Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270636497
CITATION READS
1 109
2 authors, including:
Randa I Nasser
Birzeit University
9 PUBLICATIONS 24 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Randa I Nasser on 03 October 2017.
Abstract
This study tests Kanters theory of structural workplace empowerment. It maintains that previ-
ous research that attempted to do so failed to account for the effect of an important personal
characteristici.e. employees achievement motivation. This body of research also failed to
uncover the mechanisms by which personal characteristics of employees influence their per-
ceived empowerment. Data was collected from a sample of 154 hospital nurses, in two major
Palestinian hospitals, through a survey design and self-administered questionnaire. The results of
multivariate regression analyses and path-analysis indicate that perceived empowerment is indi-
rectly influenced by personal factors (including educational qualifications, experience, position,
and motivation towards achievement) through more direct structural determinants (access to
formal and informal lines of power). More significantly, motivation has a directalbeit weak
impact on perceived empowerment, after the effects of the more proximate structural determi-
nants are controlled for.
Keywords
Palestine, healthcare professionals, structural empowerment, motivation
2.Kanters Theory
Kanter (1977, 1993) asserts that the position one occupies in the workplace
and the structural power relations that arise in an organization shape work
attitudes, behaviours and the level of empowerment one enjoys. For Kanter,
empowerment is not a psychological predisposition or control over others,
rather it is the ability to get things done, to mobilize resources, to get and
use whatever it is that a person needs for the goals he or she is attempting
to meet (Kanter 1977: 166). A person is thus empowered when (s)he has the
ability to access and mobilize resources, information, support, and opportuni-
ties that catalyse goal achievement, or serve as tools for action. In Kanters
words: The powerful are the ones who have access to tools for action (166).
Effective management skills and high morale of workers do not depend on the
managers human relations but on the amount of outward and upward power
managers have in the system. The ability to access these toolsor empower-
ment structuresfor action is influenced by organizational structures such as
access to formal and informal lines of power in the organization, not the per-
sonal predispositions of employees. A job that offers employees access to for-
mal and informal lines of powersuch as visibility, centrality to the purpose
of the organization, access to decision-making processes, and networks and/or
alliances with peers and superiorsaffords them greater empowerment, irre-
spective of their personal experience, qualifications, and traits. In this study,
we test Kanters proposition regarding the determinants of structural empow-
erment, intending to answer the following questions: Are the structural power
variables (i.e., access to formal and informal lines of power and work position) or
the personality variables more relevant to perceived structural workplace empow-
erment? If both are relevant, then what are the mechanisms by which their effects
are exerted? We employ Kanters definitions of workplace empowerment, and
of access to formal and informal lines of power.
3.1.Methods
3.1.1The Sample
A simple random sample of 181 individuals was selected from a population of
nursing personnel who have held their positions for over one year, in two major
R. Nasser, B. A. Saadeh / PGDT 12 (2013) 543-560 549
3.1.3Measurement
In this study we use Kanters definition of structural empowerment, which
reflects the employees access to empowering structures such as information,
support, resources, and opportunities that are necessary for work efficacy
(Wilson and Laschinger 1994: 40). Chandlers Conditions of Work Effectiveness
Questionnaire (CWEQ) (1986) was used to measure the employees perception
550 R. Nasser, B. A. Saadeh / PGDT 12 (2013) 543-560
Access to support was measured using a seven-item scale. Items reflect the
extent to which employees receive rewards and praise on jobs done well; help-
ful comments on jobs that could be improved; advice on problem-solving in
situations of crises; and suggestions regarding job promotion.
Access to resources was measured with a five-item scale reflecting the employ-
ees access to resources, such as essential work equipment and supplies; avail-
ability of sufficient time to complete the job; and influence regarding decisions
to dispense these resources.
Formal and informal lines of power, which Kanter hypothesizes are the most
important structural determinants of empowerment and which are designated
as intermediate variables in the model specification in this research, were
measured by The Job Activity Scale (JAS) and the Organizational Relation-
ship Scale (ORS) respectively. These scales were developed by Lashinger and
Sabiston (1993). JAS measures perceived access to formal lines of power with
an eight-item scale that addresses the employees access to jobs that offer vis-
ibility; variety in tasks; job flexibility; rewards for innovation; participation in
R. Nasser, B. A. Saadeh / PGDT 12 (2013) 543-560 551
3.2.Results
3.2.1Summary Statistics
Summary statistics show that nurses in the two hospitals scored high to mod-
erate levels on their overall perceived workplace structural empowerment
(mean = 2.9) and on its structural determinantssuch as perceived access to
formal (mean = 2.7) and informal (mean = 3.0) lines of power, all on a 5-point
scale. The median score for empowerment is also high (2.9), indicating that
50% of the nurses have a higher empowerment score. These results show that
the study sample comprises a relatively empowered group of employees; these
results are consistent with Canadian and American studies (Lashinger and
Haven, 1996).
