an integrative model of the empowerment process -...

An integrative model of the empowerment process

T.L. Robbins*, M.D. Crino, L.D. Fredendall

Clemson University, Department of Management, Clemson, SC 29634-1305, USA

Abstract

Employee empowerment theory and research lacks a single, unifying model capable of integrating

the multiple levels of activity and complex relationships that characterize the empowerment process.

The model proposed in this paper describes the empowerment process from intervention design to

subsequent employee behavior. The dynamics of the empowerment process are presented as reflecting

the interaction between the localized work environment and the individual employee, within the

broader organization context. We argue that the definitions presented in this paper can serve to

integrate and unify the literature and research on empowerment. Links between the organization

context, the local work environment, intervening perceptions and attitudes, and specific components of

psychological empowerment are suggested. The role of individual differences within these

relationships is also described. Finally, we discuss implications for researchers and managers.

D 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Inc.

Keywords: Empowerment; Psychological empowerment; Empowered behaviors; Organizational commitment

1. Introduction

The empowerment literature lacks a set of well-accepted and consistently applied

definitions of the important elements in the empowerment process. For example, the

definitions of empowerment itself vary widely across scholars. Many studies define

empowerment as intrinsic task motivation (e.g., Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Thomas &

Velthouse, 1990) or motivation reflective of the person–environment fit (Zimmerman, 1990).

In other literature, empowerment has been defined as perceptions (Parker & Price, 1994) and

as commitment-based designs (Spreitzer, 1996). Researchers have also defined empowerment

in terms of job structure—the transfer of power or authority (e.g., Burke, 1986; Kanter, 1977)

1053-4822/02/$ – see front matter D 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Inc.

PII: S1053 -4822 (02 )00068 -2

* Tel.: +1-864-656-3756; fax: +1-864-656-2015.

E-mail address: [email protected] (T.L. Robbins).

www.HRmanagementreview.com

Human Resource Management Review

12 (2002) 419–443

and/or job support structures such as the sharing of resources and information (e.g., Blau &

Alba, 1982; Hardy & Leiba-O’Sullivan, 1998). Empowerment has also been described as

dependent on management or leadership actions (e.g., Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Block, 1987)

and human resource practices such as training programs or reward systems (e.g., Conger &

Kanungo, 1988; Lawler, 1986). And, finally, empowerment has been used with reference to

behavioral or performance-related outcomes (e.g., Zimmerman, 1990). These varied defi-

nitions and approaches have made it difficult to compare and integrate empirical findings

across empowerment studies. A model that integrates all of these definitions of empowerment

would bring much needed organization to this literature.

Fundamental to this lack of common definitions is a belief that empowerment is a single,

easily defined construct, when, in fact, empowerment is an on-going process, taking place in

a dynamic environment, involving many elements that operate at different levels of analysis.

Much of the work in this field has focused on only portions of the overall empowerment

process, viewing each in isolation and consequently providing an incomplete picture of the

dynamics of the process. For example, much of the empowerment literature has been

criticized for considering psychological or motivational issues at the expense of actual job

structure changes in the environment that might provide employees with more power (e.g.,

Hardy & Leiba-O’Sullivan, 1998). It has been suggested that future research must determine

the local work unit elements that affect the individual cognitions in order to extend our

knowledge of the macro–micro links (Spreitzer, 1996). The broader organization context will

also have important influences on the success of the empowerment process (e.g., Heller,

1973). Historical and cultural elements within their specific organization context must be

taken into consideration when predicting or attempting to explain employee responses to

empowerment interventions (Marchington, Wilkinson, Ackers, & Goodman, 1994). Although

past research in empowerment has somewhat inconsistently alluded to the roles of various

attitudes and perceptions, we believe these elements define a critical set of intervening

variables that link contextual components to psychological empowerment.

This purpose of this paper is to present a framework that will integrate and extend the

current literature by clarifying the role of important contextual, environmental, cognitive, and

behavioral variables in the empowerment process, thus, fulfilling the suggested need

(Zimmerman, 1990) for the integration of all relevant levels of analysis. We propose that

the empowerment process is best represented by an expanded focus that incorporates both

environmental and individual-level elements. In the model proposed in Fig. 1, we have

sought to represent the most important of these elements as they act and interact to influence

employee behaviors on the job. The specific relationships proposed throughout the paper

have been enumerated on the figure and in the discussion below for clarity. We propose that

the most critical step in the empowerment process is the creation of a local work environment

within a broader organizational context that will provide both an opportunity to exercise one’s

full range of authority and power (i.e., empowered behaviors), as well as the intrinsic

motivation within employees to engage in that type of behavior (i.e., psychological

empowerment). Relationship #2 in Fig. 1 reflects the proposed link between the broader

organization context and elements in the local work environment (i.e., job structure, human

resource practices, and local management actions). Important employee perceptions (i.e.,

T.L. Robbins / Human Resource Management Review 12 (2002) 419–443420

perceived ‘‘opportunity’’ to influence workplace outcomes and perceived level and nature of

‘‘organizational support’’) and attitudes (i.e., ‘‘trust’’ and ‘‘commitment’’) are proposed to be

influenced by the both the broad organization context (i.e., relationship #3 in Fig. 1) and local

work environment (relationships 4–9 in Fig. 1). We propose that these intervening

perceptions and attitudes are key links in the process by which both the organization context

and the local work environment influence psychological empowerment (i.e., relationship #1

in Fig. 1). We believe that the study of psychological empowerment in the absence of these

intervening variables will result in a less than a complete understanding of the empowerment

process. We also believe that the individual differences that employees bring with them to the

workplace will moderate the influences of both the organization context and the local work

environment (i.e., links #11 in Fig. 1) and directly influence the intervening perceptions and

attitudes (i.e., relationship #10 in Fig. 1), as well as the level of psychological empowerment

experienced (relationship #12 in Fig. 1). As shown in Fig. 1, the relationship between

psychological empowerment and empowered behaviors is proposed to be moderated by the

organization context and elements of the local work environment (links #14 in Fig. 1) that

directly define the range of authority granted.

We believe that the definitions and processes proposed in Fig. 1 can provide a useful

framework for understanding and integrating prior research on employee empowerment and

help to reduce the confusion surrounding the various conceptualizations. The wealth of

organizational experiences and the academic literature on empowerment should be placed

Fig. 1. The empowerment process.

T.L. Robbins / Human Resource Management Review 12 (2002) 419–443 421

into a common framework. The goal of empowerment theory is to explain how environmental

elements interact with personal cognitions, perceptions, and attitudes (Zimmerman, 1990),

and ultimately predict how these elements influence employee behaviors on the job. Fig. 1

provides a model of the process by which perceptions, attitudes, and consequent psycho-

logical empowerment are linked with elements of the organization context and local work

environment to the demonstration of empowered behaviors.

In the following sections, we will discuss the specific links proposed between psycho-

logical empowerment and the perceptions of opportunity and support, as well as the attitudes

of organizational commitment and trust. We will then link these intervening perceptions and

attitudes to the organization context and to components in the local work environment (and

also discuss the inherent links between these two). Thus, the proposed relationships will

begin with what we propose are key antecedents of psychological empowerment and end with

how these antecedent attitudes and perceptions are affected by environmental influences.

Finally, the role of individual differences within these relationships is explored.

