forcertain jobs to get the job done (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Parker, 1993).When competence is low and impact is also low, high choice may constitutea conflicting situation that leads to the perception of an excessive demand(because of low competence) that offers little intrinsic reward (because oflow impact), and thus high choice may be just as undesirable as low choicewhen both competence and impact are low. Alternatively, when competenceis high and impact is high as well, high choice may be viewed as a neces-sary enabling condition, thus the effect of choice on satisfaction may be null.When competence is high but impact is low, high choice is likely to be

perceived as a compensation or reward for ones overqualification, a bal-ancing factor for an otherwise unfit situation. Likewise, when competenceis low but impact is high, high choice may indicate high job demand, butthis demand can be viewed in a positive light as rewarding because of highjob impact. Thus, it is possible that the choicesatisfaction relationship ispositive when competence is high but impact low or when competence islow but impact high. Therefore, we hypothesize,

Hypothesis 1: The choicesatisfaction relationship will depend on the levels ofcompetence and impact such that the relationship is positive only when oneof them is high and the other is low but is null when both competence andimpact are high or low.


Following the choicesatisfaction relationship, we examined impact,which may be viewed as an intrinsic reward, a responsibility, a demand,and/or a status indicator. On one hand, when there is little choice on the joband the employee feels incompetent for the job, one can hardly imagine theimpact may have any positive effect on satisfaction, as any possible positivemotivational effect of impact could be overshadowed by the lack of choiceand competence. On the other hand, when choice and competence are bothhigh and the employee has the ability and skill to do the job as he or she seesfit, a corresponding level of impact on the larger scope should be expectedas a package that comes with the job to avoid perceptions of status incon-sistency (Bacharach et al., 1993), operating much as a hygiene factor in themotivationhygiene theory (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). Assuch, the marginal effect of perceived impact may be minimal. We thereforeexpect impact not to be related to satisfaction when choice and competenceare both low or both high.However, when choice is low but competence is high, there is an imbal-

ance or status inconsistency in the personjob situation. Impact can be apivotal factor that influences job satisfaction. Low impact will be detri-mental as it exacerbates the imbalanced situation, the employees feeling ofoverqualification will be stronger, and the employee will have a hard timejustifying the situation. High impact, on the other hand, may operate as areward that compensates the unfit situation, brings a balancing factor, andsignals a justifiable reason for the job.Another imbalanced or nonfit personjob situation arises when choice is

high but competence is low. In this case, the employee is stretching his orher ability to handle the decision-making demands associated with highchoice. The job may be perceived as too demanding for the employee. If thisis accompanied by low impact, the experience can be characterized as toomuch effort with too little reward. However, if the perceive level of impactis high, the employee may feel that it is worthwhile to manage the high jobdemand. Thus, we hypothesize,

Hypothesis 2: The impactsatisfaction relationship will depend on the levels ofcompetence and choice such that the relationship is positive only when oneof them is high and the other is low but is null when both competence andchoice are high or low.

Finally, as discussed earlier, because meaning reflects the fit between theemployee and the job, we expect the overall meaningsatisfaction relation-ship to be positive regardless of the levels of the other dimensions.


However, the relationship strength may vary depending on other empower-ment dimensions. When the other three dimensions are high, the effect ofmeaning may be reinforced by a more balanced situation. When somedimensions are low but others are high, the imbalanced situation may sup-press the positive influence of meaning. For instance, when competence ishigh but choice and impact are low, there is a strong feeling of overqualifi-cation, which may offset the positive effect of meaning to certain degree.When choice is high but competence is low, the job demand may be per-ceived as overwhelming and thus may decrease the positive influence ofmeaning (Karasek, 1979). As such, we hypothesize,

Hypothesis 3: The meaningsatisfaction relationship will be positive overall butwill be stronger when other empowerment dimensions are all high than whensome of the other dimensions are low.