The employees also have high motivation (mean = 4.1), with 68% of the par-
ticipants enjoying greater motivation than a high score of 4.0 points. A follow-up
552 R. Nasser, B. A. Saadeh / PGDT 12 (2013) 543-560
3.2.2Test of Hypothesis
First, we examine a multiple regression equation of all of the personal charac-
teristics on structural empowerment, and then estimate another model with
all of the structural and personal variables. The results of the first model reveal
significant impacts of the educational qualifications, work experience, and
attitudes of motivation for achievement on perceived workplace empower-
ment among all nurses in the two Palestinian hospitals (see model 1, table 1).
Employee motivation has highly significant unstandardized and standardized
estimators, respectively (B = 0.24, Beta = 0.25, p = 0.008), followed by the effect
of years of experience in nursing (B = 0.025, Beta = 0.24, p = 0.001), and then the
effect of educational attainment (B = 0.15, Beta = 0.21, p = 0.001). These three
personality variables account for a little over 19% of the variance in perceived
workplace empowerment. This supports the hypothesis that personal charac-
teristics do have an influence on the perceived empowerment of employees.
When the employees work position was included in the above equation (as
shown in model 2, table 1), it was found to have the greatest impact on per-
ceived empowerment (B = 0.15, Beta = 0.28, p = 0.017), while the effects of moti-
vation for achievement (B = 0.25, Beta = 0.27, p = 0.001) and work experience
(B = 0.02, Beta = 0.15, p = 0.05) both remained highly significant; however, the
effect of educational attainment disappeared. These results both support and
contradict Kanters theory and the results of previous research. Work position,
as Kanter proposes, impacts perceived empowerment most; but also, contrary
to this proposition, the effects of employees motivation, and years of experi-
ence in the nursing profession, remained strong and significanteven after
controlling for the effects of work position (treated as one of the structural
determinants in this research). This indicates that these personality traits, in
addition to the employees work positions, are also important for the employ-
ees perceived empowerment. Thus, irrespective of ones position (i.e., high
managerial, mid-level managerial, or staff), being highly motivated leads to
higher levels of perceived structural empowerment amongst employees.
Nevertheless as Kanter suggests and as previous studies determined, once
the structural determinants, perceived access to formal power (B = 0.49, Beta =
0.52, p = 0.001) and informal power (B = 0.20, Beta = 0.25, p = 0.001) are included
in the regression model, the effects of all the personal factors, including the
effect of occupation position, become insignificant (see table 1, model 4), these
R. Nasser, B. A. Saadeh / PGDT 12 (2013) 543-560 553
Table 1
Multiple regression of various personal and structural characteristics
on employees perceived workplace empowerment; shown are the un-
standardized (UC), standardized coefficients (SC), and levels of significance (SL),
respectively.
Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Gender (UC) -.03 -.03 .03
(SC) -.02 -.02 .02
(SL) .80 .70 .68
Education (UC) .15 .01 .04
(SC) .21 .00 .06
(SL) .001 .997 .523
Experience (UC) .03 .02 .004
(SC) .24 .05 .041
(SL) .001 .05 .515
Motivation (UC) .24 .25 .10
(SC) .25 .27 .11
(SL) .008 .000 .07
Position (UC) .15 .03
(SC) .28 .05
(SL) .017 .554
Formal
Power (UC) .51 .49
(SC) .55 .52
(SL) .000 .000
Informal
Power (UC) .21 .20
(SC) .26 .25
(SL) .000 .001
R-SQ adjusted .19 .22 .56 .57
results are in line with the findings of previous research regarding the dimin-
ishing impact of personal factors on perceived empowermentonce the struc-
tural factors, access to formal and informal power, are included in the analysis.
It is worth noting here that the effect of the personality variable, motivation
for achievement, is close to significance (B = 0.10, Beta = 0.12, p = 0.07) in this
model. This indicates that even when the structural variables are accounted
for, employee motivation nevertheless makes an impact on empowerment.
