Seibert 2004taking Empowerment To The Next Level PDF

Taking Empowerment to the Next Level: A Multiple-Level Model of Empowerment,
Performance, and Satisfaction

Author(s): Scott E. Seibert, Seth R. Silver and W. Alan Randolph
Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47, No. 3 (Jun., 2004), pp. 332-349
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159585 .
Accessed: 29/08/2012 18:38
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy
of Management Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
?
Academy ofManagement Journal
2004, Vol. 47, No. 3, 332-349.
TAKING EMPOWERMENT TO THE NEXT LEVEL:

A MULTIPLE-LEVELMODEL OF EMPOWERMENT,
PERFORMANCE, AND SATISFACTION
SCOTT E. SEIBERT
University of Illinois at Chicago
SETH R. SILVER
St. John Fisher College
W. ALAN RANDOLPH
University of Baltimore
Most research to date has approached employee empowerment as an individual-level

phenomenon. In this study we proposed a work-unit-level construct, empowerment
climate, and tested a multiple-level model integrating macro and micro approaches to
empowerment. Empowerment climate was shown to be empirically distinct from
psychological empowerment and positively related to manager ratings of work-unit
performance. A cross-level mediation analysis using hierarchical linear modeling
showed that psychological empowerment mediated the relationships between empow
erment climate and individual performance and job satisfaction.
empowerment has become a trend tive that focuses on empowerment as intrinsic mo

Employee
over the last decade, approaching the status of a tivation. Both academics and practitioners have
movement or of a fad, depending on one's perspec discussed the important role they be
frequently
tive (Abrahamson, 1996; Block, 1987). At its core lieve organizational structures, policies, and prac
the concept of empowerment involves increased tices play in bringing about high levels of intrinsic
individual motivation at work through the delega motivation (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Block, 1987;
tion of authority to the lowest level in an organiza & 1988; Lawler, Mohrman, & Led
Conger Kanungo,
tion where a competent decision can be made (Con ford, 1995; Liden & Tewksbury, 1995; Randolph,
ger & Kanungo, 1988; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). 1995; Spreitzer, 1996; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).
Thus, the empowerment concept has roots in such For example, Conger and Kanungo explicitly rec
substantive issues as intrinsic motivation, job de an antecedent role for organizational
ognized prac
sign, participative decision making, social learning tices in their definition of empowerment as "a pro
theory, and self-management (Liden & Tewksbury, cess of enhancing of self-efficacy among
feelings
1995). Empirical support has begun to accumulate organizational members through the identification
regarding the relationship of employee empower of conditions that foster powerlessness and through
ment to important work-related outcomes (Liden, their removal by both formal organizational prac
Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2000; Sparrowe, 1994; Spre tices and informal techniques providing efficacy
itzer, 1995; Spreitzer, Kizilos, & Nason, 1997). Sus information" 474).
(1988: Other authors (e.g.,
tained scholarly attention will be necessary if this
Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997; Swift & Levine, 1987)
management fashion is to be transformed into a
have distinguished between empowering struc
scientifically informed learning process capable of tures, policies, and practices on the one hand, and
producing effective management techniques (Abra
empowerment, or individuals' psychological reac
hamson, 1996). on the other.
tions to these managerial practices,
Liden and Arad (1996) noted that within the
The empowering structures and practices are seen
literature on empowerment there has developed
as contextual variables affecting employee feelings
both a macro perspective that focuses on organiza
of empowerment.
tional structures and policies, and a micro perspec
Yet this multilevel aspect of empowerment has
not been captured in empirical research on empow
We the many com erment. The emergence of a dominant psychologi
gratefully acknowledge helpful
ments of Associate Editor Sara and the three anon cal empowerment construct in the literature (Liden
Rynes
ymous reviewers. & Arad, 1995; Spreitzer, 1995) has been accompa
332
2004 Seibert, Silver, and Bandolph 333
nied by examination of empowerment as an indi EMPOWERMENT CLIMATE

vidual-level psychological state in virtually all of
A degree of consensus exists regarding the orga
the empirical research to date. Such studies in
nizational structures and policies associated with
clude Conger and
Kanungo (1988), Liden and
et al. (2000), Kraimer, empowerment (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Blanchard,
Tewksbury (1995), Liden
Carlos, & Randolph, 1999; Block, 1987). Drawing
Seibert, and Liden (1999), Sparrowe (1994, 1995),
on extensive experience with a set of organizations
Spreitzer (1996), Spreitzer et al. (1997), and
implementing an empowerment strategy, Blan
Thomas and Velthouse (1990); but see Kirkman and
chard and his colleagues (Blanchard, Carlos, & Ran
Rosen (1999) for an exception. No empirical re
search that we are aware
of has been conducted on dolph, 1995; Randolph, 1995) identified three key
as a macro man organizational practices associated with empower
empowerment construct reflecting
ment: information sharing, autonomy through
agerial structures and practices. This may be attrib
amacro boundaries, and team accountability. Information
utable to the lack of progress in developing
empowerment construct that is comparable to the sharing involves providing potentially sensitive in
formation on costs, productivity, quality, and fi
micro construct.
nancial performance to employees throughout an
The current study goes beyond previous empow
erment research in three ways. First, we conceptu organization. Autonomy through boundaries refers
alized the macro dimensions of empowerment as a to organizational structures and practices that en
"climate" construct, which we named "empower courage autonomous action, including the develop
ment climate" and defined in terms of employees' ment of a clear vision, and clarity regarding goals,
shared of managerial work procedures, and areas of responsibility. Team
perceptions structures, poli
cies, and practices related to empowerment. Sec accountability involves the perception that teams
a multiple-level model of empowerment that are the locus of decision-making authority and per
ond,
effects on important work-unit and indi formance accountability in organizations. Teams
specifies
vidual outcomes was developed and tested. This are also supported through individual and group
multiple-level aspect of empowerment has been training and selection decisions. These three prac
in the literature but, to our has tices make up the dimensions of the empowerment
implicit knowledge,
never been made and sub climate construct used in this study.
theoretically explicit
While Blanchard and his have been
jected to an empirical test as it was in this study. colleagues
Third, we a mediating role for psy the most explicit regarding the managerial struc
hypothesized
in the be tures and practices they expect to be associated
chological empowerment relationship
tween empowerment climate and the individual with empowerment, the macro empowerment con
level outcomes in the model. these struct itself has been theoretically underspecified
Integrating
macro and micro approaches to empowerment is an and has lacked empirical validation. In the para
theoretical contribution because it pro graphs below, we review the literature on climate
important
vides a fuller understanding of the processes and in order to conceptually the empowerment
develop
outcomes of empowerment in organizations. A climate construct. This development involves be
model depicting the key theoretical relationships ing explicit with regard to the origin and nature of
in this study is presented in Figure 1. the construct, the level at which it is theoretically
FIGURE 1
A Multilevel Model of Empowerment
Hypothesis 3
Work-Unit Empowerment Work-Unit
Level Climate Performance
2
^Hypothesis
Hypothesis 4a and 4b
Individual
Individual Psychological Performance
Level Empowerment
Job Satisfaction
334 Academy of Management Journal June
manifest, and the compositional model appropriate a shared perception regarding the extent to which
for forming and assessing empowerment climate as an organization makes use of structures, policies,
a higher-level construct. and practices supporting employee empowerment.
Empowerment climate is composed of the three
dimensions identified in the previous literature?
information sharing, autonomy through bound
Climate
aries, and team accountability?that we expect to
climate has been defined as a set form a single unidimensional construct.
Organizational
of shared perceptions regarding the policies, prac
tices, and procedures that an organization rewards, Issues of Level
supports, and expects (James, Joyce, & Slocum,
1988; Schneider & Reichers, 1983). Previous re In organizational research the term "level" refers
search has shown climate to be con to the specific focal unit under consideration, typ
perceptions
and empirically distinct from affective or ically the individual, the work unit or team, or the
ceptually
evaluative individual reactions Hellrie organization. Researchers who develop multiple
(Downey,
level models of organizational processes need to be
gel & Slocum, 1975; James & Jones, 1974; LaFollette
& Sims, 1975; Rousseau, & Snyder, explicit regarding the theoretical level of origin and
1988; Schneider
out of the field-theoretic tradition the corresponding level of measurement for their
1975). Growing
constructs. Researchers also need to be explicit re
initiated by Kurt Lewin, climate research is an ef
garding the level at which a construct is manifest
fort to understand organizational behavior through
mem within their theoretical model and the correspond
the subjective perceptions of organizational
ing level at which the construct is represented for
bers (Schneider, 2000).
purposes of statistical analysis (Klein, Dansereau, &
Although climate reflects descriptive beliefs in
dividuals hold regarding properties of their organi Hall, 1994; Rousseau, 1985).
The level of origin for a construct is the level at
zations, there is not a one-to-one corre
necessarily
which the processes forming the construct take
spondence between
specific managerial practices
place. Although empowerment climate perceptions
and employee climate perceptions. For example, in
reflect distal characteristics of an organization,
some cases posting quarterly profit and loss infor
these
perceptions emerge from a fundamentally
mation may be as an empowering
seen practice,
psychological process in which individuals ascribe
while in others it may be seen as a means for
meaning to the structures and practices occurring
weakening the wage demands of employees. These
in the organization around them (James, 1982).
different interpretations of the same practice Thus, the level of origin for empowerment climate
may arise from individual
different backgrounds
perceptions is the individual, and the appropriate
and experiences or from
the history of a specific
level from which to collect data, the level of mea
organization or work unit (James, James, & Ashe, surement, is also the individual.
1990). Climate thus captures the meaning employ The theoretical level of a construct refers to the
ees ascribe to the overall pattern of organizational
level at which the construct is manifest in a given
activities. Climate perceptions are critical because,
theoretical model (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). A de
according to this perspective, it is the employees' of climate is that perceptions
fining characteristic
own understanding of a situation that drives their are shared cli
(e.g., Schneider, 2000). Although
attitudes and behaviors (James & Jones, 1974; mate perceptions within we
originate individuals,
Schneider, 2000). climate perceptions to be
expected empowerment
Schneider (1975) was one of the first to argue that shared by members of the same work unit because
climate dimensions should have a strategic focus? of a number of social processes taking place within
that is, that one should not assess overall climate the unit. First, members of the same work unit are
but climate for something. Researchers have iden to the same goals, strategies,
likely to be exposed
tified climates for specific domains of organiza work environments, and other proxi
technologies,
tional functioning, such as service (Schneider, mal influences, and this exposure results in a rela
Parkington, & Buxton, 1980), safety (Hofmann, & of their organiza
tively homogeneous experience
Stetzer, 1996), and procedural justice (Naumann & tion that is distinct from those of other work units
Bennett, 2000). In view of the important role in the (James & Jones, 1974). Members of the same work
success of empowerment efforts that researchers unit also share the same manager. Middle managers
and practitioners have attributed to organizational fill in, or "interpolate," broad organizational poli
policies and practices, we propose a climate for cies as they apply to their own units, creating a
empowerment. We define empowerment climate as unique shared experience of organizational poli