2. Intervening perceptions and attitudes: antecedents to psychological empowerment

Psychological empowerment is proposed to be manifested in four cognitions specific to

one’s task or work role. These dimensions include: (1) meaning, or the value of the work

goal or purpose judged in relation to one’s own ideals and standards (i.e., the fit between

work role requirements and the individual’s beliefs, values, and behaviors); (2) competence,

or one’s work role efficacy or personal mastery; (3) self-determination, or an individual’s

sense of choice or autonomy in initiation and regulation of actions or work behaviors and

processes; and (4) impact, which refers to an individual’s perceived degree of influence over

outcomes in one’s work environment (Spreitzer, 1995). These components can be viewed as

the essential prerequisites for the motivation to engage in empowered behaviors in the work

environment. More specifically, employees must want to do the task, or alternatively put,

feel that it is worthwhile (meaning). In addition, they must feel that they are competent to

engage in the behaviors required by the environment (competence), must perceive the

opportunity to make a choice (self-determination), and must believe that their behavior will

have some influence on what happens in this environment (impact).

Many of the approaches that emphasize the psychological or motivational implications

of empowerment are manifested in theories of human motivation, as well as motivational

approaches to job design (Leana, 1987). For example, Maslow (1971) proposed that, at

the highest levels, individuals are motivated by needs for meaningful work, for

responsibility, and for doing what is worthwhile. Similarly, in advocating job enrichment,

Herzberg (1968, p. 53) states that ‘‘the only way to motivate the employee is to give him

challenging work in which he can assume responsibility’’. Many of the motivators

identified by both Maslow (e.g., opportunities for self-actualization, autonomy, feelings

of worth) and Herzberg (e.g., work itself, achievement, responsibility) are inherent in the

cognitions of psychological empowerment. Both competence and impact are encompassed

within Vroom’s (1964) expectancy model (i.e., effort-performance, performance-outcome)


and the importance of intrinsic valence in motivational research (e.g., Staw, 1976) is

reflected in the meaning cognition.

The inclusion of the intervening perceptions and attitudes in the empowerment process

modeled in Fig. 1 reflects the position that employees’ perceptions of work environment

elements, as opposed to simply the objective presence of certain elements in that environment,

influences psychological empowerment. We see the creation of these perceptions and the

formation/change of the attitudes of trust and commitment as the first stage in the person/

environment interaction that will eventually determine an employee’s degree of psychological

empowerment. There is considerable support for these positions in the empowerment literature.

The importance of perceptions is illustrated by definitions of empowerment as the belief that

one has control over decision-making (Parker & Price, 1994). Other researchers (e.g., Langer,

1983; Miller, 1980) likewise propose that control has little power to influence individual

motivations, behaviors, etc., unless it is perceived. The importance of intervening attitudes such

as commitment and trust are revealed in studies (i.e., Ahlbrandt, Leana, & Murrell, 1992),

which suggest that a sizable percentage of the work force is skeptical of empowerment efforts.

These surveys reveal that many employees believe that empowerment interventions are ‘‘just

for show’’ or are not intended as a substantive change but rather a manipulative tool on the part

of management. Employee attitudes and perceptions of the work environment are therefore a

necessary intervening variable in any model of the empowerment process.

The second stage in this cognitive process is the placing of those perceptions and attitudes

into an individualized framework, reflecting the employee’s values, and standards. It is during

this second stage in the process that the cognitions comprising psychological empowerment are

affected. We propose that these interrelated perceptions and attitudes reflecting work envir-

onment beliefs are related to personal values (meaning), perceptions of personal competence

(competence), and beliefs regarding what constitutes meaningful influence (impact) and choice

(self-determination) at work. Psychological empowerment is in large part a function of this

cognitive comparison process. In sum, we propose that psychological empowerment reflects

the ongoing ebb and flow of peoples’ perceptions and attitudes about their work environment

(both local and broader organization context) in relation to themselves.

Proposition 1: Psychological empowerment is a function of environmentally influenced

intervening perceptions and attitudes.

Much of the past literature in the area of employee empowerment suggests that an

environment should be evaluated in terms of the opportunities it presents for employees

(Blau, 1987; Mowday & Sutton, 1993). Furthermore, it has been suggested that an

empowering environment is one that provides opportunities, as opposed to constraints, on

employee behavior (Spreitzer, 1996; Torbert, 1991). Impact, defined by Thomas and Velt-

house (1990) as the degree to which behavior is seen as making a difference in one’s task

environment, would seem to be dependent on the opportunity to have an influence. In other

words, an individual must have the opportunity to exert influence in order to have an impact

on outcomes at work (Spreitzer, 1995). Furthermore, impact has been conceptualized as

something that is independent of performance capability (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). If an


employee can perform capably, but still has no influence, this lack of impact is most likely to

be attributed to a lack of opportunity or environmental support.

Proposition 1a: Environmentally influenced perceptions of opportunity are positively

linked to the cognition–impact of psychological empowerment.

Much of the empowerment literature (Ford & Fottler, 1995; Lawler, 1992; Walton, 1985)

is consistent regarding the need for congruence between the level of authority transferred

and the support for it. As Conger and Kanungo (1988) point out, the Oxford English

dictionary defines the verb empower as ‘‘to enable.’’ In order to feel competent, employees

must perceive that they have the support (e.g., organizational resources) that will enable

them to effectively exercise opportunities for impact. While individual differences (e.g.,

self-efficacy, requisite knowledge skills, and abilities) are likely to influence perceived

competence, as will be discussed later, adequate support in the environment should also

have a direct influence on the degree to which one feels that he or she is able to perform a

task competently.

Proposition 1b: Environmentally influenced perceptions of support will be positively

linked to the cognition–competence of psychological empowerment.

Affective commitment reflects identification with management or the organization based

on a desire for affiliation or internalization which is predicated on congruence between the

individual’s and the organization’s values (Allen & Meyer, 1990). The more one identifies

with their organization and the more one internalizes the organization’s values, the more

likely it is that he or she will perceive more meaning in the task, since meaning has been

defined as the congruence of one’s task with their own beliefs and values (Thomas &

Velthouse, 1990). This proposed relationship is based on the assumption that employees are

likely to view their task role and the values inherent in it, as a function of the organization’s

goals. Previous research (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990) also suggests a relationship between

overall organizational commitment and task meaning.

Proposition 1c: Organizational commitment is positively linked to the cognition–

meaning of psychological empowerment.

Several researchers have advocated the importance of organizational trust (Hart, Capps,

Cangemi, & Caillouet, 1986) and have found that autonomy is an emergent factor associated

with trust. Employees’ trust in the organization, more specifically, management motives is

likely a critical attitudinal antecedent to one’s sense of self-determination. The more

employees trust management, the more likely they will accept their authority as truly

autonomous, as opposed to management-controlled influence. Recent research (Whitener,

Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998) suggests a link between trust in management and

willingness to take risks in one’s work. The more an employee trusts the motives and changes


implied by the authority granted, the more likely he or she will perceive a sense of choice or

self-determination in the initiation and continuance of work behaviors and processes.

Proposition 1d: Organizational trust is positively linked to the cognition–self-

determination of psychological empowerment.

3. Influences of the organization context on the local work environment and intervening

perceptions and attitudes

3.1. The organization context

Prior research suggests that perceptions of contextual elements tend to be fairly

consistent across employees within a single organization. Contextual variables of the

organization reflect the cultural and historical influences that have been suggested in past

research to be important influences on the local work environment (e.g., Ahlbrandt et al.,

1992). A greater range of involvement programs throughout the organization has been

shown to positively influence responses to local management actions (Marchington et al.,

1994). Employee involvement is often viewed as a range of influence on a continuous scale

of authority sharing (Hackman, 1986; Heller, 1973). The history, range, and operation of

employee involvement throughout the company is likely to influence the amount of power

and authority that local managers transfer to their employees, as well as the degree of

information they share (Whitener et al., 1998). A broader scope of involvement at all levels

reflects a culture that values people, and therefore should have a positive influence on local

management practices (i.e., the degree to which they show concern for employees) in

general (Whitener et al., 1998).