Method

Sample and Data Collection

Survey questionnaires were distributed to the employees in local for-profit organizations (service, retail and distribution, research, and manufac-turing) through part-time MBA students of a state university in thenortheastern United States. A total of 510 surveys from employees werereturned in postage-paid envelopes directly to the researchers universityaddress. We randomly selected 30 (6%) of the respondents and telephonedthem to validate that they actually responded, and all of them were truerespondents. A total of 21 responses were discarded because of excessivemissing data, resulting in 485 useable responses. The one third of responsesthat were returned first and one third returned last were compared on keystudy variables, and no significant differences were detected via t tests.About half of the respondents (52%) were male, and 76% of them were

between 20 and 49. Approximately 70% of the sample received at leastsome college education, whereas 14% received graduate education. Slightlyfewer than half (44%) were supervisors. The sample represented more than300 manufacturing and service firms from diverse industries that includedsoftware (22%), automobile (20%), banking (13%), construction (13%),communications (10%), restaurants (8%), accounting (6%), retailing (3%),and others (5%). The sizes of the companies also varied greatly, with 50%of the companies employing 300 or fewer employees.


Measures

Psychological empowerment was measured with the 12 items adaptedfrom Spreitzer (1995) on 5-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree to5 = strongly agree). To minimize response set bias, three of the items(Meaning No. 3, Competence No. 1, and Choice No. 1) were modified tobe reverse worded. One item (Choice No. 1) was deleted in the final analy-sis because of the fact that its factor loading was too low (.31). Job satis-faction was assessed with three items from Netemeyer, Boles, McKee, andMcMurrian (1997). The items asked the respondents the degree to whichthey were happy, satisfied, and felt a sense of personal fulfillment withtheir present line of work. The items were anchored on 5-point Likert-type


Table 1Construct Measures and Corrected Item to Total Correlations

CompletelyStandardizedFactor

Measurement Items Loadings

Meaning1. The work I do is very important to me. .892. My job activities are personally meaningful to me. .843. The work I do is not very meaningful to me personally. (R) .43Competence1. I do not have enough confidence in my ability to do my job. (R) .472. I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform my work activities. .753. I have mastered the skills necessary for my job. .74Choice1. I do not have enough autonomy in determining how I do my job. (R) Dropped2. I can decide on my own how to go about doing my work. .793. I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom .86in how I do my job.

Impact1. My impact on what happens in my department is large. .592. I have a great deal of control over what happens in my organization. .933. I have significant influence over what happens in my organization. .91Job satisfaction1. I feel fairly happy with my present line of work. .792. All things considered (i.e., pay, promotion, supervisors, coworkers, etc.), .82I am very satisfied with my line of work.

3. I feel a great sense of personal fulfillment from my line of work. .89

Note: R = reverse-coded item.

scales (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The measurementitems for key constructs are presented in Table 1.We also included a number of covariates in the survey to control for extra-

neous variances in such a cross-sectional study. Perceived organizational sup-port (Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, & Lynch, 1997), organizationalclimate for innovation (Scott & Bruce, 1994), and innovative personality(Hurt, Joseph, & Cook, 1977) have been shown to be relevant to empower-ment as well as job satisfaction. The scales all achieved satisfactory reliabil-ity coefficients (Cronbachs alpha ranged from .74 to .86). In addition,demographic information such as gender, age, education, supervisory status,and employment status (full-time or part-time) was also collected.

Analysis and Results

Confirmatory factor analysis was first conducted to ensure satisfactorypsychometric property of the key measures. We then computed a summatedscale for each construct and used hierarchical multiple regression (Aiken &West, 1992) to test our hypotheses.

Measurement and Dimensionality

We first estimated a confirmatory factor model that included 15 manifestindicators for 5 key latent constructs (job satisfaction, meaning, compe-tence, choice, and impact). The model was evaluated with model fit, dis-criminant validity of the constructs, and internal consistency among theconstruct measures. Model fit was evaluated using the chi-square statistic,the comparative fit index (CFI), the TuckerLewis index (TLI), and the rootmean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Values of .90 and abovehave been recommended for CFI and TLI, and values of .08 and less havebeen suggested for RMSEA (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Hu & Bentler,1995). The fit indices for the measurement model were 2 = 256.65(df = 80), CFI = .96, TLI = .94, and RMSEA = .072.Although the model fit appeared satisfactory, an examination of the

factor loading structure revealed that the reverse-worded empowermentitems suffered from relatively low factor loadings. The first item in thechoice dimension was especially low at .31. The item was subsequentlydropped, and a new measurement model with 14 manifest indicators and5 latent constructs was estimated. The fit indices were slightly better thanthe previous model: 2 = 200.16 (df = 67), CFI = .97, TLI = .95, and