cies for his or her

immediate subordinates (Katz & motivation. However, the psychological empower
Kahn, 1978). Managers also act to filter the infor ment construct is designed to emphasize individu
mation reaching work-unit members and shape the als' subjective experiences of empowerment; mea
interpretations they reach as a group (Kozlowski & sures of the construct ask respondents to use their
Doherty, 1989). High levels of social interaction own personal values, background experience, and
within a work unit can also lead to a shared view of as frames of reference in forming
self-concepts
an organization that may be unique to the unit about their work environments. These
judgments
(Klein, Conn, Smith, & Sorra, 2001; Naumann & cognitions are distinct from, for example, person
Bennett, 2000; Rentsch, 1990). Finally, once a work ality traits, in that an individual's work context
unit has established a distinctive character, attrac influences empowerment cognitions, but traits are
tion-selection-attrition dynamics (Schneider, 1987) enduring dispositions not immediately influenced
may result in greater homogeneity among work unit by such contextual factors (Spreitzer, 1995).
members' personalities, attitudes, and values and The overall psychological empowerment con
thus in greater homogeneity in how they perceive struct is composed of four cognitions: meaning,
the organization. Empirical research supports each competence, self-determination, and impact (Con
of these processes and, indeed, previous climate ger & Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas &
scholars have found multiple climates within Velthouse, 1990). Meaning refers to the value of a
single organizations that correspond to their dif work goal judged in terms of an individual's own
ferent departments or work
units (Drexler, 1977; values or standards. Competence is an individual's
Johnston, 1976; Powell & Butterfield, 1978). We belief in his or her capability to successfully per
therefore specified empowerment climate as a form a given task or activity. Self-determination is
work-unit-level construct in our theoretical model the individual's sense of choice about activities and
and our statistical analyses. work methods. Finally, impact is the degree to
Researchers need to be explicit regarding the which the individual believes she or he can influ
model they use to compose a construct that is mea ence organizational outcomes. These four cogni
sured at one level but theoretically specified at tions combine additively to form a single unitary
another level (Chan, 1998; Kozlowski & Klein, construct; lack of any single dimension will de
2000). The
appropriate compositional model for crease but not eliminate the overall degree of em
the empowerment climate construct used in this powerment experienced (Spreitzer, 1995).
study is the referent-shift consensus model (Chan, Spreitzer (1995) examined the validity of this
1998). The level of origin for empowerment climate conceptualization of psychological empowerment.
is the individual, but the construct itself refers to A second-order confirmatory factor analysis sup
the collective work environment. Thus, the referent ported the view of psychological empowerment as
of the construct is shifted from "I," representing a single overall construct composed of four distinct
psychological climate perceptions, to "we," repre subdimensions reflecting the four hypothesized
senting collective climate perceptions. We mea cognitions. Spreitzer also examined the relation
sured work-unit-level climate as the
empowerment ship of two antecedent personality traits, self-es
mean of work-unit members' responses on a mea teem and locus of control, with psychological
sure of collective empowerment climate. Use of empowerment. The small magnitude of the rela
mean
responses to
represent
a work-unit-level vari
tionship of these two personality traits with psy
able is justified when a high degree of consensus chological empowerment (in fact, the locus of con
among the perceptions of work-unit members is trol relationship did not reach statistical
demonstrated.
significance) provided evidence that, while person
ality traits may influence perceptions of psycholog
ical empowerment, they are distinctly different
HYPOTHESES constructs.
Empowerment climate and psychological em

Empowerment Climate and Psychological
powerment are conceptually distinct in a number
Empowerment of ways. Klein and colleagues (2001) encouraged
Psychological empowerment has been defined as researchers to be precise in defining group-level
an individual's experience of intrinsic motivation constructs because of the impact that subtle differ
that is based on cognitions about him- or herself in ences can have on the level at which constructs are
relation to his or her work role (Spreitzer, 1995). manifest. their framework, we can dis
Following
Conceptually, these cognitions are closely related tinguish between the two empowerment constructs
to the psychological states specified by Hackman in terms of referent, focus, and content. Empower
and Oldham (1980) and other theorists of intrinsic ment climate refers to a work environment, while
psychological empowerment refers to an individu team accountability dimension of empowerment