Top management commitment to the empowerment process, the extent to which their

values and actions are congruent with empowerment, should have an influence on elements

within the local work environment. Executives are likely to project their values and

commitment onto other managers (Weaver, Trevino, & Cochran, 1999), which is likely to

influence, for example, the amount of training provided, as well as the level of resources and

information that are shared.

Proposition 2: The organization context (e.g., top management commitment, the history,

and range of involvement) will influence empowerment elements in the local work

environment.

The organization context should also play a role in influencing the intervening

perceptions and attitudes identified in Fig. 1. These intervening variables reflect

perceptual and attitudinal reactions both to a job (that has been structured to delegate

power and authority), and to the many daily interactions with other important elements of

the general organization context and in the local work environment. Positive responses to

involvement interventions have been shown to be affected by the ‘‘amount of say,’’ which

employees perceive they have. . . ‘‘over affairs at all levels of the company’’ (March-


ington et al., 1994, p. 875). For example, at the contextual level, employees might be

given the opportunity to share influence or provide input on human resource management

decisions such as pay, staffing, promotion, training, and other issues affecting the

employee’s careers and rewards (Lawler, 1986), and even higher level operating policy

or strategic decisions (Bowen & Lawler, 1992; Koch & Fox, 1978; Lawler, 1986; Leana

& Florkowski, 1992). This opportunity to influence outcomes beyond the local level will

likely enhance employees’ perceived opportunity to influence workplace outcomes.

Furthermore, a broader range and operation of involvement throughout the organization

is likely to positively influence employee trust that management is sincerely looking for

contributions from employees not only about their own work issues, but with others that

are important to the success of the company.

The history of employee involvement within a company is also likely to influence

employee attitudes and perceptions as a result of employee past experiences with these

attempts (Marchington et al., 1994). For example, if employees’ expectations were raised at

initial implementation, but decisions have not been implemented or contributions have not

been acted upon, then they are likely to become disillusioned and discouraged (Ahlbrandt et

al., 1992), which, in turn, will decrease perceived opportunity. This type of experience is also

likely to decrease trust in local management motives regarding empowerment interventions.

Perceived opportunity is also likely to be affected by whether interventions designed to

transfer power and authority have improved or worsened over time (Marchington et al.,

1994). In addition, employer commitment will have obvious effects on the intervening

perceptions and attitudes identified in Fig. 1. For example, top management commitment

should be linked to perceived support and trust in management. Higher employer commit-

ment should lead to more positive perceptions regarding the company’s willingness to

support the employees to exercise authority and power effectively.

Proposition 3: The organization context will influence the intervening perceptions and

attitudes proposed as antecedent to psychological empowerment.

4. Links between the local work environment and intervening perceptions and attitudes

The list of local environmental influences in Fig. 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather

to provide a framework for the local elements that have been linked to empowerment in

previous literature. Many of the localized elements (i.e., job support components, human

resource practices, and local management actions) have been addressed in the literature as being

integral to organizational success with empowerment efforts (e.g., Bowen & Lawler, 1992;

Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Ford & Fottler, 1995; Lawler, 1986; Spreitzer, 1995, 1996; Thomas

& Velthouse, 1990). In addition, many of the human resource practices have been suggested to

be critical to gaining a competitive advantage (Sparrow, Schuler, & Jackson, 1994).

Proposition 4: The local work environment will influence the intervening perceptions

and attitudes proposed as antecedent to psychological empowerment.


4.1. Job structure

Transfer of power and authority. Much of the empowerment literature has been criticized

for neglecting the issue of power itself and how it is actually transferred to employees (Hardy

& Lieba-O’Sullivan, 1998). Changes in job structure, specifically the transfer of power and

decision making authority, are obviously at the center of the empowerment process. The

transfer of decision-making power and authority is one of the main processes by which

perceptions of opportunity are created.1

Proposition 4a: The transfer of power and authority within the local work environment

will positively influence perceptions of opportunity.

Power may be transferred within the local environment to teams, as opposed to directly

transferred to individuals. The formal structure and internal dynamics of teams can expand or

limit opportunities for individual team members’ contribution and impact. Regardless of

whether such opportunities are expanded or limited at an individual level, the teammight still be

considered empowered (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Kirkman & Shapiro, 1997), yet there may be

significantly different consequences for the team member. Correspondingly, within any given

team and associated structure and dynamics, the members will not necessarily respond

consistently to the local and contextual work environment, and individual differences within

the team may act to moderate and directly influence psychological empowerment.

We are specifically referring to empowerment as the transfer of power within the local

work environment in contrast to opportunities for involvement or participation (which may be

limited to influence sharing) within the local environment and/or throughout the organization.

The transfer is likely to include authority over how the work is done (Bowen & Lawler,

1992), the day-to-day conducting of business (Lawler, 1986), or the tasks and procedures

necessary for carrying out the job (Ford & Fottler, 1995). Empowerment, a change in the

assignment of power and authority throughout an entire job, is also broader than delegation in

that with empowerment, authority, and responsibility are extended beyond specific activities

(e.g., Ford & Fottler, 1995). Both participation and delegation have been included in earlier

research (e.g., Heller, 1973) as alternative decision-making methods along an ‘‘Influence–

Power Continuum’’ and both can be illustrated in some leadership research (Vroom & Jago,

1988) that prescribes the degree of decision-making involvement dependent on situational

contingencies. Possibilities range from autocratic to consultative to full delegation with

respect to specific tasks and/or decisions.

1 It is not our intent to address the level of decision-making authority that is appropriate, as this is likely

dependent on many conditions within a given work place situation; most notably, the infrastructure in place, and

the degree to which the employees possess the knowledge, skills, and abilities that are required. It is likely that the use

of an incremental approach to increases in level and scope of authority granted to employees (similar to the process

described by Ford & Fottler, 1995) is most practical and effective. At each incremental stage, management

determines the problems created, how they should be addressed, and whether or not employees are ready, able, and

trained to move on to the next stage (Ford & Fottler, 1995). It with that understanding that we discuss the effect of the

transfer of power and decision making authority on intervening perceptions and attitudes.


Pateman (1970, p. 53) suggests that the degree to which one is able to exercise

initiative or control over one’s work is likely to impact one’s values about the meaning of

work. We believe that commitment plays an intervening role in this relationship.

Employees who are able to exercise authority and influence have been shown to feel

more responsible and also have more favorable attitudes toward the employing organiza-

tion (Tannenbaum & Rozgonyi, 1986). Commitment in general reflects the psychological

bond linking the individual and the organization (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Past

research suggests that we should expect commitment to be influenced by felt job

challenge and responsibility (e.g., Hall, Schneider, & Nygren, 1970; Salancik, 1977),

perceptions of personal importance to an organization (e.g., Sheldon, 1971; Steers, 1977),

perceived influence within the job unit (Stumpf & Hartman, 1984), and autonomy with

respect to work definition and conduct (DeCotiis & Summers, 1987). It is likely that the

transfer of decision-making power and authority will positively influence each of these

perceptions and, consequently, commitment.

Proposition 4b: The transfer of power and authority within the local work environment

will positively influence organization commitment.

4.1.1. Resource and information sharing

An employee’s opportunity to influence outcomes is dependent not only on the

transfer of power and authority, but also on the provision of adequate resources (e.g.,

Hardy & Leiba-O’Sullivan, 1998; Lawler, 1992; Walton, 1985). Conger and Kanungo

(1988) suggest that a lack of appropriate and necessary resources contributes to power-

lessness. More specifically, we suggest that this influence is attributable to perceptions of

inadequate support. The empowerment process necessitates the sharing of information and

knowledge necessary to enable employees to contribute to organizational performance

(Ford & Fottler, 1995). Pateman (1970, p. 69) suggests that employees must be in

possession of the requisite information upon which they can base their decisions. This

means that considerably more information must be given to employees than was

previously the case. Past research suggests that, in most successful change efforts,

management has used all existing communication channels to communicate information

(Kotter, 1995) that enhances one’s ability to make decisions, which are congruent with

the organization’s goals and mission (Lawler, 1992). One of the most critical roles for

resource and information sharing is its effect on whether the employee perceives that the

support is adequate enough to exercise decision making power and authority.