RMSEA = .068. All but three items had completely standardized factorloadings greater than .70 (see Table 1).Further testing was conducted to ensure that psychological empower-

ment was best represented by four dimensions as separate constructs. Wetested a series of models that specified one-factor, two-factor, three-factor,four-factor, and second-order four-factor structures. The four-factor modelfit significantly better than any other specifications. The four-factor modelhad a chi-square of 117.35 with df = 38. The second-order four-factormodel had the second best fit (2 = 143.03, df = 40), but the chi-square dif-ference from that of the four-factor model was significant (2 = 25.68, df =2, p < .01). The chi-square values for the 6 three-factor models rangedfrom 341.71 to 489.35 with df = 41; the one-factor model had the worstfit (2 = 1006.86, df = 44). Thus, we conclude that the four-factor modelfits the data best.Table 2 contains the correlations among the model constructs, construct

means, standard deviations, and internal consistency estimates. As mea-sures of internal consistency, Cronbachs alpha ranged from .65 to .88, andthe average variance extracted estimates (AVE) ranged from .44 to .70.Discriminant validity was assessed by comparing the square of the correla-tion (phi-square) between two constructs and their average AVE. Evidencesupporting the constructs discriminant validity is present when phi-squareis less than the average AVE (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The criterion hasbeen considered the most stringent test of discriminant validity and was metfor all possible pairs of constructs. These results indicate an acceptable fitfor the measurement model.


Table 2Means, Standard Deviations, Internal Consistency, and Correlations

M SD Alpha AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Satisfaction 3.61 1.06 .88 .70 2. Meaning 3.79 0.92 .70 .56 .55*** 3. Competence 4.33 0.70 .65 .44 .07 .13*** 4. Choice 3.91 0.95 .81 .67 .34*** .28*** .25*** 5. Impact 3.22 1.07 .83 .68 .41*** .37*** .06 0.43*** 6. Age 2.57 0.87 .25*** .17*** .10** .17*** .14*** 7. POS 3.58 1.00 .86 .70 .48*** .23*** .05 .24*** .39*** .02 8. OCI 3.03 0.99 .74 .61 .31*** .17*** .05 .25*** .20*** .01 .37***

Note: AVE = average variance extracted; POS = perceived organizational support; OCI = organizational cli-mate for innovation.**p < .05. ***p < .01.

Hypothesis Testing

Given the satisfactory results for the measurement items, we computed asummated scale for each construct and tested the hypotheses via estimating aseries of hierarchical regression models with job satisfaction as the dependentvariable. Model 1 included the control variables only, that is, demographics(age, education, income, employment status [full-time or part-time], supervi-sory status, and firm size), perceived organizational support, innovative per-sonality scale, and organizational climate for innovation. Only age, perceivedorganizational support, and organizational climate for innovation were statisti-cally significant. Therefore, we included only these three variables in thesubsequent models. Model 2 included the four empowerment dimensions(meaning, competence, choice, and impact) in addition to the three control vari-ables.We then added two-way and three-way interaction terms to the model toform Models 3 and 4, respectively. The cross-product interaction terms werecreated after the empowerment dimension variables were mean centered. InTable 3, we report the results that include the significant interaction terms.Model 1 shows that age, perceived organizational support, and organiza-

tional climate for innovation all have a positive association with job satis-faction. The model explains 32% of the variance in job satisfaction. The next


Table 3Regression Results (Standardized Coefficients)

Independent Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Age 24*** .15*** .15*** .15***POS .43*** .31*** .31*** .32***OCI .16*** .10*** .10*** .10***Meaning .38*** .35*** .35***Competency .01 .01 .04Choice .08** .13*** .07*Impact .07* .08* .11***Meaning choice .06* .07*Meaning impact .11*** .10***Competency choice impact .13***Meaning competency choice .07*R2 .32 .48 .50 .52

Note: N = 489. POS = perceived organizational support; OCI = organizational climate forinnovation.*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

model (Model 2) shows that three of the four empowerment dimensions aresignificantly and positively related to job satisfaction, but competence is nota significant predictor of job satisfaction. Overall, the results are consistentwith the extant empirical findings and lend a general support to the notionthat psychological empowerment contributes to positive work outcomessuch as job satisfaction.Model 3 contains two significant two-way interaction terms: meaning by

choice and meaning by impact. The final model, Model 4, consists of the 2


Low Competence

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Choice

Job

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Low Impact

Panel A

High Impact

Low ImpactHigh Impact

High Competence

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Choice

Job

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Panel B

Figure 1Plot of Competence and Impact Versus Choice

two-way and 2 three-way interaction terms in addition to the main effectterms of the four dimensions and the control variables. The changes in theF statistic were all significant at the .01 level as additional terms wereadded from Model 1 to Model 4. Compared to the main effect model(Model 2), Model 4 explains 4% more variance in job satisfaction. Basedon Cohen (1988), we calculated the effect size for interaction to be .08.