al's internal psychological state. Empowerment cli climate involves reliance on team authority to carry
mate has a relatively descriptive focus, while psy out a broad range of tasks, team training, and team
chological empowerment has amore subjective and accountability for work outcomes. These manage
evaluative focus, which is based on the match be rial practices should enhance individuals' feelings
tween an individual's values and the demands and of competence and impact in their organization
of his or her work tasks. Finally, in (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Liden & Tewksbury,
opportunities
terms of content, empowerment climate asks re 1995). Both empowerment climate and psycholog
to assess the meaning of organizational ical empowerment are conceptualized as unitary
spondents
structures and
practices related to information constructs composed additively from their under
sharing, boundaries, and team accountability, dimensions.
lying We therefore framed the follow
while psychological empowerment asks respon ing hypothesis in terms of the unitary empower
dents to report such psychological states as mean ment constructs rather than the underlying
ing, competence, self-determination, and impact. dimensions. Note also that, given the nature of the
The first task of this study was to show that these constructs, Hypothesis 2 is a cross-level hypothesis.
two conceptually distinct empowerment constructs
are in fact empirically Hypothesis 2. Empowerment climate and psy
distinct.
chological empowerment will be positively and
Hypothesis 1. Empowerment climate and psy related.
significantly
chological empowerment are empirically dis
tinct constructs.
Empowerment Climate and Work-Unit
An extensive has shown
literature that organiza
Performance
tional climate perceptions are related to individual
attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Glisson & James, Previous research has documented the positive
2002; Hofmann & Stetzer, 1996; Lawler, Hall, & between organizational climate as a
relationship
Oldham, 1974; Naumann & Bennett, 2000; Schnei general construct and organizational and subunit
der et al., 1980). The view taken by climate re performance outcomes (e.g., Lawler et al.,
1974;
searchers is that it is important to understand the Pritchard & Karasick,
1973; Schneider, 1985). How
shared meaning that employees ascribe to organi ever, little previous research is available regarding
zational characteristics because it is this subjective empowerment climate per se. The literatures on
that determines the feelings and be organizational design and work team effectiveness
understanding
haviors of
employees (James & Jones, 1974). In were used to help us form another hypothesis
keeping with this literature, we expected percep based on the constituent elements of the empower
tions of empowerment climate to be positively re ment climate construct:
information sharing, au
lated to individual-level perceptions of psycholog tonomy through boundaries, and team accountabil
ical empowerment. ity. For example, previous research has shown that
Examination of the specific dimensions of the access to accurate information is necessary for ef
two empowerment constructs provided strong the fective decision making in groups and organiza
oretical reasons to expect a positive relationship. tions (e.g., Galbraith, 1977; Gladstein, 1984). Work
For example, a clear vision and well-defined goals, units with better information should make better
roles, and define the "autonomy decisions, according to the "work smarter" logic
procedures
boundaries" dimension of empowerment frequently discussed in the literature on participa
through
climate. These practices help to define tion (e.g., Scully, Kirkpatrick, & Locke, 1995). Such
managerial
the boundaries within which one can exercise au processes should be associated with the informa
tonomous action and influence. They should there tion sharing dimension of empowerment climate.
fore be associated with greater feelings of self Clear goals, responsibilities, and procedures facili
determination and impact (Hackman & Oldham, tate effective teamwork, cohesion, coordination,
1980). The information-sharing dimension of em and conflict resolution in organizational work
climate is defined by broad sharing of groups (e.g., Campion, Medsker, & Higgs 1993; Gal
powerment
financial, operational, and
performance informa braith, 1977; Gladstein, 1984; Guzzo, Yost, Camp
tion. This practice should help individuals to better bell, & Shea, 1993). These practices should be as
understand the meaning of their work and develop sociated with the "autonomy through boundaries"
a sense of competence in performing their tasks, dimension of empowerment climate. Team respon
and it should make them feel better able to have an sibility and autonomy, along with careful selection
impact on their organization (Bandura, 1982; Fer and training of team members, is associated with
rante & Rousseau, 2001; Gist &Mitchell, 1992). The team potency and performance (e.g., Cummings,
1978; Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Guzzo et al., 1993). through which empowerment climate affects indi
These outcomes should also be associated with the vidual behaviors and attitudes. Thus,
team accountability dimension of empowerment
climate. In view of the findings from these several Hypothesis 5a. Psychological empowerment
different research areas, we will mediate the relationship between empow
expected empower
ment climate to be positively related to work-unit erment climate and individual performance.
performance. Thus, 5b. Psychological
Hypothesis empowerment
will mediate the relationship between empow
Hypothesis 3. Empowerment climate will be
erment climate and job satisfaction.
positively and significantly related to work
unit performance.
METHODS
The Role of Psychological Empowerment Sample and Procedures
A growing body of research supports the conten Individual-level data for this study were col
tion that psychological empowerment will be re lected from 375 employees in one division of a
lated to individual performance and satisfaction Fortune 100 manufacturer of high-technology of
(Liden et al., 2000; Spreitzer, 1995; Spreitzer et al., fice and printing equipment located in the north
1997; Thomas & Tymon, 1994). For example, Spre eastern United States. Three hundred one employ
itzer and her coauthors (1997) found that compe ees provided complete surveys (an 80 percent
tence and impact were most strongly related to response rate). The employees were electrical, me
managerial effectiveness, while meaning was the chanical, and systems engineers
design organized
best predictor of work satisfaction. Thomas and into 50 project teams involved in design engineer
Tymon (1994) found their measure of choice (con ing for a family of new products. Project teams were
ceptually related to self-determination in the Spre the primary work unit for the engineers, and the
itzer model) related to work effectiveness. Impact, teams were composed of mixes of the different
and choice were each related to types of engineers, as required com
meaningfulness, by the specific
job satisfaction. Thus, our tests of Hypotheses 4a ponents being engineered. All teams had been in
and 4b, which are stated below, were designed to place for at least one year and continued to meet at
replicate previous findings and are proposed here least once a week. The average project team had 6
as part of the larger multiple-level model members, and the teams ranged from 3 to 14 mem
being
tested in this study. Since findings for specific di bers. Respondents completed surveys that assessed
mensions of psychological empowerment have var their perceptions of empowerment climate, psy
ied across studies, we developed our hypotheses chological empowerment, and job satisfaction. Sur
for the overall construct. vey packets were distributed to respondents by
their project team managers. Each survey packet
Hypothesis 4a. Psychological empowerment included a cover letter the general pur
explaining
will be positively and significantly related to of the was
pose study and stating that participation
individual job performance. The letter also assured respondents that
voluntary.
4b. their information would remain confidential. Re
Hypothesis Psychological empowerment
will be positively and significantly related to spondents were instructed to complete the survey
individually and to use the preaddressed envelope
job satisfaction.
to mail the survey directly to one of the authors.
Empowerment theorists view psychological em Data on individual performance were collected
powerment as the mechanism through which con from the appropriate team manager
project during
textual factors influence individual attitudes and weekly staff meetings conducted by second-level
behaviors (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Liden & managers (that is, the managers of the project team
Tewksbury, 1995; Spreitzer, 1995, 1996; Thomas & managers). One of the authors administered the
Velthouse, 1990; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997). We performance measurement instrument to the
have specifically formulated our multilevel =
model project managers [n 50). Data on work-unit per
of empowerment as a means to empirically exam formance were collected from the appropriate
ine the relationship between an empowering cli second-level =
managers [n 16). We judged the
mate, the individual experience of empowerment, second-level managers to be the most appropriate
and individual and organizational outcomes. In source for work-unit performance data because
keeping with this theoretical view, we expected they had a broad organizational perspective by
psychological empowerment to be a mechanism which to evaluate team performance. Al
project
though they were not directly involved in manag Three items from this scale were inconsistent
ing any particular project team, they regularly re with the compositional model used in this study,
viewed project team performance information. All using the referent "I" (representing psychological
technical project teams within the organization climate) instead of "we" (representing collective
studied were tracked via a uniform performance climate). These items were therefore excluded from
objectives system, and the second-level managers all subsequent analyses. We
averaged responses to
were invited to consult this information when the remaining to form a single score [a =
27 items
forming their own judgments regarding project .97). Because empowerment climate is a work-unit
team level construct, individual scores were aggregated
performance.
data (including individual and work to yield a single score for each work unit. The
Complete
unit performance data provided by project team Cronbach alpha based on these aggregated scores
managers and second-level managers) were avail was .98. Analysis of the dimensional properties
able for 48 of the 50 teams, leaving a final sample of and aggregation properties of the empowerment cli
285 employees with complete individual and mate instrument are reported in the results section.
work-unit-level data. The average age of the mem Psychological empowerment Spreitzer's (1995)
= scale was
bers of the final sample was 39.6 years (s.d. 14.3), 12-item psychological empowerment
and these respondents had been employed by the used to measure individual perceptions of empow
for an average of 14.8 years = erment. The
organization (s.d. rating scale ranged from 1, "strongly
10.7). Seventy-seven percent of the sample mem disagree," to 7, "strongly agree." The measure is
bers were male; 80.4 percent were white; 1.4 per composed of four subscales designed to reflect
cent were African-American; 3.5 percent were His Thomas and Velthouse's (1990) definition of em
panic; and 5.9 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander. powerment. An example item from each subscale is
Nine percent of the respondents in the final sample "The work I do is very important to me" (meaning);
indicated high school completion or some college "I am confident about my ability to do my job"
as their highest level of educational achievement; (competence); "I have significant autonomy in de
21 percent indicated attainment of an associate's termining how I do my job" (self-determination);
degree; 43.6 percent, a bachelor's degree; 24.4 per and "My impact on what happens in my depart
cent, a master's degree; and 2 percent, a Ph.D. ment is large" (impact). Following Spreitzer (1995,
1996), we averaged scores from the four subscales
to form a single empowerment score for each re
Measures =
spondent [a .88).
Empowerment climate. We assessed empower Work-unit performance. The team performance
ment climate using an instrument developed by instrument, which was developed specifically for
Blanchard and his
colleagues (Blanchard et al., this study, was based on discussions with a set of
1995; Randolph, 1995) to measure organizational managers from a division of the company not par
aspects of empowerment. The measure consists of ticipating in the study. One of the authors met with
30 items designed to reflect three dimensions: in a group of three managers who ranged in rank from
formation sharing, autonomy through boundaries, second-level manager to vice president for quality
and team responsibility and accountability. Exam and who had from 10 to 25 years of experience with
items are as follows: "People in our organiza the company. Discussion among the managers pro
ple
tion get information about the organization's per duced quality, cost, and time to delivery (schedule)
formance in a timely fashion" and "We get as criteria that could be used to evaluate the per
information into the hands of frontline so formance of all work units.
Although a uniform
people
can make decisions" for informa tracking system was in place at this
they responsible performance
we chose to use to
tion sharing; "We create structures and procedures company, managerial judgments
that encourage and expect people to take initiative measure performance for a number of reasons.
in improving organizational performance" and "We First, the goals for projects were often very specific
create new structures, and practices that and highly technical, so direct comparison of work
policies
help people use their knowledge and motivation" units was not possible. In addition, the true com
for autonomy through boundaries; and "We use plexity or difficulty of a project might not become
teams as the focal point of responsibility and ac clear until the project has been worked upon for
in our organization" and "We work some time. Such differences in task difficulty can
countability
hard in our organization to develop effective, self obscure true
performance differences. Finally,
directed teams" for team responsibility and ac project goals were set by the second-level manag
All items in the measure were rated ers, who might vary in the extent to which they
countability.
from 1, "almost never," to 7, "almost used goals as realistic targets or as "stretch" objec
always."
tives. On of our discussion