Proposition 5a: Resource and information sharing will positively influence perceptions

of support.

Conger and Kanungo (1988) suggest sharing of information, for example, about the

company’s mission, is important because it helps to create a sense of meaning and purpose.

Increasingly, communication is being linked to organizational commitment at a conceptual

level (see review by Allen, 1992). Communication, which keeps employees informed with


respect to valued aspects of the organization, may affect commitment through greater feelings

of responsibility and role involvement (Salancik, 1977). DeCotiis and Summers (1987) found

that clear communications about organizational intentions lead to higher commitment among

employees. Caldwell, Chatman, and O’Reilly (1990) found support for higher levels of

commitment when employees could identify and articulate the company’s purpose or mission

that tied it to society, the customer, and its employees.

Proposition 5b: Resource and information sharing will positively influence organiza-

tion commitment.

Information sharing has also been shown to be significantly correlated with organizational

trust (Gabarro, 1978; Hart et al, 1986). Other researchers also suggest that honest and

frequent communication generates perceptions of trust (Lind & Tyler, 1988) by influencing

perceived motives of management actions (Gabarro, 1978).

Proposition 5c: Resource and information sharing will positively influence organiza-

tion trust.

4.2. Human resource practices

4.2.1. Training

Providing the skills and abilities that individuals need to feel competent is critical for

enhancing psychological empowerment (Spreitzer, 1996). A company’s commitment to

adequately train employees in skills necessary for effective decision making and other

important job behaviors is likely to have a positive effect on an employees’ perceived support

to exercise authority effectively. Both formal and informal training received by an employee

is likely to impact perceptions of support. Better trained employees are more likely to

understand the specific demands of the job and in turn, are more inclined to perceive that they

have the support needed to effectively exercise their power and authority. Perceived

incompetence, as a result of the transfer of decision-making authority, may occur if the

organization does not provide training adequate to the new job requirements. Training can

prevent this sense of incompetence if it ensures that the employee will perceive him or herself

as having the support required by the job.

Proposition 6a: Training will positively influence perceptions of support.

Not only is training likely to influence psychological empowerment through perceptions of

support, but also as a result of increased commitment to the organization. Tannenbaum,

Mathieu, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers (1991) suggest that from an exchange theory perspective,

training may be perceived as an investment by the company in the employee, and in turn can

contribute to an employee’s commitment to the organization. ‘‘Employees may view an

effective training experience as an indication that the company is willing to invest in them’’

(Tannenbaum et al., 1991, p. 760). Past research has found support for the relationship


between training and commitment (e.g., Gist, Schwoerer, & Rosen, 1989; Louis, Posner, &

Powell, 1983; Mathieu, 1991).

Proposition 6b: Training will positively influence organizational commitment.

4.2.2. Performance feedback and evaluation

The communication of performance information as critical for motivation and performance-

related behaviors is well documented (e.g., Hackman &Oldham, 1976; Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor,

1979). ‘‘Performance feedback is fundamental to reinforcing a sense of competence and

believing one is a valued part of the organization’’ (Spreitzer, 1995, p. 1447) and is critical for

empowerment (Lawler, 1992). Support in the form of constructive performance feedback can

be used to acquire new skills, evaluate abilities, master a new or changing environment, and

correct errors in goal-directed behavior (Ashford & Cummings, 1983). Accurate, informative,

constructive feedback allows the employee the opportunity to correct behaviors in areas where

needed and is therefore likely to be an important influence on perceived support.

Proposition 7a: Performance feedback and evaluation will influence perceptions of

support.

However, employee trust is dependent on fairness in performance evaluations and other

human resource practices. It is important to provide clear expectations associated with the

increased authority, responsibility, and accountability that accompany the empowerment

process. Carson, Cardy, and Dobbins (1991) suggest that reduced trust is likely to occur when

employees perceive that performance evaluations are outside of their control. With the

empowerment process comes increased accountability. However, management must resist the

temptation to hold employees accountable for outcomes that are not job-relevant (Dipboye &

dePontbriand, 1981) or poor outcomes when they are not attributable to him or her. Such

accountability without authority and control will cause resentment toward (Carson et al.,

1991) and reduced trust in the supervisor. In order to be perceived as fair, evaluations must

hold employees accountable for behaviors or performance that are within their control. Prior

research (e.g., Greenberg, 1986; Landy, Barnes, & Murphy, 1978) has suggested that the

frequency of evaluations, the identification of goals to eliminate weaknesses, and two-way

communication during the appraisal interview also determine the perceived fairness of

performance evaluations. Much of the organizational justice literature suggests that timely

feedback, the degree to which evaluation decisions are adequately explained, as well as the

treatment of employees in carrying out performance appraisal procedures will influence

perceptions of fairness (see review by Greenberg, 1990), which in turn should influence trust.

Proposition 7b: Performance feedback and evaluation will influence organization trust.

4.2.3. Reward and discipline systems

The types of reward systems that are necessary to gain meaningful commitment have been

suggested to be an important issue that warrants considerable future attention (Ahlbrandt et al.,


1992). Performance–reward contingencies and pay equity have both been shown to be

precursors of organizational commitment (Bateman & Strasser, 1984; Florkowski & Schuster,

1992;Mottaz, 1989).Many reward systems are based on beliefs that employees have individual

worth, a capacity for growth, and learning, and the ability to contribute significantly to company

success (McGregor, 1959). If, in fact, employees perceive these systems as implying such, these

systems should positively influence commitment to the organization.

Proposition 8a: Reward and discipline systems will influence organization commitment.

Like performance evaluations, reward systems are also likely to have to have an impact on

trust in management (Leana & Florkowski, 1992) specifically by influencing perceptions of the

fairness (Cummings&Molloy, 1977) of job-related outcomes. In order to be perceived as fair, it

is important that rewards be contingent on performance-related behaviors that are under the

employee’s control as discussed previously. More specific suggestions for increasing the

perceived fairness of both reward distribution systems can also be found in the procedural

justice literature (Folger & Greenberg, 1985). Reward systems used in conjunction with the

empowerment process define the ‘‘wage and effort’’ bargain and must match job inputs in order

to satisfy equity concerns (Leana & Florkowski, 1992). As a result, rewards should impact

beliefs about labor-management equity and, in turn, employees’ trust in the organization to

fairly recognize one’s efforts (see review by Leana & Florkowski, 1992).

The fairness of discipline systems should also influence an employee’s trust in the

organization. For example, discipline that is neither progressively nor equitably applied across

employees is likely to lead to distrust in the organization and its authorities. On the other hand,

the opportunity to use fair grievance procedures or an appeals process in response to discipline

actions, which are perceived as unfair, should positively influence trust. Ensuring due process is

basic to employee perceptions of the fairness of the disciplinary system (Klaas & Dell’omo,

1997; Leap & Crino, 1997) Organizations, whether unionized or not, that operate with well-

understood and accepted ‘‘just cause’’ standards (see Koven, Smith, & Farwell, 1992) engender

trust among employees.

Rewards and discipline are also likely to play a role in influencing psychological empower-

ment by providing feedback about the range of behaviors that are accepted on the job. If, in fact,

rewards are provided for autonomous behaviors, employees are more likely to trust manage-

ment and believe that they have a choice in the behaviors they employ on the job. Disciplinary

systems that convey to employees that they really can make the decisions themselves (i.e., they

are not confined by formal rules and procedures that suggest otherwise or discourage these

behaviors or the outcomes associated with them) are likely to lead to employee trust.