Low Choice

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Impact

Job

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Low CompetencePanel A High Competence

Low CompetenceHigh Competence

High Choice

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Impact

Job

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Panel B

Figure 2Plot of Choice and Competence Versus Impact

Because Cohen suggests that interaction effect sizes are considered small at.02, medium at .15, and large at .35, the interaction effect size in this studyis between small and medium.To facilitate interpretation, we plotted the regression slopes in Figures 1

to 3 based on coefficient estimates from Model 4. The high and low levelsof the explanatory variables were set at one standard deviation above andbelow the mean (Cohen & Cohen, 1983).


Low Choice

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Meaning

Job

Sat

isfa

ctio

nJo

bS

atis

fact

ion

Low Competence

Panel AHigh Competence

Low CompetenceHigh Competence

High Choice

Meaning

Panel B

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Figure 3Plot of Choice and Competence Versus Meaning

Hypothesis 1 proposes that the choicesatisfaction relationship is nullwhen competence and impact are both high or both low but is positive whenone is high and the other is low. Panel A of Figure 1 shows that when com-petence level is low, choice is positively related to job satisfaction onlywhen impact is high. When impact is low, the choicesatisfaction relation-ship is slightly negative. That is, when employees have low perceived com-petence, a high level of choice (perceived as a job demand that leads to rolestress) should be accompanied by a high level of impact (as a reward tocompensate for the job demand) to generate a high level of job satisfaction.When impact is low, high autonomy will generate greater role stress andlead to lower job satisfaction.Panel B of Figure 1 shows that at a high competence level, the

choicesatisfaction relationship is positive only when impact is low and isslightly negative when the impact is high. That is, when employees perceivethemselves as highly competent, choice is more important when impact onlarger scope is low. When perceived impact is high, a high level of choicebecomes an enabling condition that is expected and has little effect on sat-isfaction. Although Panels A and B show slightly negative relationshipunder conditions of high competence and high impact and under low com-petence and low impact, the slopes are rather flat, and therefore support forHypothesis 1 is evident.Hypothesis 2 posits that the impactsatisfaction relationship depends on

the levels of competence and choice, such that the relationship is null whencompetence and choice are both high or low and is positive when one is lowand the other is high. Panel A of Figure 2 suggests that at low choice level,the impactsatisfaction relationship is positive only when competence ishigh. When competence is low, impact has almost no relationship with sat-isfaction. Panel B of Figure 2 shows that at a high choice level, theimpactsatisfaction relationship is positive only when competence is low.When competence is high, impact has almost no relationship with satisfac-tion. Thus, the results support Hypothesis 2.Hypothesis 3 suggests that the positive meaningsatisfaction relation-

ship is stronger when other dimensions are all high than when some of thedimensions are low. The two panels in Figure 3 show that the meaningsatisfaction relationship is always positive regardless the levels of choiceand competence. However, this positive relationship is stronger when choiceand competence are both low (Panel A) or both high (Panel B) than whenone is high and the other is low. This suggests some support for Hypothesis3 as far as choice and competence are concerned. It is interesting that themeaningsatisfaction relationship is also stronger when both choice and


competence are low, possibly because meaning becomes the only bondingelement between the job and the person when other dimensions are low.

Discussion

Summary and Theoretical Implications

This study applies the vitamin model, the personenvironment fit model,and the literature on job stress, job demand, and status inconsistency to theresearch on psychological empowerment and finds support for significantinteractive effects. Although research on job design has long noticed thepotential interaction between job characteristics and work context (Ferris &Gilmore, 1984) and between the job and the person (Edwards & Cooper,1990), research on empowerment appears to have only examined linear andadditive effects of psychological empowerment on job outcomes (e.g.,Spreitzer et al., 1997; Thomas &Velthouse, 1990). Our theoretical analysisand empirical findings contribute to the literature by demonstrating thecomplicated relationship among empowerment dimensions and their inter-active effects on a critical job outcome. Overall, the data offer substantialsupport for our three interaction hypotheses, thus improving our under-standing of the dynamics of psychological empowerment. In this sense, theresearch not only offers empirical evidence for Spreitzers (1995) argumentthat the four dimensions combine to form a gestalt to influence employeewell-being but also provides a sense what the gestalt looks like. The find-ings provide a fresh, more sophisticated perspective on empowerment andopen new avenues for future research.In support of Hypothesis 1, we find that choice has a weak but negative