the basis with the man We compared the fit of a hypothesized model in
agers, we felt that the use of managerial judgment which separate second-order factors represented
was the best way to render performance ratings that the two empowerment constructs to a model in
would be comparable across work units. which a single second-order factor represented
Eight items reflecting quality, cost, schedule, and both constructs.
overall performance and again rated 1, "strongly In this study the level of measurement (individ
disagree," to 7, "strongly agree" were developed ual) differed from the level of analysis (work unit)
The managers reviewed the instrument to ensure for the empowerment climate construct (Rousseau,
content validity. Two example items are "This 1985). It was therefore necessary to establish the
team is meeting its primary quality objective(s)" viability of empowerment climate as a work-unit
and "Overall, this team performs effectively." Each level construct.
Doing so required assessing both
project team was rated by the second-level manag within-group agreement and between-groups vari
ers responsible for the work unit. The eight items ability (Hofmann, 1997; Hofmann & Stetzer, 1996;
were to form a single measure
averaged of project Klein et al., 1994). We used an analysis of variance
team performance = to examine variation in
[a .82). (ANOVA) between-groups
Individual performance and satisfaction. We empowerment climate perceptions and computed
also developed a set of performance questions for the intraclass correlation coefficient referred to as
this research, basing these on criteria used by the ICC(l) (Bliese, 2000; James, 1982; Shrout & Fleiss,
company for individual evaluation and feedback. 1979) as an index of within-group agreement.
Five items reflecting an individual's level of tech Hypothesis 2 and Hypotheses 5a and 5b are
nical skills, productivity, quality of work, updating cross-level hypotheses in that
they involve rela
of skills, and personal drive were agreed upon tionships between empowerment climate at the
through discussion with the manager for training work-unit level and psychological empowerment,
and development at the division. A six-point rating individual performance, and job satisfaction at the
scale (1, "almost never demonstrates this aspect of individual level of analysis. Traditional ap
performance," to 6, "almost always demonstrates proaches to cross-level models in the organiza
this aspect of performance") was used to be consis tional sciences have been to either disaggregate
tent with existing performance feedback instru data, assigning group-level variables to individuals,
ments used in the company. We asked several first or to aggregate individual data to the group level.
level managers from another division to suggest Each of these options has potential empirical and
additions, deletions, or changes to the items. All of conceptual weaknesses. Disaggregation provides
the managers agreed that the final version of the biased estimates of standard errors; aggregation to
items was meaningful for the evaluation of individ the group level weakens statistical power, discards
ual employees. Two example items from the instru meaningful individual-level variance, and perhaps
ment are "Technical skills: Demonstrates a solid leads to inappropriate inferences (Bryk & Rauden
technical understanding in his/her field and effec bush, 1992; Hofmann, 1997; Klein et al., 1994).
tively applies technical skills and abilities to a va We used hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to
riety of work situations; is able to solve problems test these hypotheses because it is an appropriate
by using appropriate analytical approaches and approach for testing cross-level models. HLM al
tools" and "Productivity: Demonstrates efficiency lows an analyst to explicitly model both individu
in his/her work processes; effectively uses tools to al- and group-level variance in individual out
improve productivity; uses resources wisely; meets comes. The intercept and slope from the level 1, or
deadlines." The appropriate work-unit managers within-group, analysis serve as the dependent vari
rated each work-unit member using this instru ables in the level 2, or between-groups, analysis. A
ment. We averaged the five items to yield a single significant parameter estimate (y10) for the level 1
score for each individual = an
[a .90). Individual job predictor indicates individual-level effect, and a
satisfaction was assessed using the three-item job significant parameterestimate (y01) for the level 2
satisfaction scale from Seashore, Lawler, Mirvis, predictor 1
of the levelintercepts indicates a group
and Cammann (1983). Reliability for the scale in level effect (Hofmann, 1997; Bryk & Raudenbush,
this
sample
was .83. 1992). HLM was the most appropriate approach
because it allowed use of individual predictors at
the individual level and group predictors at the
Analyses level without the of the
group shortcomings aggre
We used confirmatory factor analysis to establish gation or disaggregation approaches.
the empirical distinctiveness of the empowerment Correlations were an appropriate test for Hypoth
climate and psychological empowerment scales. eses 3, 4a, and 4b because they propose relation
ships at single levels of analysis 3, the (meaning, competence, self-determination, or im

(Hypothesis
work-unit level; Hypotheses 4a and 4b, the individ pact). The first-order constructs were in turn spec
ual level). However, the work-unit performance rat ified to load only onto their respective second
ings exhibited because 16 sec order constructs. The correlation between the
nonindependence
ond-level managers provided the 48 ratings. We empowerment climate and psychological empow
used HLM to control for the rater effect and thus erment second-order constructs was esti
freely
obtain an accurate estimation of the relationship mated.
between empowerment climate and work-unit per The fit that was obtained for the model was ac
formance. = = =
ceptable (RMSEA .07, SRMR .07, CFI .98),
especially in light of the stringent assumption of
zero cross-loadings for each item. All items loaded
RESULTS
significantly onto their first-order constructs, and
Tests of Hypotheses l-4b all first-order constructs loaded onto
significantly
1. Figure 2 presents the results of a their respective second-order constructs. The cor
Hypothesis
factor analysis in which relation between the second-order empowerment
confirmatory empower
ment climate and psychological climate and psychological empowerment con
empowerment =
were modeled as two distinct second-order con structs was significant (r .52, p < .01) but not so
structs. Each of the 27 items from the empower large as to suggest that the constructs were not
ment climate scale was to "load" only distinct.
specified
onto its expected first-order construct (information We specified an alternative confirmatory factor
boundaries, or team re analysis model to directly test the empirical dis
sharing, autonomy through
sponsibility), and each of the 12 items from the tinctness of the two second-order empowerment
empowerment scale was specified to constructs. In this nested alternative model, we
psychological
load only onto its expected first-order construct specified a single second-order factor by setting the
FIGURE 2
Results of Second-Order Confirmatory Factor Analysis41
= = = = = .98. Standardized are presented.

indexes: x2, 1,597, df 694, RMSEA .07, SRMR .07, CFI parameter estimates Observed
variables and are omitted for clarity.
paths
correlation between empowerment climate and tion coefficient, which indicates the proportion of
psychological empowerment equal to one. The between-groups variance relative to the total vari
change in chi-square test (A*2 = 150.3,Ad/=l,p< ance exhibited by a variable (Bryk & Raudenbush,
.01) showed that the two-factor model provided a 1992). This statistic represents the maximum
significantly better fit to the observed data, provid amount of variance in a level 1 variable that could
ing support for Hypothesis 1. potentially be explained by a level 2 predictor vari
Aggregation of empowerment climate data. To able. Our calculation showed that 20 percent of the
assess the viability of aggregating individual-level variance in psychological empowerment existed
data to the work-unit level, it was necessary to between work units in this sample. Finally, we
demonstrate both between-units variability and used an intercepts-as-outcome model with empow
within-unit agreement (Hofmann, 1997; Hofmann erment climate as the level 2 predictor and psycho
& Stetzer, 1996; Klein et al., 1994; Naumann & logical empowerment as the level 1 outcome to test
Bennett, 2000). We assessed between-groups vari Hypothesis 2. The results indicated a significant,
ance in the work-unit-level empowerment climate positive relationship between empowerment cli
construct using a one-way of variance. The mate and psychological = t
analysis empowerment (y01 .49;
=
ANOVA indicated significant between-groups vari [46] 4.17, p < .01). The amount of variance
ance in empowerment climate = climate can be calcu
(F[47, 237] 3.20, explained by empowerment
< = The calculated from the lated the variance for
p .01, T]2 .38). ICC(l) by comparing component
ANOVA was .28. This value is at the high end of psychological empowerment in a model without
what can be expected in applied research settings empowerment climate to one in which empower
(Bliese, 2000). Together, these statistics show ac ment climate is included. This reduction in vari
ceptable levels of within-group agreement and be ance calculation indicated that empowerment cli
tween-groups variability in empowerment climate mate explained 62 percent of the between-groups
as a work-unit-level variable. variance in psychological empowerment. Since 20
Hypothesis 2. The next set of analyses was con percent of the variance in psychological empower
ducted to test Hypothesis 2, a cross-level hypothe ment existed between groups, these results indi
sis, which states that empowerment climate, a level cated that empowerment climate explained 12.4
2 variable, will be positively related to psycholog percent of the total variance in psychological em
ical empowerment, a level 1 variable. Since a powerment. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported.
group-level variable can explain only differences Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 3 predicts a positive
between groups, the first task of a hierarchical anal relationship between empowerment climate and
ysis is to show that significant between-groups work-unit performance. Examination of the top half
differences exist for the dependent variables of in of Table 1 provides support for this work-unit-level
=
terest (Hofmann, 1997). Thus, we ran a null hierar hypothesis [r .33, p < .05). Work units that ex
chical model is, a model
(that with no level 2 perienced a more empowered climate had higher
explanatory variable) with psychological empower performance as rated by the second-level managers.
ment as the level 1 dependent variable. The results Because the 48 work-unit performance ratings
provided evidence of significant between-groups were provided by 16 second-level managers, they
variance in psychological = exhibited Hierarchical linear
empowerment (t00 .16, nonindependence.
= < and further can be used to control for the lack of
df= 47, x2 110.32, p .01) justified modeling
cross-level analyses. The null model also provided independence in the dependent variable caused by
information for computing the intraclass c?rrela nesting within raters (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992).
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations9
Variables Mean s.d. Mean s.d.
1. Psychological empowerment 5.45 0.88