554 R. Nasser, B. A. Saadeh / PGDT 12 (2013) 543-560
3.2.3Path Models
In support of the study hypothesiswhich proposes that the personal vari-
ables influence workplace structural empowerment through the structural
factors (see models 1, 2 and 3 of table 2, and figure 1)the results reveal that
work position is determined both by employees educational qualifications
(B = 0.97, Beta = 0.75, p = 0.001), and the number of years of work experience (B =
0.06, Beta = 0.32, p = 0.001), but not by their motivation for achievement
(B = -0.1, Beta = 0.06, p = 0.28) nor by their gender, suggesting a gender equal-
ity in the attainment of ones occupational position. These variables explain a
significant portion (60%) of the variance within the work position.
Furthermore, access to formal lines of power in the organization, as hypoth-
esized, is significantly influenced by the type of work position one occupies
(B = 0.18, Beta = 0.30, p = .007); years of experience (B = 0.02, Beta = 0.21, p =
0.01); and his/her motivation for achievement (B = 0.19, Beta = 0.19, p = 0.01).
What is of particular interest is the fact that employees educational qualifica-
tions do not impact their access to formal lines of power. About 28% of the
variation among employees in their formal power is accounted for by their
position, years of experience, and their personality disposition for motivation.
Note that the personal characteristicswork experience, and more impor-
tantly, motivation for achievementinfluence perceived access to formal
power, even after controlling for the occupational position, thus revealing a
direct relationship between these elements and access to formal power. This
supports the study hypothesis that perceived empowerment is indirectly influ-
enced by some personal factors of the employees, through one or both of its
more proximate determinants, formal and informal power.
Similarly, access to informal power is strongly determined by access to
formal power (B = 0.70, Beta = 0.61, p = 0.001), and surprisingly, out of all the
personal variables, it is significantly influenced only by ones motivation for
achievement (B = 0.18, Beta = 0.15, p = 0.02). These variables account for 48% of
the variance within informal power. The personal variables alone (not includ-
ing formal power), explain about 22% of the variance in access to informal
power.
These models demonstrate that the personal characteristics of the employ-
ees, especially their motivation for achievement, are important direct deter-
minants of the formal and informal lines of power to which employees have
R. Nasser, B. A. Saadeh / PGDT 12 (2013) 543-560 555
Table 2
Multiple regression equations for the variables position, formal and informal
power. Shown are unstandardized (UC), standardized coefficients (SC) and
level of significance (SL).
Position Formal power Informal power
Gender (UC) .03 -.09 -.08
(SC) .012 .08 -.04
(SL) .817 .418 .479
Position (UC) .18 .06
(SC) .30 .09
(SL) .007 .341
Education (UC) .97 .07 -.006
(SC) .75 .09 -.007
(SL) .000 .439 .943
Experience (UC) .06 .02 -.01
(SC) .32 .21 -.09
(SL) .000 .01 .173
Motivation (UC) -.1 .19 .18
(SC) -.06 .19 .15
(SL) .29 .01 .02
Formal power (UC) .49
(SC) .52
(SL) .001
R-SQ adjusted .60 .28 .48
access (see models 2 and 3 in table 2). These in turn play a significant role
in shaping their perceived structural empowerment (see model 3 of table
1). This means that while ones position is held constant, the more moti-
vated the employee is, the more access to formal and informal lines of power
(s)he will attain, and consequently, the more empowered (s)he will become.
These results further support the studys hypothesis that certain personality
characteristicsin this case the most significant being ones motivation for
achievementare important indirect determinants of perceived workplace
structural empowerment. The influence occurs primarily through its structural
determinants, namely access to formal and informal lines of power, and to a
lesser degree the influence takes place directly. After all, it is not unreason-
able to claim that the employees ability to access formal and informal lines
of power such as visibility, centrality, networks or/and alliances with peers
and superiors, depends significantly on their motivation and determination
to achieve when their position is held constant. Access to formal and informal
power will in turn, as the results demonstrate, afford employees greater (per-
ceived) empowerment.
References
Appelbaum, S. and Hare, A. 1996. Self-Efficacy as a Mediator of Goal Setting and Performance:
Some Human Resource Application. Journal of Managerial Psychology 11: 33-47.
Appelbaum, S. and Honeggar, K. 1998. Empowerment: a Contrasting Overview of Organizations
in General and Nursing in Particularan Examination of Organizational Factors, Managerial
Behaviors, Job Design, and Structural Power. Empowerment in Organizations 6: 29-50.