effect on job satisfaction when both competence and impact are high or lowbut has a strong positive effect when one of the two dimensions of compe-tence and impact is low and the other is high. Consistent with Hypothesis2, we find impact has no effect on job satisfaction when choice and com-petence are both high or low. The effect of impact is positive only when oneof the two dimensions is high and the other is low. Also, supportingHypothesis 3 in general, our data suggest that high levels of choice andcompetence reinforce the positive effect of meaning on job satisfaction.It is evident that the dimensions may reinforce each other in affecting job

outcomes. For instance, in a low competence situation, high perceived impactcoupled with high choice is able to generate greater job satisfaction (Figure 1,Panel A). The combination of intrinsic reward (impact) and job demand


(choice) seems to work nicely. Similarly, in a low choice setting, high compe-tence coupled with high impact has a strong positive effect on job satisfaction(Figure 2, Panel A). In a high choice setting, high competence makes the pos-itive effect of meaning on satisfaction even stronger (Figure 3, Panel B). Suchfindings may help explain why the literature is inconsistent on the effect ofimpact and competence on job outcomes (e.g., Carless, 2004; Holdsworth &Cartwright, 2003; Siegall & Gardner, 2000; Spreitzer et al., 1997; Thomas &Tymon, 1994), because the effects of these dimensions are most likely contin-gent on other empowerment dimensions and/or other job contexts.We also demonstrate that the empowerment dimensions may suppress

each other. In a low competence and low impact situation, greater choiceleads to less, rather than more, satisfaction (Figure 1, Panel A). Similarly, acombination of high competence and high impact suppresses the effect ofchoice on satisfaction; greater choice actually leads to slightly lower satis-faction (Figure 1, Panel B). When low choice is combined with low com-petence, impact has little effect on satisfaction (Figure 2, Panel A), as whenhigh choice is accompanied by high competence (Figure 2, Panel B).The finding that a high level on one dimension can reduce the positive

effect of another is alarming. Contrary to the accepted wisdom that psy-chological empowerment improves employees psychological well-beingand other job outcomes (Chen & Chen, 2008; Hall, 2008; Spreitzer, 1995),this study echoes research on job stress (Karasek, 1979) and job content(Warr, 1987) and demonstrates that empowerment may sometimes be asource of stress that can even cause lower satisfaction through a compli-cated interplay among the four empowerment dimensions. Because choice,impact, and competence can be interpreted differently under varying situa-tions, consideration of balance and counterbalance of the stress generators(e.g., choice as a job demand), reward (e.g., impact), and ones perceivedability to handle the stress (e.g., competence as qualification or overquali-fication) seems more important than achieving a high level on any or allempowerment dimensions. The varying constellations of the levels ofchoice, competence, meaning, and impact shed the dimensions in differentlights so that they lead to different perceptions of the job in terms of stress,demand, and intrinsic rewards, which will then affect job satisfaction.In sum, although the empowerment dimensions, when looked at sepa-

rately, may in general have positive main effects on job satisfaction, individ-ual dimensions interact with each other to enhance or reduce the influencesof other dimensions on job outcomes. It appears the received view of the pos-itive effect of psychological empowerment is overly simplistic and incom-plete. Our research suggests that the distinct dimensions may be viewed as


motivators, stressors, enablers, a part of the work context, and/or an evalua-tion of the jobperson fit. The way one dimension affects job outcomes is notconstant and additive but may be enhanced or suppressed by the levels ofother dimensions or the combination of other dimensions. Thus, empower-ment theorists must focus on identifying optimal combinations that representbalanced or fit situations in different work contexts, which are essential toemployee well-being and other job outcomes.