Proposition 8b: Reward and discipline systems will influence organization trust.

4.3. Local management actions

Local management actions, more specifically the interpersonal interactions between the

employees and their immediate supervisors and/or managers, are likely to play a key role in


shaping employee perceptions of organizational interventions that are designed to empower

employees. Social information processing theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) suggests that

interactions between management and employees potentially send cues regarding the

organizational–employee relationship. These cues should consequently play a key role in

influencing perceived support that will enable employees to exercise authority effectively.

Expressing confidence and high expectations in employees, as well as setting inspirational

and meaningful goals, send messages of support that are needed for employees to feel

competent (Conger & Kanungo, 1988).

Proposition 9a: Local management actions will influence perceptions of support.

There is a great deal of research to suggest that local management practices and the nature

and style of supervision will influence psychological empowerment indirectly through their

impact on employee commitment (see review by DeCotiis & Summers, 1987; Zeffane, 1994).

Management communication conveys the kind of information that is important to the

commitment process (Allen, 1992), and positive supervisor–subordinate interactions have

been associated with higher levels of commitment (e.g., Daley, 1988; Lee, 1971). More

specifically, management practices, such as inspiring a shared vision and supporting employee

efforts, have been found to be positively related to commitment (Niehoff, Enz, &Grover, 1990).

These actions demonstrate concern and support for individual development and are therefore

likely to lead to identification with management. Bateman and Strasser (1984) also found a

strong association between leader reward behavior and the commitment of employees.

Proposition 9b: Local management actions will influence employee commitment.

Prior research (see review by Greenberg, 1990) suggests that the degree to which localized

management actions treat employees with civility and dignity influences employee percep-

tions of organizational fairness and, in turn, trust. For example, discourteous treatment and

work overload will create cynicism toward the inflicting organization (Andersson, 1996) and,

in turn, decrease trust. In addition, trust that the employees’ efforts will be valued and

rewarded has been suggested to be influenced by local management practices such as

reactions to employee mistakes, performance, and suggestions (Eisenberger, Huntington,

Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). While disciplinary and reward systems, as discussed above, may

communicate formally to employees what behaviors are accepted, informal management

actions that reward or punish employees are very important means of communicating the

range of behaviors the local work environment finds acceptable. More specifically, local

management’s informal support for risk taking and tolerance and acceptance of mistakes

should impact employee trust. Employees, whose managers reward the risk taking that is

required with autonomous behaviors, are more likely to trust that authority is sincerely

delegated to them. As a result, employees are more likely to be willing to take risks, less

likely to believe that they are acting out of fear, and more likely to attribute their behavior and

job decisions to internal causes such as autonomy and self-determination.

Proposition 9c: Local management actions will influence trust.


5. The role of individual differences

Prior research provides substantial evidence that valid predictions about behavioral and

attitudinal responses to work require that characteristics of the employees themselves be

considered simultaneously with the characteristics of the job (Hackman & Lawler, 1971). Fig.

1 reflects an empowerment process in which both individual and environmental components

combine to influence employee attitudes and behaviors. An important component in this

interactive process is the individual differences that employees bring with them to the

workplace. These individual differences, some of which are more stable and independent of

the work environment and others which may be affected over time by the environment, must

be considered when attempting to explain how individuals will react to the situational work

environment. It is not our intent to provide an exhaustive discussion of these individual

differences, but to provide an overview of some that are most likely to be relevant to the

processes proposed in Fig. 1.

Personality traits, particularly the Big 5 (e.g., Mount, Barrick, & Strauss, 1996), are likely

to influence the intervening perceptions and attitudes identified in Fig. 1. Agreeable

individuals are more likely to perceive opportunities for impact and be more trusting in

general. Watson and Clark (1984) suggest that individuals who are high in negative

affectivity are inclined to perceive work and other events as negative and distressing

regardless of the situation. An employee’s specific needs and values should also influence

intervening perceptions and attitudes. For example, some research suggests that need for

achievement is positively related to commitment (Steers, 1977). In addition, work ethic

should directly affect organizational commitment or the degree to which one desires to be

affiliated with the organization. Finally, the degree to which employees possess the

knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform in certain jobs is also likely to affect perceptions

of opportunity.

Proposition 10: Individual differences influence the perceptions and attitudes that

intervene in the relationship between the environment and psychological empowerment.

There are many stable personality traits that are likely to moderate the effects of the

environment on intervening perceptions and attitudes. Locus of control (e.g., Organ &

Greene, 1974), the degree to which employees believe they can control what happens to

them, should moderate the influence of job structure in the local work environment and

elements of the organization context. Those with an internal locus of control (i.e., who believe

that they control their own destinies) would be more inclined to perceive these environmental

and contextual factors as opportunities to influence workplace outcomes. Self-esteem is also

likely to act similarly to locus of control in moderating the influence of increased power and

authority on perceived opportunity. Those with low self-esteem are not as inclined to view a

greater range of involvement opportunities or increased decision making power and authority

as an opportunity to have an impact because of their perceived inability to do so. Those who

are more open to experience are more likely to find meaning in jobs that are structured for

higher levels of authority and responsibility.


Negative affectivity should also moderate the effects of the environment on perceived

opportunity, since this trait influences reactions to stressful situations. For example, a job

designed to provide decision-making authority is less likely to be perceived positively by

individuals high in negative affectivity and/or low in emotional stability. We would also

expect these traits to moderate the proposed effects of the organization context and local

environment on trust and perceptions of support, given that they have a less favorable view of

others and the world in general (Watson & Clark, 1984).

The degree to which elements in the environment meet individual needs will have an

impact on how employees respond to it—their attitudes, perceptions, and intrinsic motivation

(psychological empowerment). Employee perceptions of opportunity as a result of a greater

range of involvement in the organization context or an increase in decision making authority

at the local level would likely be contingent on their needs for self-expression, achievement,

power, autonomy, recognition, etc. Growth need strength or the desire for personal growth

and feelings of accomplishment (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) has been supported in past

research (Oldham, Hackman, & Pearce, 1976; Wanous, 1974) as a moderator of the way in

which employees respond to jobs that offer more autonomy.

There is also some evidence to suggest that need structures moderate the influence of

environmental events on commitment. O’Reilly (1977) found that one’s need for achievement

and self-actualization interacted with job type (challenging vs. unchallenging) to affect

employee commitment. Commitment is determined in part by the degree to which the employee

receives intrinsic rewards on the job (Mottaz, 1989). The degree to which employees receive

intrinsic rewards is not only dependent on the job structure and other environmental

components, but also the degree to which intrinsic needs motivate the employee.

We would also expect employees’ values to affect the degree to which environmental

components affect commitment. Individuals use values to interpret actions and events in their

environment, and personal values will determine which components are desirable or

undesirable (George & Jones, 1997). An individual’s experience of work is dependent on

his or her values that are used to determine the meaning that work, jobs, and organizational

experiences have for him or her (James & James, 1989). For example, the impact of fair and

equitable rewards on commitment should also depend on the degree to which the employee

values fairness and equity (i.e., equity sensitivity).

Proposition 11: Individual differences moderate environmental influences on interven-

ing perceptions and attitudes.

Locus of control has been suggested to directly affect psychological empowerment

(Spreitzer, 1995) and, specifically, the impact component (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).

Self-esteem or self-efficacy should directly affect psychological empowerment (Conger &

Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995) and, more specifically, perceptions of competence (Thomas

& Velthouse, 1990). Conscientious individuals are likely to be more self-determined by

nature. Emotional stability and negative affectivity are likely to also affect the cognitions

associated with psychological empowerment. For example, we would expect the insecurity

associated with emotional stability to be directly related to perceptions of competence.