.23 .73** .60** .25 5.41 0.58
2. Individual performance 4.64 0.92 .15* .07 .08 .12 4.64 0.65
3. Job satisfaction 5.79 1.21 .54**
.11 .69** .35* 5.72 0.73
4. Empowerment climate 3.89 1.00 .03 .47** .52** .33* 3.82 0.66
5. Work-unit performance 5.89 0.66
a =
Work-unit-level means, standard deviations, and correlations [n 48) are above the individual-level means, standard
diagonal;
= are below
deviations, and correlations [n 285) the diagonal. Team performance data were collected at the group level of analysis only.
< .05
*p
< .01
**p
Treating raters as a second-level effect allows an variance existed in the dependent variables of in
analyst to more accurately estimate the relationship terest. Two separate null hierarchical models pro
between first-level variables, in this case the rela vided evidence of significant between-groups vari
climate and work ance for individual =
tionship between empowerment performance (t00 .28, df- 47,
unit performance. Consistent with the correlational = < and satisfaction =
X2 165.61, p .01) job (t00 .20,
results reported above, results from the hierarchical = = < Calculation of the
df 47, x2 89.35, p .01).
linear model indicated a significant relationship interclass correlation coefficient showed that 32
between empowerment climate and work-unit per percent of the variance in individual performance
= =
formance (y01 .48; t [15] 3.15, p < .01). The and 13 percent of the variance in job satisfaction
calculation for reduction in variance showed that existed between groups in this sample.
empowerment climate explained 22 percent of the In order to test the direct relationship between
variance in work-unit performance when rater ef empowerment climate and the two outcome vari
fects were controlled. ables, we ran two separate intercepts-as-outcomes
Hypotheses 4a and 4b. Hypothesis 4a and 4b models with empowerment climate as a level 2
respectively predict a positive relationship be predictor and individual performance and job sat
tween empowerment and individual isfaction as the level 1 outcomes, respectively. The
psychological
and job satisfaction. The correlations results using individual performance failed to
performance
= =
in the bottom half of Table 2 support this individ reach significance (y01 .08; t[46] 0.48, n.s.),
ual-level empowerment indicating no support for a direct relationship be
hypothesis. Psychological
was significantly and positively related to individ tween empowerment climate and individual job
=
ual performance (r .15, p < .05) and job satisfac performance. The results for job satisfaction were
= =
tion (r = .54, p < .01). significant (y01 .70; t [46] 5.75, p < .01), indi
cating that empowerment climate was positively
and significantly related to job satisfaction. The
Hypotheses 5a and 5b
computation based on the reduction in unex
The next set of analyses were conducted to test plained variance in this model relative to the null
5a and 5b, two cross-level mediation model showed that empowerment climate ex
Hypotheses
hypotheses stating that psychological empower plained 98 percent of the between-groups variance
ment (a level 1 variable) will mediate the effects of in job satisfaction. Since 13 percent of the variance
empowerment climate (a level 2 variable) on indi in job satisfaction existed between groups, these
vidual and satisfaction (level 1 results indicated that empowerment climate ex
performance job
variables). It is necessary to meet three precondi plained 12.7 percent of the total variance in job
tions to support a mediation hypothesis (Baron & satisfaction.
Kenny 1986; see Hofmann and Stetzer [1996] for an The second
precondition for mediation was a
example using a two-level model). One must estab positive relationship between empowerment cli
lish significant relationships between the indepen mate and psychological empowerment. Recall that
dent variable and the dependent variable, between this relationship was our Hypothesis 2 and that
the independent variable and the mediating vari evidence of a significant, positive relationship be
able, and between the mediating variable and the tween these two empowerment constructs was pro
dependent variable. Here, empowerment climate vided there. The third precondition for mediation
had to be positively related to individual perfor was the presence of positive relationships between
mance and job satisfaction; empowerment climate psychological empowerment and both individual
had to be positively related to psychological em performance and job satisfaction. These two rela
and empowerment had tionships were supported in our tests of Hypothe
powerment; psychological
to be positively related to individual performance ses 4a and 4b. Thus, Baron and Kenny's (1986)
Given these three three preconditions for mediation were met for job
and job satisfaction. conditions,
support for the mediation hypotheses would be satisfaction (Hypothesis 5b) but not for individual
provided if the relationship between empowerment performance (Hypothesis 5a).
climate and individual performance or job satisfac To test for the mediation effect specified in Hy
tion were no longer significant when pothesis 5b, we used a random-intercepts hierar
psychological
was included in the model. chical model with psychological empowerment as
empowerment
The first precondition for mediation, the direct a level 1 predictor and job satisfaction as a level 1
relationship between empowerment climate and dependent variable. Examination of the variance
(1) individual performance and (2) job satisfaction component this model
from indicated that the
is itself a cross-level relationship. We therefore first between-groups variance in job satisfaction failed
needed to show that systematic between-groups to reach significance when psychological empow
erment was used as a level 1 predictor = self. Our factor analysis showed that
(r00 .05, x2 confirmatory
=
[47] 50.52, n.s.). Further analysis using the level the dimensions of empowerment climate loaded
2 variable was not justified (Hofmann, 1997). That onto a single higher-order factor that was distinct
is, after psychological empowerment was entered from psychological empowerment. The high level
as a level 1 explanatory variable, empowerment of within-group agreement in employee percep
climate was no longer a significant predictor of job tions of empowerment climate suggests that these
satisfaction because there was not a significant perceptions are important understandings that
amount of
between-groups variance to be ex work-unit members share concerning organiza
plained. Thus, psychological empowerment fully tional structures,
policies, and practices related to
mediated the significant effect of empowerment cli empowerment. The use of mean work-unit percep
mate on job satisfaction. tions is a strength of the climate approach because
Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger (1998: 260) noted that mean ratings tend to cancel out both random vari
step 1, in the present case establishing a direct ance in individual and systematic dif
responding
relationship between empowerment climate and ferences that may contaminate individual percep
individual performance, is not required to demon tions, such as an individual's background, previous
strate mediation. Only steps 2 and 3 are essential. experiences, and personality (James, James, &
Since empowerment climate is significantly related Ashe, 1990). Thus, aggregate perceptions are likely
to psychological empowerment and psychological to have yielded a more accurate representation of
empowerment is significantly related to individual work-unit context, and they allowed us to examine
job performance, our results demonstrate what relationships specified at a level of analysis above
might best be termed an indirect relationship be the individual, something rarely done in the em
tween empowerment climate and job performance powerment literature. We found a positive relation
mediated by psychological empowerment. ship between empowerment climate and work-unit
performance, as hypothesized. We also found em
powerment climate positively related to between
DISCUSSION
group differences in psychological empowerment,
Most authors view the process of empowerment as hypothesized. These findings provide initial ev
as a change in employees' intrinsic motivation re idence for the construct validity of empowerment
sulting from changes in organizational structures, climate at the work-unit level of analysis and jus
policies, and practices. Yet, to date, this fundamen tify future research with the construct.
tal insight into the multiple-level nature of empow Empowerment climate explained 22 percent of
erment has not been made
theoretically explicit the variance in work-unit performance in this
and empirically tested. The current work is the first study. The specific dimensions of the empower
empirical study we are aware of to integrate the ment climate scale suggest a number of processes,
macro and micro views of empowerment found in decision work-unit coordina
including quality,
the literature. To accomplish this integration, we tion, and work-unit potency, that could account for
developed empowerment climate as a work-unit the explained variance. Examination of each pro
level construct conceptualized as employee per cess related to work-unit performance was beyond
ceptions of the managerial practices associated the scope of the current study but would be justi
with empowerment. Our
results support the multi fied in future research by the moderately strong
ple-level conceptualization implicit in the litera results reported here. An even finer-grained under
ture and suggest that empowerment climate must standing of work-unit performance could be gained
be considered an important aspect of an organiza by examining the unique effects of each dimension
tion's effort to foster employees' experiences of of empowerment climate on each process variable
psychological empowerment. We have shown that or on other work-unit outcomes such as coopera
work-unit empowerment climate is positively re tion and cohesiveness. However, we found the av
lated to work-unit performance outcomes. Our re erage intercorrelation among the three dimensions
sults also indicate that psychological empower of empowerment climate to be quite high (average
ment mediates the effects of empowerment climate r = .76). Improvement in the discriminant validity
on job satisfaction and is a link in an indirect rela among the dimensions of empowerment climate
tionship between empowerment climate and job will be necessary before such an examination will
performance. Our findings have important impli be possible.
cations for advancing empowerment theory and In the current study, 20 percent of the variance in
practice. psychological empowerment was manifest between
Perhaps our most important findings concern the groups. This finding necessarily that there
implies
validity of the empowerment climate construct it was a significant degree of within-group clustering
and could be to justify