Managerial Implications

We observe that choice has a positive association with job satisfactionwhen the competence is low but impact is high (Figure 1, Panel A). Whenthe competence and impact are both low, the choicesatisfaction relationshipbecomes slightly negative. Furthermore, when impact is low but competenceis high, the choicesatisfaction relationship is also positive, but when bothcompetence and impact are high the relationship is again slightly negative(Figure 1, Panel B). Managerially, when empowerment intervention effortsare geared toward increasing employees perceived choice level, such effortsshould also focus on improving the felt competence if the impact of the jobis perceived to be low or improving the perception of job impact if the per-ceived competence is low. When impact and competence are both low orhigh, it is probably not a good idea to focus on increasing the perceived levelof choice, as choice has little effect, or even a negative effect, on satisfaction.Likewise, from Figure 2, when choice is low, empowerment programs

should aim for the improvement of both competence and impact to gen-erate greater job satisfaction, and when competence is low improvementin both choice and impact should be the dual means of increasing job sat-isfaction. When choice and competence are both low or high, interventionprograms should not focus on impact, as perceived impact has little effecton job satisfaction. Instead, in these situations, improving the perceivedjob meaning would be the most helpful in boosting job satisfaction. Asshown in Figure 3, the positive association between job meaning and jobsatisfaction is stronger when competence and choice are both low or bothhigh. Nevertheless, job meaningfulness is the most important dimensionamong the four empowerment dimensions for job satisfaction, which hasa positive effect on satisfaction regardless of other dimensional levels.Job training leading to greater felt competence should accompany

increases in job choice or impact. If employees felt competence is notimproved in low impact situations or if felt impact is not improved in lowcompetence situations, increased perceived choice may create problems


such as role ambiguity and role stress that they do not feel to have the capa-bility or motivation to handle. This could contribute to negative job out-comes such as lower job satisfaction. The moderating role of competenceand impact in the choicesatisfaction relationship should be carefully mon-itored in practice, as should the role of competence and choice in theimpactsatisfaction relationship.In sum, our findings suggest that empowerment programs should focus

on reaching optimal levels on the individual dimensions to create a balancedcombination that will result in the most positive outcomes. Although all fourdimensions of empowerment are important, as Spreitzer et al. (1997) andmany others have suggested, it is essential to achieve balanced combinationsto create maximal job outcomes. The meaning dimension appears to have aconsistently strong positive effect on satisfaction, which is also consistentwith much of the extant research. As such, a program that emphasizes a highlevel of meaning should generally do well in terms of generating employeejob satisfaction. However, at an average level of job meaning, a combinationof too high levels of choice, competence, and impact may actually workagainst employee well-being (e.g., job satisfaction).

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Our analysis on interactive effects is a significant addition to the exist-ing empowerment literature, where only linear relationships and additiveeffects are documented. Like all research, however, this study has limita-tions. First, the use of cross-sectional data precludes any inference ofcausality. Although it makes theoretical sense to argue that psychologicalempowerment affects job satisfaction, the reverse could very well be true.Job satisfaction could make the individual feel that his or her job is mean-ingful and motivate him or her to learn and develop higher levels of skillsand thus feel more empowered. As such, longitudinal studies such as thatof Laschinger, Finegen, Shamian, and Wilk (2004) are highly encouraged.A second limitation concerns the possible common method variance

(CMV) because all constructs were measured with a paper and pencil sur-vey instrument on the same respondent at the same point of time.As it is dif-ficult to identify the specific sources of CMV such as social desirability,positive or negative affectivity, and/or acquiescence, we relied on Podsakoff,MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoffs (2003) recommendation to use a singlecommon method factor approach to assess the extent of this problem. Weused the latent method factor technique advanced byWilliams andAnderson(1994) and compared two structural equation models that included a


same-source factor in addition to the four predictor constructs (empower-ment dimensions) and job satisfaction. The two comparison models werethe constrained model with factor loadings of all indicator items on thesame-source factor constrained to zero and the unconstrained model withloadings of all items on the same-source factor freely estimated. Althoughthe unconstrained model fit better than the constrained model as indicatedby a chi-square difference test, the path coefficient estimates from empow-erment dimensions to job satisfaction were almost identical and mirroredthose obtained from the regression model. As such, we conclude that CMVmight not be a serious problem for our study. Nevertheless, future studiesshould strive to minimize the CMV by procedural as well as statisticalremedies (Podsakoff et al., 2003).Third, because we collected data from multiple organizations, there