Research on negative affectivity suggests that this trait may also directly affect perceptions of

competence, since these individuals are more likely to dwell on the failures and shortcomings

(Watson & Clark, 1984). Finally, an employee’s knowledge, skills, and abilities will affect

their perceptions of competence.

Proposition 12: Individual differences influence psychological empowerment.

6. Empowered behaviors

6.1. Link between psychological empowerment and empowered behaviors

Our definition of empowered behaviors emphasizes the exercise of the full range of

decision-making authority and power that is transferred to employees. Empowered behaviors,

therefore, reflect a willingness to take responsibility for effective decision making across

those decisions which must be made (i.e., minimally necessary for job completion) and those

that are discretionary and require some degree of personal initiative (e.g., refining the process,

improving the product). Organizational citizenship behaviors (see review by Lambert, 2000)

that go beyond the formal job requirements, as well as nonmandated extra-role behaviors

(George & Brief, 1992) that employees engage in to help the organization are consistent and

encompassed within this definition. Empowered behaviors may be contrasted with the use of

low risk heuristics that may be applied to the smallest set of decisions needed to complete the

job. The use of such heuristics serves to minimize the risk of failure and the levels of personal

accountability and involvement of the employee in job outcomes.

The relationship we propose between psychological empowerment and empowered

behaviors is based on previous conceptual and empirical research linking the components

of psychological empowerment with behaviors that should be associated with higher levels of

exercised authority and other behaviors that are related to job effectiveness (e.g., Spreitzer,

1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Tymon, 1988). Meaning, for example, has been found to

result in concentration of energy (Kanter, 1983). Effort and persistence in challenging

situations (Gecas, 1989) and high performance (Locke, Frederick, Lee, & Bobko, 1984)

have been found to result from perceived competence. Deci and Ryan (1989) found support

for a link between self-determination and resilience in the face of adversity. And last, impact

has been linked to an absence of withdrawal from difficult situations and high performance

(Ashforth, 1990).

Thomas and Velthouse (1990) conclude that psychological empowerment results in

behavior that is characterized by a concentration of energy upon the task, activity (as

opposed to passivity), flexibility in controlling one’s own task accomplishment, initiation of

new tasks as problems or opportunities arise, and resiliency to obstacles which sustains

motivation in the face of problems or ambiguity. These descriptions of behaviors resulting

from psychological empowerment are consistent with our definition of empowered behaviors

as proposed in Fig. 1. More specifically, these behaviors are either examples of, or logical

precursors to the behaviors that evidence the exercise the full range of authority delegated.


Activity, flexibility, and resiliency would all seem to be especially important given increased

authority over decision making in one’s job. Behavior that results from psychological

empowerment is distinct, in that it is not dependent upon the supervision of others or upon

rewards mediated by others (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Supervision should decrease as

autonomy increases, so psychological empowerment becomes an extremely important

influence on empowered behaviors in the process illustrated in Fig. 1.

Proposition 13: Empowered behaviors are preceded by the cognitions of psychological

empowerment.

6.2. Moderating influences of the organizational context and the local work environment

Although employees may be psychologically empowered, the demonstration of empow-

ered behaviors requires that the organization context and the local work environment provide

job conditions supportive of acting on those motivations. This issue is related to the problems

of ‘‘real’’ vs. ‘‘management controlled’’ influence. Management controlled influence exists

when empowerment opportunities are promised, but actual job constraints discourage

empowered behaviors (Ahlbrandt et al., 1992). For example, the relationship between power

granted and skill utilization (which is a type of empowered behavior) is likely to be

moderated by situational variables in the immediate work environment, such as job

constraints and actual job characteristics (Heller, Drenth, Koopman, & Rus, 1977).

The organizational context and the local work environment are proposed to moderate the

influence of psychological empowerment on empowered behaviors. These contexts define

both the level and the scope of authority transferred to employees and therefore the range of

behaviors that are possible. Much of the empowerment literature (i.e., Ahlbrandt et al., 1992;

Leana & Florkowski, 1992) suggests that greater care must be taken to fully integrate the

empowerment process into the larger corporate structure and set of management policies.

Many organizations not only employ empowerment interventions at the local level but also

use programs like works council and other types of representation in conjunction with them.

This greater range broadens the scope of issues over which employees are involved and in

turn, provides greater opportunities for empowered behavior. In addition, the type of task is

likely to influence the range of possible behaviors resulting from the empowerment process.

Contingency theories assert that the latitude for decision-making authority and autonomy is

the greatest in nonroutine technologies (Perrow, 1967). Certain task technologies for example,

are likely to give workers more chances to apply high-level skills (Walton, 1980) and offer

more opportunity to generate and utilize increased decision-making authority. More specif-

ically, nonuniformity in raw materials and high variability in transformation processes tend to

encourage broader task scope. In these situations, greater authority over decision-making in

the job is likely to lead to more opportunities and a greater range of decision-making authority

because of the nature of the work.

The presence of interdependent technologies or environments where the quality of product

or service is key to effectiveness is likely to lead to greater potential for empowered behaviors

(Lawler, 1982). Interdependent tasks are better suited to greater levels of decision-making


authority (Koch & Fox, 1978) because they provide a greater range of discretion. For

example, reciprocal interdependence requires greater coordination and communication and

therefore tends to encourage flexibility, and offers a greater range of potential influence over

work pace and methods.

Proposition 14: The environment will moderate the relationship between psychological

empowerment and empowered behaviors.

7. Directions for future research

Although the purpose of this paper was to identify what we believe are the most significant

links (i.e., between the environment, employee cognitions, and behavior) in the empower-

ment process, we realize that there are likely to be other associations not specifically

examined in this paper that warrant future attention. For example, there are likely to be

interrelationships within the model variables presented in Fig. 1. Perceptions of opportunity

and support will likely influence trust and commitment and vice versa. Furthermore, although

the components of psychological empowerment have been suggested to be additive and

independent (e.g., Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Spreitzer, 1995) in previous research, we

believe that there are important relationships among the cognitions themselves. For example,

felt competence is likely to have a direct influence on self-determination and impact.

In addition, reward systems are likely to not only affect psychological empowerment, but

also extrinsic motivations to engage in specific work behaviors. Extrinsically oriented models

of involvement assert that employees will not be fully motivated at work until they are

financially, as well as psychologically, integrated into the organization (see review by Leana

& Florkowski, 1992). Similarly, it has been suggested that intrinsic rewards associated with

empowerment efforts are insufficient to sustain continued employee interest, and as such,

may explain some of the disappointing results of these programs (Brief & Aldag, 1989).

Future research needs to examine the interaction of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the

empowerment process, as well as the specific roles that each plays in influencing em-

powered behaviors.

The issue of how empowered behaviors, as well as other job related behaviors, combine to

affect both individual and organizational performance is an important issue for future

research. For example, employee knowledge or understanding of the job and the company’s

competitive position, cognitive abilities, and other job-related skills can be important

influences on the effectiveness of empowered behaviors or performance. Empowered

behaviors must contribute to performance at all levels (individual and organizational) to

justify a sustained empowerment effort. Individual performance is a function of all job-related

behaviors, empowered or otherwise. Performance is indexed against the outcome require-

ments of the job and the quality of all performance-related behaviors. The company must

ensure that the empowering environment allows the opportunity for changes in performance

to result from increases in empowered behaviors. And, finally, it is possible that although the

empowerment process may be quite successful, the organization’s fortunes may still be


compromised by market forces. Future research must address the contribution to that

empowerment interventions can make in light of market forces present, although studying

empowerment in isolation of market forces is useful, for we have a great deal yet to learn

about the nature of the process. It is also necessary, however, to recognize that organizational

performance is context dependent (Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994), and that the behaviors of

competitors and the relative quality of strategic decisions made by management are elements

of that context.