used the aggregation of in future research. Itmay be that proactive people
psychological empowerment to the team level. essentially empower themselves, making their own
Thus, it is important to note that our decision to choices, competence,
independent establishing
treat psychological empowerment as an individual and having an impact of contextual in
regardless
level variable in this study was based on theoreti fluences or situational constraints.
cal, conceptual, and measurement considerations. The direct between
relationship empowerment
Psychological empowerment has been defined and climate and individual fa?ed to
job performance
conceptualized in previous
literature as an individ reach significance in our study, although there was
ual-level psychological state. The items measuring evidence of an indirect link mediated by psycho
psychological empowerment are consistent with
logical empowerment. The magnitude of the rela
this conceptualization in that they focus on the
tionship between empowerment climate and psy
individual and his or her subjective experience of
chological empowerment is strong, so it appears
empowerment. On a theoretical level, we viewed
that the weak link in the path is the small yet
the within-group clustering of psychological em
significant relationship between psychological em
powerment as an outcome of the higher-level em
powerment and individual performance. Previous
powerment climate factor, a factor by
experienced research has also shown a small but significant,
all of the members of a work unit. Thus, we treated
positive correlation between psychological em
within-group agreement as a necessary but not suf
ficient condition for the aggregation of a variable to powerment and individual performance (e.g., Liden
a higher level. et al, 2000; Spreitzer et al., 1997). From a theoret
Work-unit climate 62 ical point of view, psychological empowerment

empowerment explained
of the between-groups variance in psycho should be seen as a theory of intrinsic motivation
percent
logical empowerment. This finding shows that it is (Spreitzer, 1995), not as a comprehensive theory of
for interested in empowerment work performance. Many scholars have argued that
important managers
to understand the way the or a comprehensive model of work performance must
employees perceive
ganizational structures and practices identified by include not only motivation, but also factors re
the empowerment climate dimensions?informa lated to ability and opportunity (e.g., Blumberg &
tion sharing, clear boundaries, and team account Pringle, 1982). Thus, we would expect the impact
ability?because these perceptions are strongly of empowerment on individual work performance
related to the average level of psychological em to be when these other factors are
stronger only
powerment reported by work-unit members. taken into account.
The finding that 20 percent of the variance in
empowerment was manifest between
psychological
groups in this study means that 80 percent was
can Limitations
within-group variance that only be explained
by individual-level variables. This finding is con Our study identified a number of limitations in
sistent with previous research that has shown a et al.,
the empowerment climate scale (Blanchard
number of individual-level related to psy
variables We have already men
1995) as currently written.
chological empowerment, including job character tioned poor discriminant validity among the di
istics, role ambiguity, sociopolitical support, and our ability
mensions, which limited to examine
self-esteem (Kraimer et al., 1999; Liden et al., 2000; more detailed between
our focus was on the re relationships empowerment
Spreitzer, 1996). Because climate and Future
climate and psy psychological empowerment.
lationship between empowerment research should develop and test new items in or
chological empowerment, inclusion of the full set
der to refine the level of discriminant validity
of individual-level variables that we might expect
among these dimensions. Another issue is the
to influence empowerment was be
psychological cli
wording of three items from the empowerment
yond the scope of this study. However, inclusion of
mate scale; their use of "I" as their referent was
these individual-level variables is an important di
and could increase the inconsistent with our research approach. We chose
rection for future research
and explanatory of our multiple to drop the three inconsistent items from the scale,
precision power
level model. to Spreitzer but they could be included in future research if
According (1995: 1444),
the overall of psychological they were rewritten with the referent "we" to em
experience empower
ment reflects an active, rather than a passive, ori phasize nature of empowerment
the collective cli
entation to one's work role. Thus, mate perceptions. Finally, we note that the label for
proactive per
(Crant, 2000) would appear to be one one of the dimensions of empowerment climate,
sonality
individual difference variable to explore "autonomy through boundaries," is somewhat con
promising
2004 Seibert, Silver, and Randolph 345
fusing since it conflates an organizational practice Future Research
(setting clear boundaries) with the presumed indi

Although empowerment climate was strongly re
vidual reaction to those (an individu
boundaries
lated to psychological empowerment in this study,
al's sense of autonomy). The scale itself does not
a significant amount of between-groups variance
suffer from this problem as the items focus on man
remains to be explained. Future research might
agerial structures and practices and not on individ to expand
seek the conceptualization of empower
ual reactions. An updated version of the scale ment in this study
climate used by identifying
might rename this dimension to better reflect the structures
other managerial and practices that
actual content. be into the construct. Other
might incorporated
A second limitation of the current research is the work-unit variables not directly associated with
cross-sectional design of the study, since a cross such as leadership, work-unit struc
empowerment,
sectional design does not allow for strict causal ture, and work-unit also be used
technology, might
conclusions. For example, individuals with higher to explain the remaining variance
between-groups
levels of psychological empowerment might per in psychological An
empowerment. important
ceive a work-unit climate to be more empowering for future research is whether these work
question
because they tend to see more opportunities for unit-level variables have a direct effect on psycho
constructive action in all work situations. Even re logical empowerment, or a mediated effect through
ciprocal causation is possible. There could be a their relationship with empowerment climate per
tendency for a work unit initially high on empow ceptions.
erment climate to attract, select, and retain individ For example, it is likely that a work unit's man
uals who have high levels of psychological ager has an important influence on employees' per
empow
erment, who in turn report even higher levels of ceptions of empowerment climate. Some promising
climate in the work unit. Future re work has recently been conducted by Arnold, Arad,
empowerment
search could use a longitudinal research design to Rhoades, and Drasgow (2000); they reported on the
conclusions about the causal direction development of an instrument specifically de
strengthen
between climate and psychological signed to assess empowering leader behavior. Their
empowerment
results show
that empowering leader behavior par
empowerment.
A third limitation of the current is the tially overlaps with previously identified leader
approach
nature of empowerment climate percep ship constructs but cannot be entirely accounted
subjective
tions. Problems for by these earlier measures. Although Arnold and
with the subjectivity of perceptions
colleagues noted that they expect their measure to
have been raised before, for example in the climate
be directly related to psychological empowerment,
(e.g., Guion, 1973) and
job design (e.g., Roberts & we would expect empowering leader behavior to be
Glick, 1981) literatures. These controversies have
a work-unit-level variable related to work-unit em
generally been resolved in favor of the value of
powerment climate and only indirectly related to
perceptions as useful and veridical descriptions of
work-unit performance and individual psychologi
organizational or job characteristics (e.g., James & cal empowerment.
Jones, 1974; Reichers & Schneider, 1990; Schnei
Future research
could also explore the extent to
der, 1985; Taber & Taylor, 1990). Still, the inclu
sion of more direct or objective measures of the
which variables such as leadership style or culture
may act as boundary conditions for our model. For
structural characteristics of an organization or work
example, a work unit may be empowered because it
unit would enhance the validity of the conclusions
has adequate information, clear goals, and estab
drawn in this study. These measures could be in the
lished accountability, but the individuals
sought in archival or documentary records of a unit may not feel psychologically empowered be
company, collected from interviews with higher cause the unit manager reserves control for him- or
level managers, or recorded by trained research herself. Certain national cultures may also be more
observers. Such data would allow researchers to or less likely to be the settings for the relationships
assess the effects of specific structures and policies found here. For example, individuals from a cul
on empowerment climate perceptions and psycho ture in which distance" or
"power uncertainty
logical empowerment. Objective data would also avoidance is high may react to a highly empower
to establish the causal direction of the mod of stress and withdrawal
help ing climate with feelings
eled effects, since
the perceptions of lower-level rather than with of a sense of meaning,
feelings
employees are unlikely to have much immediate self-determination, and impact. Fu
competence,
effect on the objective structures and policies de ture research could the extent to which
explore
termined at higher levels of an organization. these and other contextual variables establish the
boundaries in which the relationships reported when teams were