could be intraorganizational random effects that have not been accountedfor in our models. To assess the extent of this problem, we ran randomintercept models via Hierarchical Linear Model 2 (HLM2) at Level 2 (orga-nizational level) and found that although the intercept and some of theslopes were significantly different across organizations (2 ranged from13.7 [p > .10, not significant] to 25.7 [p < .01], df = 10), based on the 11cases that had sufficient data, the intraclass correlations were calculated tobe less than .10, which is deemed rather small. The fixed effect coefficientswere fairly identical to those obtained from the Ordinary Least Square(OLS) models. We conclude that although there may be some company-level variances in the data, the majority of the variances are at the individ-ual level.Last, this research focuses on the interaction effects on one job out-

come variable, that is, job satisfaction. Future research should examineother workplace outcome variables such as performance, learning, teamwork, and creativity in relation to these dimensions. Antecedents of psy-chological empowerment should also be investigated. Simultaneous esti-mation of models that incorporate a comprehensive set of antecedents andoutcomes will allow researchers to gain a fuller understanding of psycho-logical empowerment in the workplace. In addition, situational variablesthat may potentially moderate the dimensional effects on outcome vari-ables should be identified and investigated. Such research will not onlyenrich our theoretical understanding of psychological empowerment butalso shed important light on managing workplace attitudes and behaviorthrough meaningful empowerment programs and interventions.


References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1992). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ashforth, B. E. (1989). The experience of powerlessness in organizations. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 207-242.

Ashforth, B. E. (1990). The organizationally induced helplessness syndrome: A preliminarymodel. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 7, 30-36.

Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Mundell, B. (1993). Status inconsistency in organizations:From social hierarchy to stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 21-36.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive view.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bell, N. E., & Staw, B. M. (1989). People as sculptors versus sculpture. NewYork: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Brief, A. P., & Nord, W. R. (1990). Meanings of occupational work. Lexington, MA:Lexington Books.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Carless, S. A. (2004). Does psychological empowerment mediate the relationship between psy-chological climate and job satisfaction? Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(4), 405-406.

Chen, H., & Chen, Y. (2008). The impact of work redesign and psychological empowermenton organizational commitment in a changing environment: An example from Taiwansstate-owned enterprises. Public Personnel Management, 37(3), 279-302.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behav-ioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. (1988). The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice.Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471-482.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Daniels, K., & Guppy, A. (1994). Occupational stress, social support, job control, and psy-

chological well-being. Human Relations, 47(12), 1523-1544.Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 580-590.Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The support of autonomy and control of behavior. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024-1037.Donovan, M. (1994). The empowerment plan. Journal for Quality and Participation, 17(4), 12-14.Edwards, J., & Cooper, C. (1990). The person-environment fit approach to stress: Recurring

problems and some suggested solutions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 293-307.Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational support,

discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 812-820.Ferris, G. R., & Gilmore, D. C. (1984). The moderating role of work context in job design

research: A test of competing models. Academy of Management Journal, 27(4), 885-892.Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981, February). Evaluating structural equation models with

unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.French, J. R. P., Caplan, R. D., & Van Harrison, R. (1982). The mechanisms of job stress and

strain. NewYork: John Wiley.


Fulford, M. D., & Enz, C. A. (1995). The impact of empowerment on service employees.Journal of Managerial Issues, 7(2), 161-175.

Gecas, V. (1989). The social psychology of self-efficacy. Annual Review of Psychology, 15,291-316.

Gist, M. E. (1987, April). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and humanresource management. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183-211.

Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinantsand malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183-211.

Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Balkin, D. B. (1989). Effectiveness of individual and aggregate com-pensation strategies. Industrial Relations, 28, 431-445.

Greenberger, D. B., Strausser, S., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. (1989). The impact of per-sonal control on performance and satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 43, 29-51.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Hall, M. (2008). The effect of comprehensive performance measurement systems on role clar-

ity, psychological empowerment and managerial performance. Accounting, Organizationsand Society, 33(2-3), 141-163.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Sansone, C., & Manderlink, G. (1985). Competence, achievement moti-vation and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 493-508.

Harrison, R. (1978). Person-environment fit and job stress in blue collar stress (C. Cooper &M. Smith, Eds.). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland, OH: World.Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd ed.). New

York: John Wiley.Holdsworth, L., & Cartwright, S. (2003). Empowerment, stress and satisfaction: An exploratory

study of a call centre. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(3), 131-140.House, R. J., Shane, S. A., & Herold, D. M. (1996). Rumors of the death of dispositional

research are vastly exaggerated. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 203-224.Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Hurt, H. T., Joseph, K., & Cook, C. D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness.