The nature of feedback processes within the empowerment process is also an important

issue for future research. We recognize the dynamic nature of the process—that the outcomes

or performance resulting from the earlier points in the empowerment process are likely to

impact subsequent empowerment activities. For example, individual beliefs about the

effectiveness of one’s behaviors in previous experiences are likely to feed back to impact

subsequent levels of psychological empowerment and empowered behaviors. In addition,

management is likely to make changes in local work environment based on the degree to

which employees have demonstrated empowered behaviors and the degree to which these

behaviors resulted in effective performance. These feedback processes reflect the dynamics of

the empowerment process—one that is based on continued change with respect to both

organizational practices and policies and individual changes that are likely to result from

experience. The empowerment process does not reflect an absolute threshold that once

reached can be labeled empowerment; rather at all levels of analysis the process can have

different intensities that change over time (Zimmerman, 1990).

8. Conclusions

Empowerment interventions have become very popular, so much so that the 1990s have

been hailed as the ‘‘empowerment era’’ (Hardy & Leiba-O’Sullivan, 1998). A recent

international survey (Sparrow et al., 1994) suggests that representatives from firms all over

the world (including the United States, United Kingdom, France, Japan, Korea, South

America) perceive that the usefulness of empowering employees in order to gain a

competitive advantage is increasing. While some of the interventions have been considered

successful by companies, many others have not (e.g., see Hardy & Leiba-O’Sullivan, 1998;

Thorlakson & Murray, 1996). Many uncertainties exist regarding the process by which

empowerment might contribute to increased organizational performance and as a result,

recommendations concerning the implementation of the empowerment process are limited.

Some argue that implementing empowerment programs are decisions made on faith since

there is no clear data supporting its effectiveness.

We believe that integrative models incorporating multiple levels of analysis are needed in

order to make theoretical, as well as empirical advances in the empowerment literature. As

proposed earlier, wemust be able to relate important antecedents (i.e., perceptions and attitudes)

of psychological empowerment (individual levels of analysis) to changes in the local work

environment (work unit level of analysis) and historical and cultural influences that make up the

organizational context (organizational level of analysis). In this paper, we have proposed


specific links between the organization context, the local work environment, employee

perceptions and attitudes, and specific components of psychological empowerment.We suggest

that the links proposed in this paper can serve as a guide for directing research in this area.

We suggest that the framework presented in this paper can provide an improved

practical understanding of the obstacles and likely paths to a successful empowerment

process. In fact, the model proposed here may help to identify points where the process

typically fails and consequently focus future research and managerial attention on these

issues. For example, if employees are not psychologically empowered as a result of

interventions designed to do so, the failure may be attributable to any one or more of a

number of links in the process. Pertinent questions may include the following. Have

historical and cultural influences in the organization context and practices in the local work

environment produced the positive perceptions and attitudes that are antecedent to

psychological empowerment? More specifically, have communication efforts, training,

and local management actions produced perceptions of support that are consistent with

the authority being transferred? Are performance evaluation, reward, and discipline systems

perceived as fair and do they contribute to an atmosphere of trust? Has employee

commitment been positively affected by information sharing and informal management

practices? Are positive local elements being offset by negative influences of the broader

organization context? If, even in the presence of sufficient degrees of psychological

empowerment, empowered behaviors are not being exercised, might the failure be

attributable to constraints within the organization context or local work environment? In

sum, the framework presented in the paper can be used by both managers and researchers

as an empowerment process blueprint and diagnostic framework and, in turn, provides

important links between theory and practice.

References

Ahlbrandt, R. S., Leana, C. R., & Murrell, A. J. (1992). Employee involvement programs improve corporate

performance. Long Range Planning, 25, 91–98.

Allen, M. W. (1992). Communication and organizational commitment: perceived organizational support as medi-

ating factor. Communication Quarterly, 40 (4), 357–367.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and

normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,

63, 1–18.

Andersson, L. M. (1996). Employee cynicism: an examination using a contract violation framework. Human

Relations, 49, 1395–1418.

Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: personal strategies of creating

information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32(3), 370–398.

Ashforth, B. E. (1990). The organizationally induced helplessness syndrome: a preliminary model. Canadian

Journal of Administrative Sciences, 7, 30–36.

Bateman, T. S., & Strasser, S. (1984). A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of organizational commitment.

Academy of Management Journal, 27, 95–112.

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

Blau, J. R., &Alba, R. D. (1982). Empowering nets of participation.Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 27, 363–379.


Blau, P. (1987). Contrasting theoretical perspectives. In J. Alexander, B. Giesen, R. Muench, & N. Smelser (Eds.),

The macro–micro link (pp. 71–85). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Block, P. (1987). The empowered manager. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bowen, D. E., & Lawler, E. E. (Spring, 1992). The empowerment of service workers: what, why, how, and when.

Sloan Management Review, 31–39.

Brief, A., & Aldag, R. (1989). The economic functions of work. In G. Ferris, & R. K. Rowland (Eds.), Research

in personnel and human resources management, vol. 7 (pp. 1–23). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Burke, W. (1986). Leadership as empowering others. In S. Srivastra (Ed.), Executive power (pp. 51–77). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Caldwell, D. F., Chatman, J. A., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1990). Building organizational commitment: a multifirm study.

Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 245–261.

Carson, K. P., Cardy, R. L., & Dobbins, G. H. (1991, June). Performance appraisal as effective management or

deadly management disease: two initial empirical investigations. Group and Organization Studies, 16 (2),

143–159.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice. Academy of

Management Review, 13, 471–482.

Cummings, T., & Molloy, E. (1977). Improving productivity and the quality of work life. New York: Praeger.

Daley, D. (1988). Profile of the uninvolved worker: an examination of employee attitudes toward management

practices. International Journal of Public Administration, 11(1), 65–90.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 53, 1024–1037.

DeCotiis, T. A., & Summers, T. P. (1987). A path analysis of a model of the antecedents and consequences of

organizational commitment. Human Relations, 40(7), 445–470.

Dipboye, R. L., & de Pontbriand, R. (1981). Correlates of employee reactions to performance appraisals. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 66, 248–251.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507.

Florkowski, G. W., & Schuster, M. H. (1992). Support for profit sharing and organizational commitment: a path

analysis. Human Relations, 45(5), 507–523.

Folger, R., & Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural justice: an interpretive analysis of personnel systems. Research in

Personnel and Human Resources Management, 3, 141–183.

Ford, R. C., & Fottler, M. D. (1995). Empowerment: a matter of degree. Academy of Management Executive, 9,

21–28.

Gabarro, J. J. (1978). The development of trust influence and expectations. In A. G. Athos, & J. J. Gabarro (Eds.),

Interpersonal behavior: communication and understanding in relationships (pp. 290–303). Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Gecas, V. (1989). The social psychology of self-efficacy. In W. R. Scott, & S. Blake (Eds.), Annual Review of

Sociology, vol. 15 (pp. 291–316). Palo Alto: Annual Reviews.

George, J. M., & Brief, A. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: a conceptual analysis of the mood at work–

organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychology Bulletin, 112, 310–329.

George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1997). Experiencing work: values, attitudes, and moods. Human Relations, 50,

393–416.

Gist, M. E., Schwoerer, C., & Rosen, B. (1989). Effects of alternative training methods on self-efficacy and

performance in computer software training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 884–891.

Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psy-

chology, 71, 340–342.

Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399–432.