Baguley, K. 1997. Workplace Empowerment, Job Strain, and Affective Organizational commit-
ment in Critical care Nurses: Testing Kanters Structural Theory of Organizational Behavior.
Master thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
Beauliea, R., Shamain J., Donner G. and Pringle D. 1997. Empowerment and Commitment of
Nurse in Long Term Care. Nursing Economy, 15, 32-41.
Blau, J. and Alba, R. 1982. Empowering Nets of Participation. Administrative Science Quarterly 27:
363-379.
Chandler G. 1986. The Relationship of Nursing Work Environment to Empowerment and Power-
lessness. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Nursing, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
Choi, J. 2006. A Motivational Theory of Charismatic Leadership: Envisioning, Empathy and
Empowerment. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 13: 24-43.
Conger, J. and Kanungo, R. 1988. The Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory and Practice.
Academy of Management Review 13: 471-482.
Finegan, J. and Laschinger H. 2001. The Antecedents and Consequence of Empowerment: Agenda
Analysis. Journal of Nursing Administration 31: 489-97.
Gagne, M., Senecal, C.B. and Koestner, R. 1997. Proximal Job Characteristics, Feelings of Empow-
erment, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Multidimensional Model. Journal of Applied Social Psy-
chology 27: 1222-1240.
Goddard, M. and Laschinger, H. 1997. Nurse Managers Perception of Power and Opportunity.
Canadian Journal of Nursing Administration 10: 40-66.
Greco, P., Laschinger, H. and Wong, C. 2006. Leader Empowering Behaviours, Staff Nurse
Empowerment and Work Engagement/Burnout. Nursing Research 19: 41-56.
Hatcher, S. and Laschinger H. 1996. Staff Nurses Perceptions of Power and Opportunity and
Level of Burnout: A Test of Kanters Structural Theory of Organizational Behavior. Canadian
Journal of Nursing Administration 19: 74-94.
R. Nasser, B. A. Saadeh / PGDT 12 (2013) 543-560 559
Haugh, E. and Laschinger, H. 1996. Power and Opportunity in Public Health Nursing. Public
Health Nursing 13: 42-49.
Johnson, C. 1982. MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925-1975. Stan-
ford: Stanford University Press.
Kanter, R. 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
. 1993. Men and Women of the Corporation. 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books.
Kutzscher, L. 1994. Staff Nurses Perceptions of Power and Degree of Participative Management:
A Test of Kanters Structural Theory of Power. Master Thesis, University of Western Ontario,
London, Ontario.
Laschinger, H., Finegan, J., Shamian, J. and Wilk, P. 2001. Impact of Structural and Psychological
Factors on Job Strain in Nursing Work Setting: Expanding Kanters Model. Journal of Nursing
Administration 31: 233-43.
Laschinger, H., Finegan, J., Shamian, J. and Casier, S. 2000. Organizational Trust and Empower-
ment in Restructured Health Care Settings: Effects on Staff Nurse Commitment. Journal of
Nursing Administration 30: 413-425.
Laschinger, H., Wong, C., McMahon, L. and Kaufmann, C. 1999. Leader Behavior Impact on Staff
Nurse Empowerment, Job Tension and Work Effectiveness. Journal of Nursing Administration
29: 28-39.
Laschinger, H. and Wong, C. 1999. Staff Nurse Empowerment and Collective Accountability: Effect
on Perceived Productivity and Self-rated Work Effectiveness. Nursing Economics 17: 308-316.
Laschinger, H., Wong, C., McMahon, L. and Kaufmann, C. 1999. Leader Behavior Impact on Staff
Nurse Empowerment, Job Tension and Work Effectiveness. Journal of Nursing Administration
29: 28-39.
Laschinger H., Sabiston J. and Kutszher L. 1997. Empowerment and Staff Nurses Decision Involve-
ment in Nursing Work Environments: Testing Kanters Theory of Structural Power in Organiza-
tions. Research in Nursing and Health 20: 341-352.
Laschinger, H. and Havens D. 1996. Staff Nurse Empowerment and Perceived Control Over Nurs-
ing Practice, Conditions for Work Effectiveness. Journal of Nursing Administration 26: 27-35.
Laschinger, H. 1996. A Theoretical Approach to Studying Work Empowerment in Nursing: A
Review of Studies Testing Kanters Theory of Structural Power in Organizations. Nursing
Administrative Quarterly 20: 25-41.