Human Communication Research, 4(1), 58-65.Judge, T. A. (1993). Does affective disposition moderate the relationship between job satis-

faction and voluntary turnover? Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(3), 395-401.Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. NewYork: Simon & Schuster.Kanter, R. M. (1989). The new managerial work. Harvard Business Review, 66, 85-92.Karasek, R. A., Jr. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications

for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-309.Koberg, C. S., Boss, R. W., Senjem, J. C., & Goodman, G. E. (1999). Antecedents and out-

comes of empowerment. Group & Organization Management, 24, 71-91.Kravitz, D. A., Bludau, T. M., & Klineberg, S. L. (2008). The impact of anticipated conse-

quences, respondent group, and strength of affirmative action plan on affirmative actionattitudes. Group & Organization Management, 33, 361-391.

Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegen, J. E., Shamian, J., &Wilk, P. (2004). A longitudinal analysis ofthe impact of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 25, 527-545.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Sparrowe, R. T., & Bradway, L. (1993). Empowerment and effective-ness study: Feedback report (Technical report 1). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. Chicago: Rand McNally.


Locke, E. A. (1991). The motivation sequence, the motivation hub, and the motivation core.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 288-299.

Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and taskstrategies on task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), 241-251.

Martin, C. L., & Bennett, N. (1996). The role of justice judgments in explaining the relation-ship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Group & OrganizationManagement, 21, 84-104.

Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., McKee, D. O., & McMurrian, R. (1997, July). An investigationinto the antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling context.Journal of Marketing, 61, 85-98.

Neufeldt, V., Guralnik, D. B. (1997), Websters new world college dictionary (3rd ed.). NewYork: Simon & Schuster.

Ng, T. W. H., & Sorensen, K. L. (2008). Toward a further understanding of the relationshipbetween perceptions of support and work attitudes:A meta-analysis.Group & OrganizationManagement, 33, 243-268.

Ozer, E. M., & Bandura,A. (1990). Mechanisms governing empowerment effects: A self-efficacyanalysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 472-486.

Parker, L. (1993). When to fix it and when to leave: Relationships among perceived control,self-efficacy, dissent, and exit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 949-959.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. L., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common methodbiases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended reme-dies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model ofindividual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580-607.

Siegall, M., & Gardner, S. (2000). Contextual factors of psychological empowerment.Personnel Review, 29(6), 703.

Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerningautonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 39, 1005-1016.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, mea-surement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment.Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 483-504.

Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. (1997). A dimensional analysis of therelationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, andstrain. Journal of Management, 23(5), 679-704.

Suzik, H. A. (1998). Transmission plant is winner with empowerment. Quality, 37(4), 90-91.Thomas, K., & Tymon,W. (1994). Does empowerment always work: Understanding the role of

intrinsic motivation and personal interaction. Journal of Management Systems, 6(3), 39-54.Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An interpre-

tive model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666-681.Valentine, S. (1999). Assessing organizational behavior models: A comparison of linear and

nonlinear methods. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(5), 1028-1044.Wang, G., & Netemeyer, R. G. (2002). The effects of job autonomy, customer demandingness,

and trait competitiveness on salesperson learning, self efficacy, and performance. Journalof the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3), 217-228.

Warr, P. B. (1987). Work, unemployment, and mental health. Oxford, UK: Oxford UniversityPress.


Wated, G., Sanchez, J. I., & Gomez, C. (2008). Two-factor assessment of the beliefs that influ-ence attitudes toward privatization. Group & Organization Management, 33, 107-136.

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment aspredictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management,17(3), 601-617.

Williams, L. J., &Anderson, S. E. (1994). An alternative approach to methods effects by usinglatent variable models: Applications in organizational behavior research. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 79(3), 323-331.

Guangping Wang, PhD, Louisiana State University, is an associate professor of marketing atThe Pennsylvania State University. His research focus on personal selling effectiveness, salesmanagement in business markets, customer relationship management, and organizationalbehavior.

Peggy D. Lee, PhD, The George Washington University, is an assistant professor in theManagement Division at Pennsylvania State UniversityGreat Valley. Her research interestsinclude supply chain integration and the application of social capital and social network theoryto the buyer-supplier relationship.


Gom 271.Full

Documents

Transcript of Gom 271.Full