charged with the primary respon
here are likely to be observed. sibility for developing solutions to company-wide
A third direction for future research would be to budgetary constraints, including work process re
view empowerment climate as the context in which design. As these examples make clear, there are a
other processes take place. Future research might great number of specific practices that managers
elaborate upon this contextual view by examining can use to shape employees' empowerment climate
the role empowerment climate might play in mod perceptions. However, no single practice will be
erating the effects of individual-level variables on or will have the same effect
appropriate necessarily
psychological empowerment. A number of interest in every work context. This observation highlights
ing questions arise from this perspective. For ex the value of using empowerment climate percep
ample, is self-esteem a more important predictor of tions as a diagnostic tool for understanding the way
psychological empowerment in organizations with affect employees'
specific practices understanding
low-empowerment climates because individual of their organizations.
differences act as a substitute for climate factors? often face the task of motivating
Managers large
Or does a high-empowerment climate enhance the numbers of employees The climate
simultaneously.
effects of self-esteem on psychological empower the efficiency of thinking
perspective emphasizes
ment because it legitimizes individual initiative? about motivation and in
employee performance
Finally, future research could seek to examine terms of the context in which work
employees
climate at the organizational level of 1985). This study provides
empowerment (Schneider, support for
analysis. Empowerment efforts are often
organiza the notion that empowerment should be viewed as
tion-wide, and the overarching structures and pol a multiple-level and can be considered
process
icies of an organization may provide the relatively both an effective and efficient to em
approach
distal context in which employee empowerment motivation and performance.
ployee
climate perceptions are formed. Our current find
ings show
significant variance in work-unit-level
empowerment climate that would need to be mod
eled in such an organization-level it REFERENCES
study. Thus,
seems that at a minimum an organization-level Abrahamson, E. 1996. Management fashion. Academy of
study would need to examine variance at the or Management Review, 21: 254-285.
ganizational and work-unit levels

simultaneously. Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A. & Drasgow, F. 2000.
The focus on empowerment climate is a particu The The
Empowering Leadership Questionnaire:
lar strength of this study from an applied point of construction and validation of a new scale for mea
view. The relationship of empowerment climate to
suring leader behaviors. Journal of Organizational
important work-unit and individual outcomes pro Behavior, 21: 249-269.
vides initial justification for its use as a diagnostic
Bandura, A. 1982. mechanism in human
Self-efficacy
instrument by managers. Because the instrument American 37: 122-147.
agency. Psychologist,
refers to managerial structures and practices, it can
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-medi
be used to provide some guidance regarding the
ator variable distinction in social psychological re
kinds of actions managers might take to enhance
search: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consid
empowerment perceptions (e.g., Blanchard, Carlos, erations. and Social
Journal of Personality
& Randolph, 1999).
Psychology, 51: 1173-1182.
Practitioners have provided numerous examples
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. 1985. Leaders. New York:
of specific policies and programs linked to the di
Harper & Row.
mensions of empowerment climate measured in
our study. For example, in one manufacturing com Blanchard, K. H., Carlos, J. P., &
Randolph, W. A. 1995.
information the form of training

took The barometer and action Es
pany sharing empowerment plan.
new employees to read and understand the compa condido, CA: Blanchard Training and Development.
ny's income statement and balance sheet. In an K. H., & Randolph, W. A. 1999.
Blanchard, Carlos, J. P.,
other company, customer service employees were The 3 keys to empowerment. San Francisco: Berrett
given direct access to information about their re Koehler Publishers.
sponse times to customer inquires. In one utility
Bliese, P. D. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-inde
company, autonomy through boundaries was prac for data ag
pendence, and reliability: Implications
ticed by translating cost-saving goals to the lowest and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J.
gregation
feasible levels in the organization, often the indi Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel and
theory, research,
vidual. Team responsibility and accountability methods in organizations: 349-381. San Francisco:
were implemented in a financial services company Jossey-Bass.
Block, P. 1987. The empowered manager: Positive po Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R,

Campbell, R. J., & Shea, G. P.
litical skills at work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1993. Potency in groups: Articulating a construct.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 32: 87-106.
Blumberg, M., & Pringle, C. D. 1982. The missing oppor
tunity in organizational research: Some implications Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. 1980. Work redesign.
for a theory of work performance. Academy of Man Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
agement Review, 7: 560-570.
Hofmann, D. A. 1997. An overview of the and
logic
A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. 1992. Hierarchical rationale of hierarchical linear models.
Bryk, Journal of
linear models: Applications and data analysis 23: 723-744.
Management,
methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hofmann, D. A. & Stetzer, A. 1996. A cross-level inves
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. 1993.
tigation of factors influencing unsafe behaviors and
Relations between work group characteristics and accidents. Personnel 49: 307-339.
Psychology,
effectiveness: Implications for designing effective
work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46: 823-850. James, L. R. 1982. Aggregation bias in estimates of per
ceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology,
Chan, D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in 67: 219-229.
the same content domain at different levels of anal
L. R., L. A., & Ashe, D. K. 1990. The mean
ysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of James, James,
Applied Psychology, 83: 234- 246. ing of organizations: The role of cognitions and val
ues. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate
Conger, J. A., & R. N. 1988. The
Kanungo, empowerment and culture: 40-84. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy
13: 471-482. James, L. R., & Jones, A. P. 1974. climate:
of Management Review, Organizational
A review of theory and research. Psychological Bul
Crant, J. M. 2000. Proactive behavior in organizations.
letin, 81: 1096-1112.
Journal of Management, 26: 435-462.
James, L. R., Joyce, W. F., & Slocum, J. W.. 1988. Com
Cummings, T. G. 1978. Self-regulating work groups: A ment: Organizations do not cognize. Academy of
socio-technical synthesis. Academy of Manage
Management Review, 13: 129-132.
ment Review, 3: 625-634.
Johnston, H. R. 1976. A new of source

H. & conceptualization
Downey, K., Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J. W. 1975.
of organizational climate. Administrative Science
Congruence between individual needs, organiza
Quarterly, 21: 95-103.
tional climate, job satisfaction and performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 18: 149-155. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1978. The social psychology of
1977. organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Drexler, J. A. Organizational climate: Its homoge
neity within organizations. Journal of Applied Psy Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., &
B?iger, N. 1998. Data
chology, 62: 38-42.

analysis in social psychology. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T.
Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social
Ferrante, C. J., & Rousseau, D. M. 2001. Bringing open
book management into the academic psychology (4th ed.): 233-265. New York: McGraw
line of sight
the firm's financial Hill.
Sharing information with work
ers. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends B. & Rosen, B. 1999.
Kirkman, L., Beyond self-manage
in behavior, vol. 8: Employee ver ment: Antecedents and of team em
organizational consequences
sus owner issues in 97-116. New 42:
organizations: powerment. Academy of Management Journal,
York: Wiley. 58-74.
Galbraith, J. R. 1977. Organizational design. Reading, Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., Smith, D. B., & Sorra, J. S. 2001.
MA: Is everyone in agreement?
Addison-Wesley. An exploration of within
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. 1992. A theo group agreement in employee perceptions of the
Self-efficacy:
retical analysis of its determinants and malleability. work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology,
17:183-211. 86: 3-16.
Academy of Management Review,
Gladstein, D. 1984. Groups in context: A model of task Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. 1994. Levels issues
group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quar in theory development, data collection, and analysis.
terly,
29: 499-517. Academy of Management Review, 19: 195-229.
Glisson, C, & James, L. R. 2002. The cross-level effects of Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Doherty, M. L. 1989. Integration of
culture and climate in human service teams. Journal climate and leadership: Examination of a neglected
of Organizational Behavior, 23: 767-794. issue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 546-553.
Guion, R. M. 1973. A note on

organizational climate. Kozlowski, S. W. J. & Klein, K. J. 2000. A multilevel
Organizational Behavior and Human to and research in
Perfor approach theory organizations:
mance, 9: 120-125. contextual, and In
temporal, emergent processes.
K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel Rentsch, J. R. 1990. Climate and culture: Interaction and
theory, research, and methods in organizations: qualitative differences in organizational meanings.
3-90. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 668-681.
Kraimer, M. L., Seibert, S. E., & Liden, R. C. 1999. Psy Roberts, K. H., & Glick, W. 1981. The job characteristics
chological empowerment as a multidimensional approach to job design: A critical review. Journal of
construct: A test of construct validity. Educational Applied Psychology, 66: 193-217.
and Psychological Measurement, 59: 127-142.
Rousseau, D. M. 1985. Issues of level in organizational
LaFollette, W. R., & Sims, H. 1975. Is satisfaction redun research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. In
dant with organizational climate? Organizational L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in
Behavior and Human Performance, 13: 257-278. behavior, vol. 7: 1-37. Greenwich,
organizational
E. E., Hall, D. & Oldham, G. R. 1974.