Hackman, J. R. (1986). The psychology of self-management in organizations. In M. S. Pallak, & R. Perloff (Eds.),

Psychology and work: productivity, change, and employment. Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.


Hackman, J. R., Lawler III, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psycho-

logy, 55, 259–286.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory. Organizational

Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279.

Hall, D. T., Schneider, B., & Nygren, H. T. (1970). Personal factors in organizational identification. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 15, 176–190.

Hardy, C., & Leiba-O’Sullivan, S. (1998). The power behind empowerment: implications for research and

practice. Human Relations, 51(4), 451–483.

Hart, K. M., Capps, H. R., Cangemi, J. P., & Caillouet, L. M. (1986). Exploring organizational trust and its

multiple dimensions: a case study of General Motors. Organization Development Journal, 4(2), 31–39.

Heller, F. A. (1973). Leadership, decision-making, and contingency theory. Industrial Relations, 12(2), 183–199.

Heller, F. A., Drenth, P. J., Koopman, P., & Rus, V. (1977). A longitudinal study in participative decision making.

Human Relations, 30, 567–587.

Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: how do you motivate employees. Harvard Business Review, 46(1), 53–62.

Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., Taylor, M. s. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organiza-

tions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349–371.

James, L. A., & James, L. R. (1989). Integrating work environment perceptions: explorations into the measure-

ment of meaning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 739–751.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.

Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: antecedents and consequences of team empower-

ment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58–74.

Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (1997). The impact of cultural values on employee resistance to teams: toward a

model of globalized self-managing work team effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 22, 730–757.

Klaas, B. S., & Dell’omo, G. G. (1997). Managerial use of dismissal: organizational-level determinants. Personnel

Psychology, 50, 927–954.

Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and

analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19, 195–229.

Koch, J. L., & Fox, C. L. (1978). The industrial relations setting, organizational focus, and the form and content of

worker participation. Academy of Management Review, 3, 572–583.

Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59–67

(March–April).

Koven, A. M., Smith, S. L., & Farwell, D. F. (1992). Just cause: the seven tests ( p. 497). Washington, DC: Bureau

of National Affairs.

Lambert, S. J. (2000). Added benefits: the link between work-life benefits and organizational citizenship behavior.


Landy, F. J., Barnes, J. L., & Murphy, K. R. (1978). Correlates of perceived fairness and accuracy of performance

evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 751–754.

Langer, E. J. (1983). The psychology of control. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Lawler III, E. E. (1982). Increasing worker involvement to enhance organizational effectiveness. In P.S. Goodman

(Ed.), Change in organizations (pp. 280–315). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lawler III, E. E. (1986). High involvement management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lawler III, E. E. (1992). The ultimate advantage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Leana, C. R. (1987). Power relinquishment versus power sharing: theoretical clarification and empirical compar-

ison of delegation and participation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 228–233.

Leana, C. R., & Florkowski, G. W. (1992). Employee involvement programs: integrating psychological theory and

management practice. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 10, 233–270.

Leap, T. L., & Crino, M. D. (1997). Personnel/human resource management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lee, A. M. (1971). An empirical analysis of organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 14,

482–519.


Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.

Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies on task

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 241–251.

Louis, M. R., Posner, B. Z., & Powell, G. N. (1983). The availability and helpfulness of socialization practices.

Personnel Psychology, 36, 857–866.

Maslow, A. H. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York: Viking Press.

Mathieu, J. E. (1991). A cross-level nonrecursive model of the antecedents of organizational commitment and

satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 607–618.

McGregor, D. M. (1959). The Scanlon plan through a psychologist’s eyes. In F.G. Loesieru (Ed.), The Scanlon

plan. . .a frontier in labor-management cooperation (pp. 89–99). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Marchington, M., Wilkinson, A., Ackers, P., & Goodman, J. (1994). Understanding the meaning of participation:

views from the workplace. Human Relations, 47(8), 867–893.

Miller, S. M. (1980). Why having control reduces stress: if I can stop the roller coaster, I don’t want to get off.

Personality and locus of control. In J. Garber, & M.E.P. Seligman (Eds.), Human helplessness: theory and

applications (pp. 71–95). New York: Academic Press.

Mottaz, C. J. (1989). An analysis of the relationship between attitudinal and behavioral commitment. Sociological

Quarterly, 30, 143–158.

Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Strauss, P. (1996). Validity of observer ratings of the big five personality factors.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 272–280.

Mowday, R. T., & Sutton, R. I. (1993). Organization behavior: linking individuals and groups to organization

context. In Porter L., & Rosensweig M. (Eds.), Annual review of psychology, vol. 44 (pp. 195–229). Palo

Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

Niehoff, B. P., Enz, C. A., & Grover, R. A. (1990). The impact of top-management actions on employee attitudes

and perceptions. Group and Organization Studies, 15(3), 337–352.

Oldham, G. R., Hackman, J. R., & Pearce, J. L. (1976). Conditions under which employees respond positively to

enriched work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 395–403.

O’Reilly, C. (1977). Personality-job fit: Implications for individual attitudes and performance, organizational

behaviour and human performance, 18, 36–46.

O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: the effects of

compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492–

499.

Organ, G. W., & Greene, C. N. (1974). Role ambiguity, locus of control, and work satisfaction. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 59, 101–102.

Parker, L. E., & Price, R. H. (1994). Empowered managers and empowered workers: the effects of managerial

support and managerial perceived control on workers’ sense of control over decision making. Human Rela-

tions, 47(8), 911–928.

Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. New York, NY: Cambridge University.

Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 32,

195–208.

Salancik, G. R. (1977). Commitment and the control of organizational behavior and belief. In B. M. Staw, &

G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior (pp. 1–54). Chicago: St. Clair Press.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–253.

Sheldon, M. E. (1971). Investments and involvements as mechanisms producing commitment to the organization.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 142–150.

Sparrow, P., Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. (1994). Convergence or divergence: human resource practices and

policies for competitive advantage worldwide. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(2),

267–299.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation.



Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management

Journal, 39, 483–504.

Staw, B. M. (1976). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Steers, R. M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly,

22, 46–56 (March).

Stumpf, S. A., & Hartman, K. (1984). Individual exploration to organizational commitment or withdrawal.


Tannenbaum, A. S., & Rozgonyi, T. (1986). Authority and reward in organizations: an international research.

Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.

Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1991). Meeting trainees’ expectations: the

influence of training fulfillment on the development of commitment, self-efficacy, and motivation. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 76, 759–769.

Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: an interpretive model of

intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15, 666–681.

Thorlakson, A., & Murray, R. P. (1996). An empirical study of empowerment in the workplace. Group and

Organization Management, 21, 67–83.

Torbert, W. R. (1991). The power of balance: transforming self, society, and scientific inquiry. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

Tymon, W. G. (1988). An empirical investigation of a cognitive model of empowerment. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1988). The new leadership: managers participation in organizations. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Walton, R. (1985). From control to commitment in the workplace. Harvard Business Review, 63, 77–84.

Walton, R. E. (1980). Establishing and maintaining high commitment work systems. In R. H. Miles, &

J. R. Kimberly (Eds.), The organizational life cycle. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wanous, J. P. (1974). Individual differences and reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology,

59, 616–622.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: the disposition to experience aversive emotional states.

Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465–490.

Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Corporate ethics programs as control systems: influences

of executive commitment and environmental factors. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 41–57.

Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, A., & Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as initiators of trust: an exchange

relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review,

23, 513–530.

Zeffane, R. (1994). Patterns of Organizational commitment and perceived management style: a comparison of

public and private sector employees. Human Relations, 47, 977–1010.

Zimmerman, M. A. (1990). Taking aim on empowerment research: on the distinction between individual and

psychological conceptions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(1), 169–177.


an integrative model of the empowerment process -...

Documents