Laschinger, H. and Shamian, J. 1994. Staff Nurses and Nurse Managers Perception of Job-related
Empowerment and Managerial Self-efficacy. Journal of Nursing Administration 24: 38-47.
Lawler, E.E., Mohrman, S.A., and Benson, G. 2001. Organizing for high performance: Employee
Involvement, TQM, Reengineering, and Knowledge Management in the Fortune 1000. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
McBurney, M. 1997. The Relationship between First-line Nurse Managers Perceptions of Job-
related Empowerment and Occupational Stress in Large Acute Care Teaching Hospital.
Master Thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
McDermott, K., Laschinger, H. and Shamain, J. 1996. Work Empowerment and Organizational
Commitment. Nurse Management 27: 44-48.
Miller, P., Godant, P. and Laschinger, H. 2001. Evaluation of Physical Therapists Structural Power
in Organizations. Physical Therapy 81: 180-8.
OBrien, L. 1997. The Relationship between Registered Nurses Perceptions of Job-Related
Empowerment and Occupational Mental Health: A test of Kanters Theory of Organizational
Behavior. Master thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
OToole, J. and Lawler, E.E. 2006. The new American workplace. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Pfeffer, J. 1996. Competitive Advantage through People. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Pfeffer, J., Cialdini, R. B., Hanna, B., and Knopoff, K. 1998. Faith in Supervision and the Self-
Enhancement Bias: Two Psychological Reasons Why Managers Dont Empower Workers. Basic
and Applied Social Psychology 20: 313-321.
560 R. Nasser, B. A. Saadeh / PGDT 12 (2013) 543-560
Pitts, D. 2005. Leadership, Empowerment, and Public Organizations. Review of Public Personnel
Administration 25: 5-28.
Rapport, J. 1984. Studies in Empowerment: Introduction to the Issue. Prevention in Human
Services 3: 1-7.
Saadeh, B. 1999. The Effect of Workplace Empowerment on Palestinian Nurses Occupational
Stress and Work Effectiveness. Unpublished masters thesis, Jerusalem, Palestine: Al-Quds
University.
Sabiston, J. and Laschinger, H. 1995. Staff Nurse Work Empowerment and Perceived Autonomy.
Journal of Nursing Administration 25: 42-50.
Sagaria, M. 1980. Men and Women Senior Academic Administrators: A Study of Selected Factors
Contributing to Perceived Power of Individuals in Colleges and Universities. Ph.D. disserta-
tion, Pennsylvania State University.
Sarmiento, T.P. Laschinger, H. and Iwasiw C. 2004. Nurse Educators Workplace Empowerment,
Burnout, and Job Satisfaction: Testing Kanters Theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing 46(2),
134-143.
Spreitzer, G. 1995. Psychological Empowerment in the Workplace: Dimensions, Measurement,
and Validation. Academy of Management Journal 38: 1442-1462.
. 2007. Taking Stocks: A Review of more than Twenty Years of Research on Empowerment.
The Handbook of Organizational Behavior.
Thomas, K. and Velthouse, B. 1990. Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An Interpretive Model
of Intrinsic Task Motivation. Academy Management Review 15: 666-681.
Thorlakson, A. and Murray, R. 1996. An Empirical Study of Empowerment in the Workplace.
Group and Organization Management 11: 11-16.
Tjosvold, D., Chun, H. and Kenneth, S. 1998. Empowerment on the Manager-Employee Relation-
ship in Hong Kong: Interdependence and Controversy. The Journal of Social Psychology 138:
624-637.
Wilson, B. and Laschinger, H. 1994. Staff Nurse Perception of Job Empowerment and Organiza-
tional Commitment: a Test of Kanters Theory of Structural Power in Organizations. Journal of
Nursing Administration 24: 39-47.
Yoon, J. 2001. The Role of Structure and Motivation for Workplace Empowerment: the Case of
Korean Employees. Social Psychology Quarterly 64: 195-206.
Zhang, X. and Partol, K. 2010. Linking Empowering Leadership and Employee Creativity: the
Influence of Psychological Empowerment, Intrinsic Motivation, and Creative Process Engage-
ment. Academy of Management Journal 53: 107-128.
Zimmerman, M.A. 1995. Psychology Empowerment: Issues and Illustrations. American Journal
of Community Psychology 23: 581-600.
. 1990. Taking Aim on Empowerment Research: On the Distinction between Psychological
and Individual Conceptions. American Journal of Community Psychology 18: 169-177.