CT: JAI Press.
Lawler, T., Organi
zational climate: Relationship to organizational Rousseau, D. M. 1988. The construction of climate in
structure, process, and performance. Organiza research. In C. L. Cooper & I. Robert
organizational
tional Behavior and Human Performance, 11:139 son (Eds.), International review of industrial and
155. 139-158. New York:
organizational psychology:
Lawler, E. E., Mohrman, S. A., & Ledford, G. E. 1992. Wiley.
Creating high performance organizations. San Schneider, B. 1975. Organizational climates: An essay.
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Personnel 28: 447-479.
Psychology,
Liden, R. C, & Arad, S. 1996. A power perspective of B. 1985. Organizational behavior. In M. R.
Schneider,
empowerment and work groups: Implications for hu & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of
Rosenzweig
man resources research. In G. R. Ferris
management psychology, vol. 36: 573-611. Palo Alto, CA: Annual
(Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources Reviews.
management, vol. 14: 205-251. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press. Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Person
nel Psychology, 40: 437-454.
Liden, R. C, & Tewksbury, T. W. 1995. Empowerment
and work teams. In G. R. Ferris, S. D. & D. T. Schneider, B. 2000. The psychological life of organiza
Rosen,
tions. In N. M. C.P.M. & M. F.
Barnum (Eds.), Handbook of human resources Ashkanasy, Wilderom,
386-403. Black Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational cul

management: Oxford, England:
well.
ture and climate: xvii-xxii. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Liden, R. C, Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. 2000. An
examination of the mediating role of psychological Schneider, B., Parkington, J. J., & Buxton, V. M. 1980.
on the relations between the job, in Employee and customer perceptions of service in
empowerment
and work outcomes. banks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 252
terpersonal relationships, Jour
nal of Applied 85: 407-416. 267.
Psychology,
Naumann, S. E., & Bennett, N. 2000. A case for proce
Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. 1983. On the etiology of
dural justice climate: Development and test of amul climates. Personnel 36: 19-39.
Psychology,
tilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, Schneider, B., & Snyder, R. A. 1975. Some relationships
43: 881-889.
between job satisfaction and organizational climate.
Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. 1978. The case for Journal of Applied Psychology, 60: 318-328.
subsystem climates in organizations. Academy of & Locke,

Scully, J. A., Kirkpatrick, S. A., E. A. 1995.
Review, 3: 151-157. as a determinant
Management Locus of knowledge of the effects of
R. D., & Karasick, B. W. 1973. The effects of on affect, and
Pritchard, participation performance, percep
climate on managerial tions. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci
organizational job perfor
mance and job satisfaction. Organizational Behav sion Processes, 61: 276-288.
ior and Human Performance, 9: 126-146.

Seashore, S. E., Lawler, E. E., Mirvis, P, & Cammann, C.
Quinn, R. E. & Spreitzer, G. M. 1997. The road to empow (Eds.). 1983. Assessing organizational change: A
erment: Seven leader should con guide to methods, measures, and practices. New
questions every
sider. Organizational Dynamics, 26(2): 37-49. York: Wiley.
Randolph, W. A. 1995. Navigating the journey to empow Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. 1979. Intraclass correlations:
erment. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4): 19-32. Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological
Bulletin, 86: 420-428.
Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. 1990. Climate and cul
ture: An evolution of constructs. In B. Schneider Sparrowe, R. T. 1994. Empowerment in the hospitality
(Ed.), Organizational climate and culture: 5-39. industry: An exploration of antecedents and out
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
comes. Hospitality Research Journal, 17(3): 51-73.
Sparrowe, R. T. 1995. The effects of cul

organizational
M
ture and leader-member on em
exchange employee
powerment in the hospitality industry. Hospitality
Research Journal, 18(3): 95-109. Scott E. Seibert (sseibert@uic.edu) is an assistant profes
sor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He earned his
G. M. 1995. in
Spreitzer, Psychological empowerment Ph.D. in organizational behavior at the New York State
the work place: Construct definition, measurement, School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell Uni
and validation. Academy of Management Journal,
versity. His interest in personality, climate, and social
38: 1442-1465.
networks informs his research on careers, empowerment,
G. M. 1996. Social structural characteristics of groups, and workplace safety.
Spreitzer,
psychological empowerment. Academy of Manage Seth R. Silver (Sethl701@aol.com) is an assistant profes

ment 39: 483-504.
Journal, sor in the Graduate Human Resource Development Pro
Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. 1997. A gram at St. John Fisher College and provides consulting
services through Fulcrum Consulting, Inc. He received
dimensional analysis of the relationship between
and effectiveness, sat his Ed.D. in human resource development from The
psychological empowerment
isfaction, and strain. Journal of Management, 23: George Washington University. His research and consult
work focuses on transformational em
679-704. ing leadership,
and "team covenants," or behavioral con
powerment,
Swift, C, & Levine, G. 1987. Empowerment: An emerging tracts, between managers and their organizations.
mental health technology. Journal of Primary Pre
71-94.
W. Alan Randolph (wrandolph@ubalt.edu) is a professor
vention, 8(1-2):
of management and director of the Global Business
Taber, T. D., & Taylor, E. 1990. A review and evaluation Practicum Program at the Robert G. Merrick School of
of the psychometric properties of the Job Diagnostic Business, of Baltimore, in Maryland. He re
University
Survey. Personnel Psychology, 43: 467-500. ceived his Ph.D. in business administration from the
University of Massachusetts. His current research inter
Thomas, K. W., & Tymon, W. G. 1994. Does empower
ests focus on the processes for cul
ment always work: Understanding the role of intrin effectively creating
tures of empowerment, the between dimen
sic motivation and relationship
personal interpretation. Journal
sions of empowerment and bases of power, and the
Systems, 6: 39-54.
of Management
effects of national culture on the creation of cultures of
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. 1990. ele
Cognitive empowerment.
ments of empowerment: An "interpretive" model of
intrinsic task motivation. Academy ofManagement
Review, 15: 666-681. A

Seibert 2004taking Empowerment To The Next Level PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Seibert 2004taking Empowerment To The Next Level PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Taking Empowerment to the Next Level: A Multiple-Level Model of Empowerment,

Performance, and Satisfaction

TAKING EMPOWERMENT TO THE NEXT LEVEL:

Most research to date has approached employee empowerment as an individual-level

empowerment has become a trend tive that focuses on empowerment as intrinsic mo

nied by examination of empowerment as an indi EMPOWERMENT CLIMATE

empowerment. We define empowerment climate as unique shared experience of organizational poli

cies for his or her

Empowerment climate and psychological em

psychological empowerment refers to an individu team accountability dimension of empowerment

tives. On of our discussion

ships at single levels of analysis 3, the (meaning, competence, self-determination, or im

= = = = = .98. Standardized are presented.

Variables Mean s.d. Mean s.d.

1. Psychological empowerment 5.45 0.88

and could be to justify

Work-unit climate 62 ical point of view, psychological empowerment

fusing since it conflates an organizational practice Future Research

(setting clear boundaries) with the presumed indi

boundaries in which the relationships reported when teams were

ganizational and work-unit levels

information the form of training

Block, P. 1987. The empowered manager: Positive po Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R,

Johnston, H. R. 1976. A new of source

chology, 62: 38-42.

Guion, R. M. 1973. A note on

E. E., Hall, D. & Oldham, G. R. 1974.

386-403. Black Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational cul

subsystem climates in organizations. Academy of & Locke,

ior and Human Performance, 9: 126-146.

Sparrowe, R. T. 1995. The effects of cul

psychological empowerment. Academy of Manage Seth R. Silver (Sethl701@aol.com) is an assistant profes

Potrebbero piacerti anche